A New Constitution for Pakistan

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

http://www.geocities.com/zq83_uk/archives/traitor_jinnah.htm

Hizb-ul-Tahrir`s view of Jinnah: He was a JEW....

Jinnah Exposed.

Jinnah (1876 - 1948) was amongst the band of westernised men who were part of the British educational system founded by Lord Macaulay “to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern - a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in tasks, opinions, in morals and in intellect.” Simply put, it was founded by the British to nurture their agents from a very young age. The British Government had plans and they chose Jinnah to be the man who would turn their plans against the Ummah into a reality. Jinnah was going to be the man who would rob the Muslims of their land which had been conquered by Mohammed Bin Qasim centuries ago, and initiate the problems faced by the Muslims today in the Indian subccontinent by depriving the region of Islam and implementing Kufr over the land where Islam had governed for centuries before.

Jinnah Adores the Enemy of Allah (swt) ~ KEMAL
Having completed his studies in London, Jinnah returned to India in 1896 and quickly earned himself the title ‘The ambassador of Hindu - Muslim unity.’ Jinnah was an avid member of the Hindu dominated Congress Party. He left Congress because the British were cooking him for a bigger task - the complete capitulation of the Indian Muslim. He returned to his masters in England in 1930, where he lived for five years . In London Jinnah was greatly influenced by a study on the life of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (may Allah curse him), the Turkish leader responsible for abolishing the Islamic State established by Muhammad (saw) and his sahaba (ra). Kemal is responsible for the humiliation and oppression being faced by the Muslims of today because of his efforts in removing Islam as a way of life under the Khilafah. With the enemy of Allah as his role - model, Jinnah was inspired to build the nation of Pakistan and somehow managed to earn himself the title Quaid-i-Azam (Great Leader). Allah have mercy on those who sincerely but naively associate this name with this treacherous man.

In a speech made by Jinnah on 4th March 1948 in reply to the speech made by the first Turkish Ambassador to Pakistan, Jinnah praised the enemy of Islam: “...the rise and career of the great Ataturk, his revitalisation of your nation by his great statesmanship, courage and foresight...”

Jinnah’s adoration for this heretic is a clear indication that he never intended to create a Pakistan in the name of Islam for the benefit of the Muslims. If his objective had been to rebuild a truly Islamic state again then he would have followed the way of our Prophet (saw) rather than this renegade. But his actions clearly indicate his intentions were insincere.

JINNAH DEFIES ALLAH
Jinnah is revered by many Pakistanis to an extent which no other political personality approaches even remotely and modern textbooks invariably portray him as the architect of an Islamic ideological state: “The All India Muslim League, and even the Quaid-i-Azam himself, said in the clearest possible terms that Pakistan would be an ideological state, the basis of whose laws would be the Qur’an and Sunnah, and whose ultimate destiny would be to provide a society in which Muslims could individually and collectively live according to the laws of Islam.”

In another speech in November 1945 Jinnah said: “Muslims are demanding Pakistan so that they may live according to their code of life and traditions, and so that they may govern themselves according to the laws of Islam.”

How does one interpret these speeches of Jinnah, together with others of essentially similar nature, with the outright secular and Kufr declarations quoted earlier in his career? “Islam believes in democracy” (Speech at Aligarh Muslim University, 6th March 1940) “We learned democracy 1300 years ago. It is in our blood...” (Presidential address at the session of All India Muslim League, Delhi, 24 April 1943)

These are the kinds of things you would say if you learnt your Islam from a Kafir and were too ashamed of the deen to speak about the truth purely because you would be considered backwards and uneducated.
It takes a man of very little intelligence to point out the contradictions in these statements made by Jinnah when compared to what

Allah says in the Qur’an:
“And he who does not rule by Islam is a kafir” [TMQ 5:47]

“The rule is for none but Allah” [TMQ 6:57]

“Judge by what Allah has revealed...” [TMQ 5:49]

Jinnah also said: “The constitution and the government would be what the people will decide.” (Presidential address at the session of All India Muslim League, Delhi, 24 April 1943)

But Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided on a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in plain error.” [TMQ 33:36]

The constitution and Government of an Islamic nation have been already decided by Allah (swt), it is the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and structure of Government is also clearly illustrated in the seerah of the Prophet (saw). On this matter man cannot take a decision. But once again Jinnah choose to ignore this commandment of Allah (swt) as well. These are only some of the examples where Jinnah clearly defies Allah (swt) and chose the way of the Kafir over the way of the Prophet (saw).

