Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

This is a very well written article. I think Jinnah himself summed it up in his address to Delhi Convention in 1943 (commenting on Pakistan's future constitution) :

"Is it going to be an Islamic government? Is it not begging the question? Is it not like passing a vote of censure on every Leauger? The constitution of Pakistan shall be what the people of Pakistan decide."

Here is the article I wrote on Quaid-e-Azam's vision... to argue whether it is secular or Islamic is besides the point... lets atleast get the substance right... i.e. a level playing field for all communities living in Pakistan.

Today being 11th August Day has a great significance in Pakistan’s history.

60 years ago, Mr. Jinnah, Pakistan’s undisputed Quaid-e-Azam, Governor General and elected President of the Constituent Assembly elaborated his vision for the future of Pakistan.

Jinnah’s vision is unambiguous.

1. The state would be completely impartial to religion of the individual.
2. The state where every citizen would be equal and there would be no distinction between citizen on the basis of faith or caste or creed.

A lot of controverey has emerged about this speech. Any student of political science would tell you that is the classic exposition of a modern secular democratic state. However, the issue of whether this constitutes a “secular” state or an “Islamic” state is besides the point. A rose by any name is after all a rose.

Here is what Mr. Jinnah said on that fateful day. It is worth reading in the full:

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 every one 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 the 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 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 judgment there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record its verdict in favour of it. And what is more it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a United India could never have worked and in my judgment it would have led us to terrific disaster. May be that view is correct ; may be 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 every one 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 no 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, Punjabies, Shias, Sunnis and so on and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnvas, 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 peoples 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 places of 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 State 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 when 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 Catholic and Protestants do not exists ; 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.

Many have alleged that this was the only time he expressed such a vision. Unfortunately, these people are not very well versed with the life and work of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, who was after all a staunch secular Indian nationalist for most of his life and had turned to the Pakistan idea only after exhausting all the options for a United India.
Here are some of his other statements regarding what kind of Pakistan he wanted:

25th October 1947. Interview with Reuters’ Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters’ Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where.

Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’

30th October 1947. To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore.

The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.

Same Day. On Radio Pakistan.

Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.

9th January 1948. Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi.

Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques. Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.

25th January. Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi.

I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear. Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.

3rd February 1948. Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh.

I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.

21st March 1948. Mass Rally at Dacca.

Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said: We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.

22nd March 1948. Meeting with Hindu Legislators.

We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.

23rd March 1948. Meeting with the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’.

We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.

13 June 1948. Speaking to Quetta Parsis.

Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.

Jinnah’s address to the people of the US in Feb 1948.

In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.

So what did Jinnah stand for?

He stood for justice and fair play for every one regardless of religion caste or creed. Let us make a solemn promise to ourselves on this 11th August Day (or the day I like to call Jinnah’s Pakistan Day) that we shall honor this vision of Pakistan as a pluralist, inclusive and progressive democratic state.



....

For all the so called references to Islam etc... there is not one measly piece of legislation in Jinnah's all powerful government that seeks to Islamise Pakistan.

re: Hoodbhoy

Jinnah's hand tailored suits were from Saville Row and not as you mentioned, "Seville Row". Seville is a city in Spain and there is, to the best of my knowledge, no Seville Row in London.

I will comment on the rest of the article later.

Ciao

Also...

You are right when you speak about Jinnah's usage of the words "secular state" in private. Its not just the American diplomat (i forget his name)... who left a rather flattering portrait of the man in his reports to the State Department even if disagreeing with Jinnah's demand for partition.

MAJ (pbuh) wanted a Pakistani state which would treat all its citizens equally, irrespective of their religious belief. Pakistan and ALL its citizens would be better off if his vision is implemented. Now whether that vision is dubbed as "secular" or "Islamic" is irrelevant.

Regards

Re: # 4 PBUH is for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Use RA (Rehmatullah Alaih) for people like the Quaid, Iqbal, etc.

Quaid wanted a Muslim State and not a Islamic One - rightly pointed by Pervez.
At a same time , what if the majority of the nation wants Shariah through democracy? What if people of Pakistan gives authority to a leader to bring Shairh Law?
( I personally don't agree with Shariah Law at all but for the sake of such a event - what will happen )

plus, I remember wily ol'Fazul ur Rehman once saying ( and he randomly say things which - he shouldn't ) 'that Quaid-e-Azam (rah) was not Ninaozubillah a Prophet - that whatever is said is correct ' after strong public reaction at the rally at his home town in Mardan he apologized.

This debate of being a Islamic State or a Muslim One seems to at times non-sense - Pakistan is a Islamic Republic ; we can not adopt Shariah Law because of two reasons :
a) we are not economically sound enough - people rob/loot for food and hunger
b) we are not a welfare state

Now lets try too look at those people who says Shariah' should be practiced. (ony Major Groups_

Political Parties:
i) Jamaat-e-Islami
ii) JUF (all of the factions)
iii) Threek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat ( a small time group )
iv) Tahreek-e-Jafaria

combine all of these party votes - it add up to only 5-7% of total votes caste in national assembly last election -

Ethinic Groups:
i) Phatans
ii) Punjabis

Phatans are the most religious of ethinic groups of Pakistan - who wants Shariah to be practiced in Pakistan.
Punjabis - are split into a 50/50 ratio

The whole debate about Islamic State seens boring at times -
because the audience which really needs to read the articles are in NWFP and Rural Punjab.
Cheers.

Thanks pervez for supporting what I had always believed, Jinnah had no vision, no vison detailed and carefully thought out that should have been put in a book. The man changed more often to put any chameleon to shame, and the persistent thread was hatred towards other religions and the notion that muslims cannot live with others. He was a consummate islamist, and political opportunist who integrated the islamic notion of kafirs into a political theory of TNT.

