The ANP Challenge

Salman mian,

Some secularism you stand for : You declared (on several occasions) I can't be objective because I am "Qadiani" and Jinnah was a Non-Muslim because he was Ismaili.

Ofcourse this is kind of secularism Bacha Khan was espousing when he colluded with Fakir of Ipi and vowed to bring down the unIslamic government led by the Ismaili Kafir Jinnah right?

As for the rest of your post, I have answered each and everyone of those allegations.

Mr Hamdani
we are not done yet. you bring everything in one post. so lets talk about Ghaffar Khan and Mr Jinnah once then we can go Wali Khan and others.

you have not proven that I have added words to Mr Wolperts text. those words are still there in the book. if you lie and say that the "violent" word is not there then I have challenged everyone here to check the book and prove me wrong. I can't say more than that. Jinnah welcomed violent Action. those are the words of Stanley Woplert. As I know you. it was expected from you. I was surprised that howcome you have not asked me that " learn english then talk to me" thing long before.

Cheema brother

We are all for secularism (I hope we are) the point here is Muslim League was or is a conservative party. they were aggressively using Islam to get votes. Mr Jinnah wrote letters to people promising them that Pakistan would have laws according to shariya. that’s how he was getting support from different sections of masses. the reason Pakistan constitution was not formed was the same . he was not showing his cards he kept people in illusion. Basically it was wrong thing to do because decisions should be taken according to the wishes of the members or in other words people should have seen Jinnah's ideas and joined ML or voted for it. in this case ML members were getting votes for Islam because Pakistan and Islam were synonymous.
They used violence to prove that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together. Jinnah said
Either divided India or destroyed India.
Due to these our people still don’t know what was Pakistan created for. I am sure you know all this. If you need some proofs I can make them available for you.

Dear Salman,

"Hamdani is a born liar" and "I am sure Hamdni you add and omit words from the text"

First of all if you feel I have been dishonest or have misquoted something, I challenge you to bring one quote where I have added anything of my own. Now I have already responded to your posts in detail including the issue of your quotes- which even if true don't prove what you are trying to prove. On the contrary you still have pointed out one flaw in the accusations I put up against Bacha Khan. Nor have you produced any evidence of Bacha Khan's good friend Pir of Manki Sharif wanting to kill Nehru.

Frankly this is getting boring. I don't have time to waste with someone who can't even make sense.

ok hamdani paste that here again let me see what you have stated in it. about Jinnah and his league. how much was he responsible for the activities of his fanatic league comprised of jehadi and corrupt elements and opportunists
you keep repeating HP brothers remark about me. Should I write someones remark about you.
"Hamdani is a born liar"

I am waiting your reply.
So anyone checked the book and found out that some words were aded or omitted from the Stanley Wolpert's text. Where it was said that Jinnah welcomed Violent action. I am sure Hamdni you add and omit words from the text. I just realized people can do it.

majumdar bhai,

"it wud be unfortunate"

My posts 590 and 682 explain my idea of patriotism. I hope Cheema sb also reads it.

Cheema sahib,

Please dont go away. We are all friends in spite of our differences. You are as asset here.

(I much prefer Gandhi ji myself but each their own as they say! I hope that doesn't disqualify me as a loyal and proud Pakistani in your eyes.)

It wud be very unfortunate if that was the case.

I have to give credit to my Injun colleagues here- VRV, HYD, Sadnaji, Beej. In spite of my severe criticism of JLN/MKG and staunch support of MAJ, the man who divided India, they have never questioned either my patriotism or my character.

Regards

Sallu bhai,

Re: 722

#1 Hindoo-Muslim relationships were severely strained and the subcontinent plunged into a cycle of violence.

#2 By 1948 MAJ (pbuh) was severely ill and possibly not in control over ML and Pakistan affairs.

Regards

Correction August 12, 1948.

And the main architect was none other than Bacha Khan's old Congress comrade Qayyum.

Re: # 724

"I came across one of your articles on 1974 (Pakistan RIP); very impressive. Having secular tendencies myself, I'd love to see the day when a solid secular democracy has taken root and to see it prosper in our homeland."

Thanks.

Re: # 721

How does one argue with someone like you who insists on ignoring straight answers and going in circles for a punch line he is not going to get? The answer is there in several posts, but especially in 633.

As for Bhabra Sharif "massacre"... according to you it took place on August 12, 1947. Jinnah was already on his deathbed by then barely even able to move. But lets humor you and say that Jinnah was not "fit" to be governor general, how does it prove the facts I have put up about Bacha Khan false?

I think you are not worth anyone's time ... nor should I base my assessment of ANP on you, because you are as HP says an unintelligent ANP worker who knows nothing.

Re: # 720; Yasser bhai

Many thanks for taking the time to inform me of Mr Jinnah's virtues and strength of character; I have nothing against the man but just thought a bit too much credit seemed to be going in his direction on some of these discussions. I much prefer Gandhi ji myself but each their own as they say! I hope that doesn't disqualify me as a loyal and proud Pakistani in your eyes.

The pbuh thing was a hangover from a previous discussion I had with Majumdar bhai; from a non-believer's perspective, I don't mind if Mr Jinnah gets a few extra Brownie points in the hereafter as a direct result of this practice!

I came across one of your articles on 1974 (Pakistan RIP); very impressive. Having secular tendencies myself, I'd love to see the day when a solid secular democracy has taken root and to see it prosper in our homeland.

Many thanks again. Sorry to interrupt....

I don't get Hamdani's points here.
He keeps saying Jinnah Jinnah. does it mean Jinnah and MUslim League are differnt? Muslim league's corruption is well known. I have posted Governor NWFP letter here. which tells about ML's corruption and horse trading.

Majumdar bhai

1- you said Jinnah didn't ask ML to start violence they did it on their own. it kept on going till May 1947.

2- Hamdani said Babara shrif Massacre and that ordinance were the creation of Qayyum Khan. Jinnah has nothing to do with that.

It means Jinnah was not able to control his Party and he was not capable of running a country as governor general.

Mr Hamdani why are you such a coward. just answer the simple question.
in your view
Jinnah didn't ask the Ml for violence.
or
Muslim League as party didnt start violence.

DOn''t tell us where to go simply answr the question and dont fool around

There are two statements... which I think sum it up. One by H V Hodson and the other by Dr. B R Ambedkar .. which might explain why Majumdar bhai and I use (PBUH) for Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

"One thing is certain, it was not for any venal motive that he changed. Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self seeking. He could be bought by no one and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weathercock, swinging in the wind of popularity or changing his politics to suit the chances of the time. He was a steadfast idealist, as well as a man of scrupulous honour." (Page 39- Great Divide)


and

From Pakistan or Partition of India by Dr. B R Ambedkar - the author of Indian constitution:

"Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. ..... it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah."


Those who wish to abuse Jinnah, should go right ahead but one should not stop others from holding a point of view which is rooted in history.