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that Jinnah and his counterparts could not offer anything to the Ummah apart from lip service to Islam. Jinnah expounded his views with such eloquence and force that most Muslims, and even some Hindus, came to believe in them. Jinnah had no understanding of Islam and had no intention to learn about Islam. The founders of Pakistan used Islam to achieve their Kufr objectives. Once achieved, Islam was discarded and put back onto the shelves in the form of history books.

Jinnah went one step further than most traitors, the man also had the audacity to justify his kufr actions by Islam. His disrespect for the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is evident in the fact that he was prepared to lie about Prophet Muhammad (saw) to deceive the Indian Muslims and strengthen his position as a political leader. “Thirteen hundred years ago he (saw) laid the foundations of democracy” (Speech on Prophet Muhammad’s (saw) Birthday at Karachi Bar Association, 25th January 1948). “It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by a great law giver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles” (Speech at Sipi Durbar 14th February 1948).

How dare this man associate a Kufr concept such as democracy with our Prophet (saw)! The Prophet (saw) fought ‘People Power’ (more commonly known as democracy) for the entire twenty-three years of Prophethood. Muhammad (saw) said words to the effect of: ‘Anyone who tells a lie about me intentionally, let him take his place in the hellfire.’

PAKISTAN: Where “Muslims would cease to be Muslim”!
In his personal life, Jinnah was liberal and westernised. He maintained his inner secularism even in the seething cauldron of communal hatred following partition, as is evident from the fact that he appointed Joginder Nath Mandal, a Hindu, to serve in Pakistan’s first cabinet. He also chose a Qadiyani as his foreign minister. His famous speech 11th August 1947 before the nation is the clearest possible exposition of a secular state in which religion and state are separate from each other: “We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state...Now I think that we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due 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...You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

This speech states very clearly that Jinnah felt that Islam should have no role in the politics of the state and should be confined to individual belief. He did not allow Islam to play a role in the everyday part of Muslims life and advocated the understanding that Islam could not deal with the complex political situations faced by man today. He felt that his kufr methods of dealing with societal affairs would be more effective than the way of Muhammad (saw). Looking at the mess Pakistan is in today, we can see that Jinnah could not have been more wrong. As we can see from the structure of the Prophet’s (saw) Islamic state in Madinah, Islam commands that there is a clear distinction between the Muslim and non-Muslim (dhimmi) in an Islamic state and even goes as far as having a separate tax structure for them. The dhimmis are given their rights and protection as long as they agree to live by Islam or else face the Hudood for their crimes. They are not allowed to be a part of the system in an authoritative position nor can they hold the security of the Muslims in their hands. Once again, Jinnah chose to neglect this commandment of Allah. These are only some of the examples, the list is endless. But it is very clear that Jinnah never intended to create an Islamic State in Pakistan and his objective was most certainly not to benefit and give security to the Muslims. So he wasworse than Ataturk, in the sense that Ataturk made his hatred for Islam open, while Jinnah was a hypocrite when he praised Islam to deceive the people about his British Masters’ real objectives of creating Pakistan.

In an interview to Doon Campbell, Reuters’s correspondent in New Delhi in 1946, Jinnah made it perfectly clear that it was Western style democracy that he wanted for Pakistan: “The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.”. Note the highly significant phrases “sovereignty resting in the people” in contrast to the Prophet’s (saw) Islamic State where ‘sovereignty rests with Allah’. On the record of these writings and speeches, Jinnah comes out to be far more liberal and secular than Gandhi - who was a Hindu.

* These are the most important classics of Muslim modernism. They belong on the ``black-list`` and should be approached with extreme caution because they have all done (intentionally or unintentionally) irreparable harm to the Islamic cause.


Source: Khilafah Magazine, London

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

It is really very sad state of affairs for Pakistan. But some more principles should be added to:
1. Ensure that the aims of the state is to produce ``secular-citizens`` whose individuality is constituted by the liberal democratic constitution of the country rather than the religious books. ( Thesis of Suprimacy of the Democratic Constitution).
2. Ensure that even in case of clash betwen the constitution and the religious books, the constitution would not be amended but attempt would be made to save those sentences of books through a ``suitable interpretation``.
3. Ensure that the usurpers of power do not go un-punished and all actions done by state machinery whose control is not by government elected by democratic electoral institutions would not be deemed illegal and punishable.