The masses understood his vision through his confusing and conflicting speeches to create the pakistan of today.

A great political leader who divided a nation with his TNT, did not have a coherent view to put into a book. Well legacy of Jinnah is the pakistan.

As the helicopter gunships slaughter the very same pakistanis created as jihadists by those who inherited the power them Jinnah, the pakistanis should well and truly understand the ideology and the vision of Jinnah, on this day, the 60 th birthday of the failed jihadic nation.

Islamic state no muslim state yes. Then there is the talk of islam is good muslims are bad.

Give us a break, the book is the ultimate truth for the muslims, and any state that has majority muslims will eventually become isalmic state. Tak3e the case of pakistan itself, over 60 years from a similar heritage, pakistan has institutionalized sharia laws.

What the pakistanis do not accept on chowk is the fact that sharia is the law of pakistan, and all that the lal majod guys were doing was enforcing it. I recall that in pakistan during Zia time people were be-headed in public. The laws havenot changed, but is not being done that is all.

Take the case of Muktara Mai the rape victim, the sharia requirement fo 4 male witnesses was not enforced, but due to international attention, teh rapers have been prosecuted.

The truth is that sharia is teh law in pakistan, and the choice is at teh whim of the police.

A true tribute to the opportunism of Jinnah

LoL author, another desperate diatribe:

Not being sufficiently well-versed in Islamic history or theology, Jinnah’s allusions to establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan cannot be taken seriously.

Keep hoping, or better dust-off your green card. The only hope for people like you is to unconditionally sign the surrender document or be prepared for the guillotine park in your sunday's best suits.

Finally, an article that looks at actual facts and not on the political motivations of the person presenting the facts........

......It is quite obvious that Jinnah left enough of a confusion on what kind of a state Pakistan would be......Till the end, he wasn't even sure there would be a Pakistan......

.......The only thing Jinnah clearly states about Pakistan, is what it will not be, i.e. a theocracy......Had he wanted a secular state, he would have mentioned it openly.......but as I have always stated, he never used the word, "secular" in any of his speeches.....why not?

Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a non-theocratic state.....Other than that, it is to be left to the people of Pakistan on what they want it to be......In fact, since Jinnah is dead, it doesn't much matter what he wanted it to be in today's world......

Using Jinnah's lines to push secularism or shariah in Pakistan is, thus, being historically and journalistically irresponsible.........

This shows that Jinnah made no definite statements and anyone could take any of his statements and spin it whichever way they please. That is perhaps why Pakistan continues to alternate between the whims of those at the helm of affairs. If a Mullah wants an Islamic state, all he has to do is look for a Jinnah statement where he says Pakistan will derive its inspiration from the Koran. If a Paki liberal wants a secular state, all he/she has to do is look for a statement in which Jinnah displays his utter contempt for the Mullah. As simple as that.

But some serious comments now, and some questions for the uninformed professor:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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…. 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.” [Aug 11, 1947, Jinnah’s address to the First Constituent Assembly]

How does any of this contradict the Islamic Shariah-based system?

"Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." [Feb. 1948, Jinnah’s broadcast address to the people of the United States of America]

Ditto as above.

The above speeches unequivocally demonstrate Jinnah’s strong sense of justice and secular leanings at a personal level.

Total BS as shown above.

Even when confronted by journalists, he would avoid giving a straight answer.

Attacking Jinnah for not being a slave and appeasing liberal thought.

Jinnah continued to hedge:

Ditto as above.

"Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck`s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

And he calls this statement of fact gleaned from very early Islamic History of the Prophet's time as 'hedging'.

Mr. Jinnah is evasive about what place Islamic law would have in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly.

Again attacking Jinnah by calling him 'evasive' when Jinnah did not want to dictate to to the constituent assembly. In the author's mind he should have said "Hell no. I want no part of Islam"

Mr. Jinnah consciously seeks to articulate and protect this ambiguity.

Another attack on Jinnah for his diplomacy in getting Pakistan and not wishing it as a dictatorship of his views. And the author calls it 'ambuiguity'.

Mr. Jinnah left a legacy of ambiguity on what he wanted Pakistan to be.

Ditto as above.

“He was from first to last a constitutionalist who had argued at the time of the debate on the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1930 that if there was a clash between a so-called religious and public morality, then morality had to prevail, mullah or no mullah. There was no change in this basic outlook even as he made tactical adjustments in his later years to accommodate new political exigencies. When asked to discuss the future constitutional framework for the Muslim homeland he was demanding, he insisted that it would be up to the people of Pakistan to decide what sort of a state they wanted even though he had no doubt that their choice would be for a moderate, democratic and forward-looking state.”

This is correct. Ayesha Jalal has a better view on who Jinnah was compared with all these amateurs, but being the Islamophobe she is, she still misses the point. The 1300 year old democracy Jinnah spoke about (quoted above) and the Islamic values (also quoted above) incorporate all this stuff. That's what Jinnah wanted.

Jinnah was no enigma. It's just that the libero-fascists are trying to use his Saville Row suits and his peg of Whisky (not the ham sandwich which this author and others pick up from a single source of Wolpert but his closest companions with whom he regularly stayed on visits deny) to convince people that That's what Jinnah had wanted for Pakistan.

Arrey Bhai, Jinnah made Pakistan by hook or by crook single handedly, but refused to give it any ideology - unlike the comparable carved out state of Israel - being the utterly principled person he was, who made his exit when it was time, and left it upto the people to decide for themselves.