My name is Yasser Latif Hamdani. I have gone by ylh for 4 years. Everybody on this website knows it... what complex can there be? My name, YLH, has a lot of currency and rouses a lot of emotions, so I have chosen a more moderate identity for the sake of dialogue. Your insults are not going to change the fact that you don`t have any arguments. Other than harping about how copied it is you haven`t come up with any argument which can be worth anything. Point no 7 is not just for social reform. It is to stop Party manifestos from becoming hostage to the whims of the feudals and biradaris. Any change is a long process...

I know you are severely lacking in the brain cell department, but have you considered why great intellectuals behind PPP like J A Rahim, Mubashir Hassan, Meraj Khalid, Meraj Muhammad Khan etc became unimportant, and people like Fahim became strong in the PPP? Do you even know who these people are?

Late J A Rahim, Mubashir Hassan, Late Meraj Khalid and and Meraj Muhammad Khan were the real PPP wallahs. They are the ones who made this party progressive and liberal. They lost importance because feudals were important to the leadership when it came to winning seats... through the horrid single member constituency system which is a travesty of democracy.

-Manto

Re: manto
Now lets not get carried away over here with the self respect bit mr manto..or is it yasser jamdani ? any complex about using ur own name....probably know on its own it would never amount to anything ? i guess must be due to your childhood frustrations and inferiority complexes. Hence the desire to lick the soles of the elite. So much for your own self respect. As for your point about no one in pakistan having the will to do away with the feudals ...will # 7 after imposition suddenly do away with the feudals.....? i can imagine PPPP doing that with Benazir and Makhdoom Amin Fahim as its head. wow and you are lecturing me on having sense. Look kid dont waste your time on defending something which you copied from somewhere and have no clue what it really means. Constitution is not meant for social reform.........governments having the proper political will to do that can do that by using other means which i have already mentioned which seem to beyond your comprehension.


cheers
raza

back to the feudalism debate...

Pointing to a few examples won`t help. India had done away with feudalism at that early stage... no one in Pakistan has the political will to undo the feudals who are entrenched in this system. The bottom line is that you haven`t come up with anything that would make me change my mind about #7 ... your ignorance of the Pakistani politics and the facts is apparent from your MQM example... hence nothing you say makes any sense.

As for your insults .. You can go on making a fool of yourself calling this a `copied constitution`. I am quite amused. It shows that you never had a concrete argument against it in the first place. For your information, human endeavor is based on learning from the past...

Indeed this constitution is very similar to the US model... Others too have noticed the similarities with the US constitution, but they also recognize that it is basically a presidential constitution and hence whatever similarities there are, flow from this constitution... are you suggesting that the constitution of 1973 was a copied constitution? and 1956 was a copied constitution too? What about 1962... did Ayub Khan ask De Gaulle to send over the french constitution via fax? Since the greeks were the first one to use the word `senate`, I suppose all the constitutions of the world are copied constitutions.


I am sure some fool in 1780s must have accused Jefferson of `copying` as well, when Jefferson repeated Locke`s `Life, Liberty and Property` ... sad ain`t it, that genius no one remembers, but Jefferson everyone knows...


-Manto

ah more insults from the brat I see...

Bachay learn some manners before you talk to me. You obviously are lacking in self respect.

-Manto

Re: plats8:

Sure that this particular development (vacuum tubes) took place in the exact time period but lets argue if it had been developed in the 1940`s would the same effect on marriages taken place. I guess not. Similarly i am sure you know sexual liberation can not be defined as a particular entity. It was an amalgmation of so many factors ...with increased women job participation being just one of them. This very factor increased women/men interaction thus leading to the whole thing about sexual liberation. Women participation in the work place has relatively increased in countries like Iran and Pakistan but they have not registered such high increase in divorce rates and i think most people would opine that whatever increase in divorce rates has taken place in these countries is due to the women becoming more aware of their own rights and safety rather then being involved with someone else. No need to apologize. All taken in good spirit.

cheers
raza

Re Manto:

Who died and made you the Chowkidar over here. As for your fine arguments and recommendations.....next time try to come up with them on your own rather then copying them. Your title should ve read

A New Constitution for Pakistan
Copied by Yasser Hamdani.