As it has turned out, 87% of Pakistan's people want Shariah (author's statistic). So that's what it will have to be.

It is quite contemptuous of libero-fascists to use a person like Jinnah to justify their nefarious ends.

#11 Posted by harish_hyd,

Although this will be wasted on you, but Islamic State is not a theocratic state. There's no concept of theocracy in Islam.

But you and your ilk as well as the author do not wish to go down the route of knowing what an Islamic State entails.

The article here shows that there is ambuigity in Mr Jinnah's statements regarding the adoption of a secular state or an Islamic State.

I believe that this state of affairs can be traced to the confusions that lie in the concepts of a secular or a religious state. If for example a secular state is adopted then there is a clash regarding what is right and what is wrong. Even in a secular state should divine laws be used as the source for moral authority or should we make laws based on our own reasoning. For a muslim defending a secular state this represents a clash of values and hence we see Mr Jinnah dodging this issue.

Good one, Dr. Hoodbhoy.

#13 by zeemax

Zee mian, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I didn't comment on the merits or demerits of an Islamic state. I only put forth my views on the ambiguities in Jinnah's pronouncements and the way it has been exploited by folks with their own agendas. Anyways, here's my response to your post.

Although this will be wasted on you, but Islamic State is not a theocratic state. There's no concept of theocracy in Islam.

If the examples of the Taliban and Saudia are close to what an Islamic state is, at least non-Muslims will not want anything to do with it.

But you and your ilk as well as the author do not wish to go down the route of knowing what an Islamic State entails.

Why would I want to know what an Islamic state is and how it functions? I'm perfectly happy with the imperfect system we have. It is for you Pakis to know and if it suits you, please go ahead and implement it because a majority of you anyway seem to want it.

#16 Posted by harish_hyd,

My point was on the 'theocratic state' which you and others flaunt as a regressive measure.

Now clear the wax in your ears (and the author must too):

How do you get a 'theocratic state without clergy'?

Neither Saudia is right now nor Taliban's was a 'theocratic' state. Taliban had no hierarchy of clergy, neither does Saudia (Though Saudia is not an Islamic State but nevertheless).

...contd...

And if you don't want to know what an Islamic state is and how it functions, then quit the moronic commenting on it.

#17 Posted by zeemax

My point was on the 'theocratic state' which you and others flaunt as a regressive measure.

Don't pull out statements out of your you-know-what. I generally restrict myself to Indo-Pak issues and nothing more than that. If you know of any statement I made to the contrary, please produce it rightaway.

#18 by zeemax

You're the moron, first by attributing something that I never said and next asking me to quit saying what I never said in the first place.

Romair saheb,

(In fact, since Jinnah is dead, it doesn't much matter what he wanted it to be in today's world.....Using Jinnah's lines to push secularism or shariah in Pakistan is, thus, being historically and journalistically irresponsible......... )

Well said. Although I am inclined to side with YLH in his interpretation of what MAJ (pbuh) wanted Pakistan to become, it is irrelevant really. Ultimately it is upto today's Pakistani citizens to decide what model they want to live with a Western style secular state, an Islamic theocracy, Army rule or something in between.

Regards

..Taliban had no hierarchy of clergy, neither does Saudia...

Zee,

Taliban are Mullahs whereas KSA had a formal king who follows the edicts of Mullahs.

U cant imagine the King of KSA deviating from the edicts of Wahabi family. In effect it's a Mullah Raj san the Mullah facade.

#22 Posted by Folio,

Are there any Mullahs in the Saudi cabinet?

Name one, or remain quiet.

...contd... of-course you don't know what a clergy is. A clergy is a Pope, a Cardinal, a Bishop and so forth.

(recommended reading: www.google.com)

Important point is being missed.
The problem in siding with theocratic state argumnet is that it gives power to war mongerring mullahs who also consider that shariah suggests complete islamisation of the society where every non muslim is a convert and then one can imagine foreign policy agenda of such a state where the only viable foreign policy objective acording to shariah would be an effort towards the islamisation of the whole world through dawas and if not through terrorism as can be seen today where shariah proponenets carry extreme symathies for the cause of extremists.

Now europe is secular, but church and christianity is promoted vigorously. pakistanis need to understand there is no contradiction between secularism and islamic Pakistan. The reality is that Pakistan is muslim majority state and laws will be formed according to their religious orientation, however it is short of imposing a system also in letter and spirit which was one ofth most progressive systems some 1500 years ago unless and untill some fundamental changes are carried out through educated ijtehad so that it can suit a society which is 160 million strong and need resources to feed them, where basic facilities of life be provided.

The Shariah bearing saudi economy with its traditional closeness is financed by Oil money. Also the middle east peripherries like Dubai and others have a most progressive outlooks which are part of larger plans of middle east. However there is strong pattern that the Arabs want to use Pakistan for maintaining its political clout primarily by funding brain washing campaigns, where they can find millions of poor people ready to die and also terrorise the masses.

Pakistan is no Saudi Arabia. The survival of pakistan is its smart economics and human capital, if developed further. It is impractical to implement Sharaih when Pakistani economy cannot sustain itself and where millions are below poverty line for whom religion out of any thing else makes the most sense. Showing them the way of extremism is criminal.

some points about KSA,
Saudi Royal Family - is supported by the mullahs (SHEIKHS) - if there support to the royal family finishes - the royal family finishes.

I am very confident that in times to come (post-CJ issue)the Judicial Activism (I know CJ is working 18 hours a day ) ; emergence of media ; new sense of power in civil community - Pakistan has a bright democratic future.
As a liberal , MQM voter ; a civil servent - I will respect whatever the nation decides - if 2/3 wants Islamic Law , then why not?

does it matter more what jinnah wanted for pakiland or what the land of the pure is today..

The reality is that the pakiland of today, in manto's words, is a theocracy...

p.s. manto..did you get PH to write this article as a continuation of your running battle with jihadi2 on UP?

Lets not try to make a mockery of this article as we've made a mockery of Jinnah...

Jinnah's vision is quite clear. He wanted a progressive state where every citizen was equal regardless of religion caste creed gender etc.... To me and many others this is a vision for a secular state. However those who wish to call it Islamic may do so... provided they implement this vision in letter and spirit.

Also may I suggest another thing:

Legally there is no space between a Theocracy and a Secular state. A state is either theocratic or it is secular. Here a distinction may be drawn between secularism as an ideology and the policy of having a secular state. A secular state is often the best way for the most religious of nations.

Now if the argument is that an Islamic state is not theocratic then all that follows is that Islam favors a Secular state... where no doubt the civic values that inspire legislation may be defined by Islamic ethics... but this should be done in a non-discriminatory manner...

I believe the whole idea behind Pakistan was to have such a state ... which was like any other state secular but where civic Islamic ethics shaped the general legal morality.

To a lawyer like Jinnah... schooled in traditions of English Common Law where uptill the mid 19th century Judges ruled that "Christianity was part of common law" ... this might have been quite clear.

#25 Posted by mamoon,

This is based on astounding ignorance.

Where did you crawl out from? Under a rock?

#28/29 Posted by MantoLives

How about answering my UP thread which you ignored?

Mantolives ... contd re Islam & Jinnah
Topic started by zeemax on Aug 14, 2007 2:15:35 am

On this auspicious day of creation of Pakistan as a sovereign state, (I don't call it independence) it is a good opportunity to sort out what exactly Pakistan's 'soul' is.

You said:

zeemax...

My point is simple.... if you think he wanted Islam... good ... then follow his "Islamic" vision and give the minorities their due rights.

To start with What are the 'rights' the minorities are deprived of in Pakistan?

They have parliamentary representation with reserved seats just as women's reserved seats, they have no discrimination in jobs and are equal in the quota or merit systems alongwith the rest, they are at full liberty to purchase land and property. There are no settlements or the condescending affirmative actions and the like. So what is it?

If you mean the blasphemy laws, right or wrong, these equally apply upon ALL including Muslims, so where's the discrimination? Do you remember that the person who was brutally lynched in Nowshera as well as the Maulvi who was dragged in the street in Gujranwala were both Muslims?

Thanks for clarifying.

MantoLives,

I agree with this statement:

I believe the whole idea behind Pakistan was to have such a state ... which was like any other state secular but where civic Islamic ethics shaped the general legal morality.

Dear Zee,

You may read the Minorities' 30 points that were unveiled on 11th August 1947. You will find that many of those demands are simply the kind of things Muslims were asking for in a United India...

Re: # 32

If you agree with that statement then you've gotten the basic idea.

Re: # 33

Excuse me... 11th August 2007.

#34 Posted by MantoLives,

I haven't read the 30 demands, but I think most of those relate to the blasphemy laws whic I explained. Can you reproduce the demands here?

Re: Mantolives,
"I believe the whole idea behind Pakistan was to have such a state ... which was like any other state secular but where civic Islamic ethics shaped the general legal morality."
This is indeed the middle ground on which "Islamists" and "secularists" can agree. But it would be misleading to call this secular. Secularists want more. They want exclusion of religion from public life. They want to exclude prayer and religious instruction from public schools. They want to secularize religious public holidays. They object to religious laws even if arrived at democratically (and don't discriminate or violate basic rights). It's not just an issue of non-discrimination and equality (both sides can agree on that). Secularists want to establish secular humanism as the 'religion' of the state. That's where the conflict is.

there is no state in the world that is purely secular.....pure secularism demands absolutely no mixture of any religion in the state.......based on this definition, certain states lean towards secularism, moreso than others.......however, none of them completely separate state and religion......

.....a gay couple can get married in secular canada, but not in secular usa......cousins can get married, legally, in secular canada, but not in half the states in the usa.....however, if pakistan was to be secular, i have a feeling gay marriage would never be allowed, but cousin marraige would never be illegal.....

all these are examples of mixing religion with the state, at some percentage......all states do it.....some more than others.....some less......

hence, how secular should pakistan be if it does become secular........should it allow sunnis to get married to ahmedis......if one says yes, then should it allow a sunni man to get married to an ahmedi man and provide him with all state benefits.....

this is why there is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides - those pushing secularism and those pushing religion......these groups don't really believe in either as a philosophy.......they only believe in these two concepts, to the level they want to.......those pushing shariah will push secularism when it suits them......iran uses shariah to ban women playing soccer in shorts, but has no problem in men doing so......

while those pushing secularism will push religion when it suits them.......pakistani secularists have no problem in pushing ahmedi rights, but stop short of fighting for gay rights.......in fact, i have yet to see any pakistani writing in favor of gay marriage, even though there are probably far more gays in pakistan than ahmedis (or even christians and hindus)......

Re: # 37

Bulleya, Khurram,

Now you've got it. The issue is of irreducible minimum. When Pakistani secularists speak of a secular state, they mean a state which will be impartial to the faith of the citizen.

Pakistani secularists like myself atleast don't envisage a thumping ban on religious expression or even state recognition of majority's ethos which will in any secular democratic society be the basis of legislation.