As for your continous raving about #7 ......just think why India with single member constitutiencies managed to curb feudalism.

raza

plats,

I think it is hardly fair that you are apologizing. This twit has been extremely abusive and unnecessarily brash in his posts... he deserves a taste of his own medicine.


-Manto

razzz #239,

No, I am not arbitrarily expanding the parameters of this argument. I knew this
could be a problem, and specifically chose an event from that specific time frame
that acted as a major catalyst in communication modes.

I do not think sexual explorations of the 60s affected marriages any more than
the civil rights movement did - in the US, the 60s brought in an awareness about
various inequities against blacks, women, Native Americans and other groups. More
women joined the workplace, and living in a Norman Rockwell painting didn`t seem
so attractive any more. Subsequent rise in divorce rate cannot be uniquely tied to
any one social factor - that is my core argument. There could have been a sudden
jump in divorces in the mid-60`s, but that would be a perturbation more than anything
else.

Anyway raza, I really would like to apologise for being rude in my earlier post. It was
unnecessary.

Razzz,

Everyone here can indeed see it. Like I said, if the list system of proportional representation was tried, the feudals would become unimportant and hence would lose their importance even within the PPP which you claim is a feudal dominated party.

Obviously given your perverse logic vis a vis MQM MMA , I don`t expect you to understand such fine arguments... let us say that what I am suggesting is a little too much for your brain cells...

-Manto

Re manto post 238:
I dont have to prove anything which is already there for everyone to see in your case. As for your argument about the feudals......How will the PPPP after becoming the ruling party in sindh would help decrease feudalism since it happens to be the major vehicle used by the feudals...just a simple question. The fact is that abolishing single member constitutiencies wont change the political scenario that much. It would only limit representation of the people and marginalize communities. As i said constitution is not the means to implement SOCIAL reform. Its meant to give fair representation and rights to the people.
Whats wrong with using tools like Education, industrialization, development of a Bourgeoisie and a middle class, land reforms and enforcement of family laws to curb feudalism


Re plats 8:
Your point about the vacuum tubes is quite logical but why stop here then in this case. Why not blame the chap who sent signals via the air waves in the first place and then we dont even have to stop over there, we could even blame adam who started the human race in the first place because of which all these guys happened to come into the world (just assuming that we are taking the islamic and judaeo christian perspective....i dont know what your religion is...you have the right to disagree ofcourse). So i guess the degrees can be expanded as much as we can.....(AGREED >>>???). So it would help keeping the discussion limited to the things which directly effected the institution rather then going into a pseudo intellectual debate of how degrees can be expanded.


cheers
raza

plats8

He deserves it. No amount of reason worked with him... its not that he disagrees with me or you but it is his self righteousness coupled with a desire to prove everyone else stupid that is bothersome.

-Manto

razzz,

Let me parse my post, very slowly, for you. Your point was that the sexual
revolution of the 60`s caused the instiitution of marriage to collapse in the west.
I picked another criterion, which I claim destroyed the same institution - the
advent of the transistor to replace vacuum tubes. Let me show you why:
(by the way, feel free to interject if I make a false statement)
1) The invention of the transistor made a radio much more affordable
and popular. Lots of people could afford it.
2) Popularity of transistor radios translated into increased popularity of rock
music.
3) Rock music was a major vehicle used to define sexual mores in the 60`s.
4) Said sexual mores made marriages brittle (YOUR CLAIM).
Now, did I not say there`s only about 2 degrees of separation between my
claim and yours. Given that, can we now squarely blame the inventors of
the transistor for the social collapse that you have witnessed ?

You see, I can equivalently blame failed marriages on the rising popularity of
washing machines and air-conditioners - all I need is to maintain a quality of
reasoning commensurate with yours. I also think that a parent who cannot
advice his/her child on how irrelevant porn is, is not fit to be a parent.

And you have some gall, coming from a country and culture (include India in
this list) that has among the highest rates of spousal and child sexual abuse
and lecturing Netherlands and Belgium. I do not even understand your point
(if you have one)
- Are you claiming Pakistanis are more moral creatures than the Dutch/Belgians
by virtue of having no access to porn?
- Are you claiming that by banning porn videos, Pak govt has reformed the
sexual predators that prey on underage boys and girls ?

Your silly remark about having Dutch friends fetches no response.

Manto #231,
When an intellectual midget acquires a large ego, we get to observe a sad
spectacle. I would prefer not to be so harsh, but razzz`s puritanical illogic
deserves it.