Just like in Secular India, the ethos will ultimately be determined by the Hindu values... in a secular Pakistan it is Islam and its civic code and ethos.

Specifically on the issue of Gay marriages etc... personally to me a person's sexual orientation is purely his business ... but my vision of a secular Pakistan is NOT determined by my ideas and I do not forsee nor do I see a need to legislate on the issue of gay marriage in any event in a society like Pakistan.

This might end up being one of the most useful boards ever! The article itself is totally useless. It does not say anything that those who have even a nodding acquaintance this debate did not all know before. But it is honest and comes at a time when people are looking for some change.

It might even be useful for Indians! We should carefully study the 30 point demands and use those as the basis of the rights of our own minorities.

Re; #39 mantolives,
"Now, you've got it"

Lol!
Yasser, with due respect, now you've got it. If you check the archives I have been saying the same thing for years. Nice to see you finally agree.

Does APMA have a website? Tried googling for their charter of demands, without success. Can anyone list their demands, please? Thanks.

Well written Hoodbhoy Sahib, but a tad too long.

Maybe too much is made of the past in Pakistan

because the present appears uncertain. It is time

to think seriously about what the future is going to

look like.

Ras

Dr. Hoodbhoy,

With all due respect, please stay focused on future and how to get there.

We already have too many on Chowk to tell us about past heroes, what they said and even what they meant.

Regards.

THE VISION OF MY QUAID

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah said while addressing the people of United States in a broadcast message, few months before he died, February, 1948.


"The constitution of Paksitan has yet to be framed by the Paksitan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are applicable in actual life as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism has taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious tarditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Paksitan is not going to be a theocratic state - to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims - Hindus, Christians, and Parsis - but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan


THE EMBODIMENT OF QUAID`S VISION

One year later, in March 1949, the vision of Quaid-e-Azam was embodied in the Objectives Resolution in these words:



1. Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;

This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a Constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan;

2. Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;

3. Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed;

4. Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah;

5. Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to (fully) profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures;

6. Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed;

7. Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;
Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes;

8. Wherein the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured;

9. Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights includ-ing its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded;

So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity.

PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KIA, LA ILAHA IL-ALLAH

QUAID'S VISION AND DIRECTIVE OF THE ECONOMY OF PAKISTAN

Before we go into details let me elaborate on the difference between ``vision`` and ``direction``. We can define vision as the ultimate goal of a person whereas ``direction`` is the way or it is the plan thru which you achieve that vision or that goal. Without a vision there is no plan and there can be no direction, and without a plan and a clear direction you cannot bring a vision into reality.

Now lets apply this parameter to analyze the August 11 speech of Quaid. Any fair minded person can see and then attest that thru that speech Quaid is putting forward the vision of a tolerant state based on principles of social justice. He envisions a state where personal faith of a minority has no bearing on its status in polity. But this speech falls short of giving a ``plan`` or a ``direction`` as to how Quaid intended to turn his vision into a reality. When a person is in a leadership position he cannot just tell people ``hey people establish social justice among yourself because it is my vision``. Instead he HAS to give a work plan and the direction to the people on how to get there. Therefore, in order to see what Quaid`s plan was, as to how to achieve his vision we cannot rely on just one (August 11) speech. We must also see how he directed people.

For Example, Quaid was a great proponent of economic social justice and at many places he pointed out the economic disparity among the masses. So we know that an economically just society was his vision, but what was his direction? We see that his direction to those people who were charged with establishment and implementation of his envisioned economic policy was as follows. In an address on the occasion of opening of State Bank of Pakistan on July 1, 1948 he addressed state bank personnel as:


"I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organisation in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideals of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is now facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century, The Western world, in spite of its advantages of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind."

By any stretch of imagination, this cannot be a message and direction of a leader who espoused ideals of a secular democracy. Now read the clauses of the Objectives Resolution in the post below and see how Quaid gave direction to establish social justice among ourselves.

Hoodbhoy-

you said it.

More than 50 percent Pakistanis living NOW want Shariah. The writing is on the wall. You would be forced to live under it.
Be ready to get your head chopped off for apostasy NOW.

At the risk of being a party pooper, I put here some quotes of Jinnah. I realize that the likes of academically dishonest professor would argue that Jinnah was drunk when here uttered these, or was disoriented, under duress, or perhaps some mullah held a gun to his head. But the fact of the matter is that Jinnah did say this "damning" things about implementation of Islam, not just at "individual" level, but at "collective" level as, and in "every department" of our society. It sounds to me that these proclamations of his are far more clear and crisp than the interpretation ladden and stretched arguments regarding "minority rights" that dishonest professor brings forward as proof of Jinnah's "secularism"...

Jinnah sounds to me more like Maulana Muhammad Ali Jinnah.


Exhibit A
"Every Musalmaan, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code, it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all to those of each individual; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come. Therefore Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually."
- Jinnah , Eid message on September 1945

Exhibit B
It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles
- Jinnah(Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947)

Exhibit C
What is it that keeps the Muslims united as one man, and what is the bedrock and sheet-anchor of the community. It is Islam. It is the Great Book, Quran, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that as we go on there will be more and more of oneness, one God, one Book, one Prophet and one Nation
- Jinnah (All-India Muslim League, Karachi on 26th December)

Can someone explain this...

Jinnah has been often been accused of being communitarian.

It seems to me that both Atif mian and Urstruly pai jaan didn't bother to read the article...

Re: # 41

Well clearly then the problem was one of phraseology.

PH writes "But Jinnah’s statements at different times and circumstances are far too widely spread out "

Like most hypocritical politicians, the Jinnah man spoke all across the board for political expediency. When religious identity was evoked for exclusion, Jinnah became an Islamist. When unity was desired to save the political union, Jinnah became a secularist. In truth he was as most worshippers of the West a true hypoc-arist....So while the damn fools(like PH and the Zia ul Haq) argue whether he was an Islamist or a secularist the fact of the matter is that he used Islam as legitimation (a disrespect of Islam) while being firmly in bed with the colonials answering to their King, as Governor General (a disrespect to the so called "independance"). We would be best served to let the Jinnah man rest in his grave, his creator will judge him for what he was worth, while we let the FerozK worry about whether its Saville Row or Seville Row that tailored Jinnah's suits..Let us get on with the business of the real issues on hand today. People like Manto are a pathetic waste of good intelligence as they spend their lives worshipping men who mean sh** in the current day Pakistan....

Manto mian, I don't work at GC, spare yourself the trouble, just call and ask, and spare us the Jinnah BS....

respectfully submitted

Re: # 52

please spare Quaid-e-Azam from you verbal dysentery. He was anything but a lackey of British. The Daily Log at the archive of Governor Sindh secrateriat records this communication between the British Embassador and Quaid-e-Azam. The British Embassador at the visit of the brother of Duke of Gloucester requested Quaid to welcome him officially at the Karachi airport as Governor General in 1947. The Quaid's reply was "Sure I will welcome him at the airport if you promise that when my brother will visit England the King of England will welcome him at the airport as well".

The atif/echo/zeemax debate against manto is not about jinnah. Its all about their hatred of quadianis. They consider manto to be a closet quadiani. Hence his espousal of a secular jinnah is viewed as a devious strategy for quadianis to deny an islamic system in pakistan.

Its really sad to see so much religious hatred against one group of people; its almost bordering on a mass hysteria. Maybe they should leave pakistan and move to india.

Urstruly writes "He was anything but a lackey of British."

He was through and through a lackey of the British, who considered their system,(and that of the Ata Turk) culturally superior to that of the Muslims or the people of India, not to mention that his office of Governor General was even formally subservient to the King of England, Airport reception aside,Pakistan was a dominion not a sovereign republic.

I see the man as a hypocrite to whom was handed a country not to benefit the Muslims but to serve the Colonials who messed up our lives, to keep both India and Pakistan in check. He had a real part to play in the bloodshed that ensued. Call it verbal dysentry, I call it fact, the guy was no different to tahmed in his worship of all things Western...

...hmmmm......jinnah mentioned islam, quran etc. in his speeches regarding pakistan so many times.......however it is only, "reputed that Jinnah privately pledged (to an American diplomat) that Pakistan would be a “secular state” (using these words)"......

this is something i have been trying to highlight on this site for ages...not because i want to support or oppose secularism, but because i think various people on this site distort history, to suit their agendas.......

......if one is going to use jinnah's speeches as a criteria for what pakistan should be, then surely, it would be a state with its foundations in some form of islam, without being a theocratic state......how that would work is for anyone to guess.....in a sense this is what it has been....a very moderate islamic state.......

but what does become clear is that he never asked or mentioned it to be a secular state....though it is, "reputed" that he mentioned it to an american diplomat.....

surely, this, "reputed" doesn't hold water against the various speeches he made where he mentioned islam and quran again and again.......does it?......

as i have said, if people want to push secularism or theocracy in pakistan, they ahve every right to do so.....however, using jinnah's words to do so is hypocrisy.......

Urstruly writes "if you promise that when my brother will visit England the King of England will welcome him at the airport as well"."

Should I add nepotism to the list of "verbal dysentry"? My advice to you: Don't worship people, and criminals at that, worship your creator.

jinnah was a vain man, wether he did something for us muslims is doubtful, he let Kashmir and its muslims come under paleet hindu rule and also left millions of muslims and most of the territory our ancestors had conquered behind.

He also took a "moth eaten" territory in two parts which could not be defended and promptly appointed himself governor general

Thank god he has become irrelevnt and we can now make pakistan into a sharia state as our majority demands.

The first act has to be to nuke india and free kashmir, let us see if India has second strike capability.

#59 don't call yourself Muslim after you call for the nuking people. You are no Muslim, you're a pervert probably an RSS type who is acting out his believed caricature of Islam and Muslims. People like you, the current day "Jihadists" are Jinnah's blood brothers as are the rest of the West worshippers, you all form an unholy Trinity of perversion, for you help the West, the US elite, the Shaitan of the present, fulfil its perverse agenda around the globe.

You are the crusaders image of Islam brought to life. Like I said earlier, these so-called "Jihadists" take their morality from the US elite both are trigger happy when its comes to "nuking" people

Pakistan should follow example of turkey and Malaysia to keep islamists out of power as long as possible, there are number of ways it can be done.

Promote moderate islam by sarkari mullahs.

The british policy of divide and rule, so that mullahs do not see interest in common together and challenge liberal rulers with a united front.

Masadi beemar tu hai har jagah tujhe US elite dikhta hai, you are the western tool, preventing the sharia from being implemented. hindus are killing and opressing muslims and hurting pakistan and you want them to continue doing so. Also they have nukes which they will use against us so we must do a first strike.

or you disagree with what islam teaches us - Shahadat hai matloob e maqsood e momin na male ghanimat na kishwar ka shahi

hai islam iske siva kya
ek sijdah shabbiri
ek zarbe yadillahi

#62, look idiot, don't try to present your BS as if that were the real world situation. Just like Jinnah you are trying to legitmize your own perversions (and foolish designs) by invoking "Hindus are killing Muslims", no "poverty is killing Muslims" in a world system dominated by the US elite that ensures that poverty just as that poverty is killing Hindus.

I don't listen to Iqbal or Mullah dopiyaza to teach me Islam, my source, as the only legitimate source of Islam, is the Quran and it is explicit that you are only allowed to fight those who attack you first and even then only to the extent of the aggression. And further that if you kill one unjustly it is as if you've destroyed all humanity. There is no justification left for "first strike" or for using nuclear weapons in Islam. First learn what "Shariah" means before you talk about "implementing" it by force. Finally Islam is not about nihilism, its about celebrating God's gifts, including life, and working for social justice (using just means not "nuking") in this world. Learn what it is about before you use it as a slogan, you little rat.

so punk what are hindus doing to muslims in gujrat, kahmir and other spots in india, social justice?

listen u snivelling rodent islam enjoins upon every adult muslim male to protect his brother under attack if u are too cowardly o do that, thats your conscience that you have to satisfy and justify with whatever story about the US elite, but we as true muslims have to face allah after death and have to justify our conduct only to him an god knows we will do our duty as enjoined upon us by the quran.

Happy Birthday, Pakistan!

Borivilli_Express

Are you 4 real man? Allah swt doesnt ask us to wage jihad haphazerdly aat our whim or even at maulana masood azhar's desire for that matter. There are laws & procedures- preperations and ground realities that Allah swt asks us to consdier when we are about to do Qital fi sabeel-lilah. Masadi is right..in current scenario when we are backward and behind in every aspect of life the only jiahd is defensive and any scholar of minimal repute will tell u that its incumbent on those ppl that are attacked by non-muslims, its not incumbent on all muslims living everywhere like salat is fard-ul-ayn. Offensive jihaad is done under an islamic state..n that state would have to be powerful enough to have at least an outside chance to be victorious..we are unable to provide clean water to human beings in our countries...baby steps my friend.

"Is it going to be an Islamic government? Is it not begging the question? Is it not like passing a vote of censure on every Leauger? The constitution of Pakistan shall be what the people of Pakistan decide."

That says it. If Jinnah understood the meaning of above then it must be an achievemnt for a senile person. The people of Pakistan did decide. And they are still deciding.

Abey koi mera jawab dey de?

abey kya jawab, stuka? It's called using a similar sounding word when for whatever strange reason not wanting to use the correct word - communalist, in this case.

Communalist is a very bad word, hai na?

HAHA..OH OK..

Re: # 63 Dear Masadi... It is good to hear from you something different than repeating western imperialistic newspapers quoted by local elites. I agree with you lots of time but will request you to moderate your writing, not asking for massaging of facts so the your thinking about topic in not lost in rhetoric. I always found many things to think and know after reading part of book of yours "IN THE SHADOW OF EMPIRE" life and death under usa domination. Then I wrote a little letter ( 2 times) in appreciation of that. Granted I am not very good in writing and not logical like others.And both came on computer for few minutes and was taken off immediately. It is policy to "extinguish you ideas" I do not now for I do not believe in miracle. But whenever I wrote disagreeing with you it was always accepted. Something fishi or sensor or what ?
As law of country allows us to thin k freely they should publish but it is destroyed if I wrote to second your opinion.
Any opinion about something is going , sensor type think. You did write to whip mental retaed about about nuclear attack.
Also you have never said what you think about mr. Gandhi ? You agree with writings of YLH also known as Mr.Manto. Was Gandhi elite and in league with British Imperial powers? I will like to know your thoughts about that. Once I started thinking in terms of our politicains on your line of thinking I do not find any difference between NS, General and BB. All above just looking for american intensions and just trying to please his or her master and exploiting masses. Most elitist thing in india and Pakistani constitution is barring person who is not college graduate. Nothing can come near this in elist snobbery.
Kindly contribute towards different topics. I may not agree with some times but your thinking simulates thinking in my mind . Best thing about you you are not obsessed with personality like mR Gandhi and jinnah. Both have been dead long time. Some time I like you thinking as you are not obssed with some historical people or papers and quote all time. You are eagle flying without map or guidence. I kind of feel like listening to Bada Khayal of Mr.K.G Komkali, no gharana , no beaten path not standard way of aaroh, fresh path with joy of notes one after, some times rising pitch of notes at next second diving down like eagle.. Please contribute and do not pay attention to infant retaerds. Your comments have been very didectic atleast to me.

kaal

Are you calling J-man a communalist?

Re: # 64 B.Express think about general, BB what they are doing to get certificate from USA and they feel that license for ruling country same thing in India. I have written two notes on book by Masadi " life and death under usa domination" but they sensored it. It will prudent for you to study this book then you can write critic mr. Masadi.Please read book to understand who is god father of india and pakistan its usa.

stuka,

Here is another word you can add to your collection of pompous euphemisms useful for politicians of sectarian and anti-individualistic bent: consociationalism.

In my view, the state of Pakistan bears one hundred percent of the responsibility for the disastrous state of India-Pakistan relations – especially since 1989. That state is absolutely responsible for the sub continental edition of the scourge of international terrorism – particularly that directed at India.

The two nation theory was a lie fabricated by a dishonest human being masquerading as a lawyer for satisfying his personal lust for power! The two nation theory is no different from the racial apartheid of the South Africa of the past.

Every person who believes in the two nation theory – or looks the other way instead of denouncing it – every such person is little different from the racist bigot of the segregationist South! Shame on such persons! Most such bigots would deny being the bigots that they are – there are few bigots who are honest!

And the two nation theory can only stabilize as pair of nations of different religions – it shall forever be unstable as one secular country living like “friends” with a hostile, religion-centered, autocracy next door. Like baagh and bakree living together in Phantom’s land!

I don’t find it credible. Nature does not allow it.

Therefore, as long as Pakistanis keep clinging to a justification of the two nation theory – they will sooner or later attack India. They have no choice – because if they do not, then they become like India – then they are faced with the question – what the heck did we break apart for if we just end up like them?!

That is how I see it. But people like me do not matter – the more important fact is that vast majority of Indians (especially young Indians) are driven by common-sense and do not fall for what the Pakistanis preach!

In my view, the present status is unstable by its very nature. Over the longer term, only one will survive – either Pakistan will become like India – or India will become like Pakistan (its flip side). There are a few signs of the latter (Gujarat 2002) but a greater likelihood is of the former.

However, the current lot of Pakistanis is too gutless to own up to their own role in this sordid affair and their own culpability – so the world will have to wait for a change of mindset. I am personally doubtful that can happen soon – too many minds have been poisoned over too long a time – starting with the vamp!

If it does not happen – the next sixty years will be the pits – enough to make the past sixty years look like the golden age!

Abu safwaan
The quran does not proscribe any laws for war other than when the life and property of muslims is violated, these have been repeatedly done so in India.

Nor does the quran tell us to fight only when we are prepared or when we can win, infact hazrat hussain's shahadat is an example of man who sacrificed himself and his whole family rather than accept "nahaq".

But most muslims today are cowardly they only want to defend their feloww muslims when they are ready or can win. Thousands of young men have wilingly sacrificed themselves in Kashmir and are an example to the rest of us. With nukes we are now well prepared and have to start larger scale rearmament other wise India with its nuclear ageement with the US will be far ahead.

And when ever India had superiority it attacked Pakistan and took away land- in 1947 during Partition and Kashmir and during 1971 and even after the first nuclear tests in 1998 there first reaction was to bully pakistan into accepting their terms.

This means keeping hindu duplicity and the quran's injunctions on protecting muslims we must nuke India foirst and reduce its economy to rubble.

But most muslims are cowards today they dont mind the young ghazis dying as long as their own lives are not endangered. we have to follow the example of hazrat hussain, their is no concept of surrender in the quran it enjoins us to fight the unjust until they submit as long as we did not begin the war, that is why their is still resistance in both irq and aghanistan.

This argument of resist only when ready and can win is an argument of Kufr and kafirs not of momins.

Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad

And one day you wil see a true mard e momin will take over Pakistan or atleast its nukes and fulfill our obligations to allah and his faithfuls

A'null,

I am glad you read what I write so carefully and I am glad to have educated you so extensively. Be sure to write to Arend Lijphart to inform him of your enlightened views on the issue.

The "anti-individualistic" bent...the imposition of a forced national identity is equally anti-individualistic. Infact one would say that consociationalism is the epitome of individualism because it allows people to choose their identity without dealing with the self righteousness that comes with territory - yours that is.

Re: # 75

Have some shame BJKumar... some time atleast. I hope for your sake that you are actually ignorant enough to believe what you just wrote because if you are not then you are utterly dishonest.

You don't understand two nation theory and therefore choose to interpret it in your narrow little way. And then to accuse a man like the Quaid-e-Azam - whose integrity and incorruptibility was beyond question even by his worst opponents- of doing it for personal reasons smacks of an ignorance that just cannot justified or forgiven.

And to think that this display of bigotry comes from the follower of the Racist Casteist Hindu fascist misogynist bigot Gandhi makes the whole thing even more ironic... the same Gandhi who believed black people were subhuman and that people of different castes should not eat together... talk about similarities to the Racist South... how about racist Gandhians?

Jinnah on the other hand stood unbendingly for the equality of man and equality of races... unlike "Mahatma" Gandhi who believed people of Indo-Germanic and Indo Aryan stock were superior to others.

Prof. Hoodbhoy,
However wrong Maudoodi was, he was not a Hindu he was a Muslim. So how're you going to shut him out of Pakistani nationalism?

"Muslim" nationalism has to carry the burden of every Muslim ideology that Muslim Pakistanis choose to espouse. Jinnah keh gaye that what was nonMuslim did not belong in "Muslim" nationalism, and the corollary of that is all that was Muslim does belong in "Muslim" nationalism.

Apostatising is probably the only way to exclude Maudoodi. Good luck.

as you have seen 16% of Indians believe that war is the only solution, pakistan is a small country it cannot survive a first strike, the moment an Indian leader makes up his mind, even before wepons are launched pakistan is doomed.

Re: # 80

Sadna is obfuscating as usual by deliberately confusing the concept of citizenship with nationalism.... if there is to be such a thing as Pakistani nationalism, it can only be based on Pakistani citizenship.

In essence Sadna wants the Muslims who followed Jinnah to own up to even those like Maududi and JUH .. the latter in bed with the Congress. This is a ridiculous argument even for someone as inspired by jingoistic Indian bigotry as Sadna.


This is like the Pakistani establishment telling the Pushtuns :

"Pushtun" nationalism has to carry the burden of every Pushtun's ideology that Pushtuns choose to espouse. Ghaffar Khan keh gaye that what was non-Pushtun did not belong in "Pushtun" nationalism, and the corollary of that is all that was Pushtun does belong in "Pushtun" nationalism. Hence all the Pushtun Islamists are Pushtuns."

(And remember Ghaffar Khan was for most part allied with Deobandi Islamists pre-partition)...