Jehad and The Curriculum
Beena Sarwar April 2, 2004
#129 Posted by jang on April 9, 2004 11:46:32 am
Ferozk and Vertex
Here is the ``hindu`` way of re-stating your posts, which explains everything. Actually, there are two myths or realities about Jinnah, one for Feroz and one for Echo. Both realities coexists in a parallel universe. Trying to cossover causes massive grief .. as in 1947. As Jay would probably say, Jinnah was not secular, but merely looked-down upon the natives, and that would explain everything.
Here is the ``hindu`` way of re-stating your posts, which explains everything. Actually, there are two myths or realities about Jinnah, one for Feroz and one for Echo. Both realities coexists in a parallel universe. Trying to cossover causes massive grief .. as in 1947. As Jay would probably say, Jinnah was not secular, but merely looked-down upon the natives, and that would explain everything.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#130 Posted by HaroonEllahi on April 9, 2004 3:02:08 pm
Jinnah was a die-hard secularist. And the Muslim League believed in democracy much more. The only reason the Congress adopted democracy in one breath was because the hindu population had an over whelming majority therefore they would be the `winners`. If the demographics of the situation had been different and muslims had been in majority and hindu`s in minority then I`m sure congress would have denounced democracy and push for a seperate hindu state.
#131 Posted by MantoLives on April 9, 2004 3:02:09 pm
PS: Bong dongs is correct... Bande materam is from Anand Math ... a 19th century novel by Bankim Chatterjee...
#132 Posted by MantoLives on April 9, 2004 3:02:09 pm
feroz
I am well aware of M. Rabbani... he has managed to ruin even the Pakistan Studies for O Levels. I don`t what Echoboom actually said... but here is the thing... despite the propaganda by Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan recently that Jinnah didn`t wear western clothes after the creation of Pakistan, there are 100s of pictures after partition in which Jinnah is dressed in well cut suits...
Vertex...
Since both Feroz and I live in Lahore and teach in Lahore... I think we have some what of a claim to speak for the Pakistanis right? Atleast this Pakistani was bored to death by the mythical Jinnah of Pakistani mythology. I started intensely admiring Jinnah after reading about the real one. The real anglicized and secular Jinnah will appear to be a greater hero than the mythical saladin Jinnah... when put in the right context.
Agreed otherwise with the earlier part of the post... perhaps the distinction between the Muslim state (a demographic concept) and Islamic state (an ideological concept) needs to be drawn as you say.
#133 Posted by echoboom on April 9, 2004 3:02:09 pm
Bande (or Vande) Mataram comes from the book ``Ananda Math`` by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.
#127 by bongdongs on April 9, 2004 8:57am PT
Thanks bongdongs for teaching someting to the ``teacher``. I wanted someone else to show this mirror to the jahil.
There is much more but as I said earlier the Parrot-mynahs who mistake inglo-culture for having acquired learning are the curse on Pakistan. No wonder he is trying to gain converts to his creed of slavism. He has to find safety in numbers. Who else would employ him?
The reality in Aitchison is different. Other than the name, it is still somewhat better than the
money-for-education-for-money factories. No matter how hard the secularist/atheist might try, it is from such schools that most maulvi-look-alikes emerge once they realise how they have been cheated and robbed. Such record is there for all to see and that is why the ``teacher`` gets the goosebumps.
Haroon:
Egypt and Libya were against Pakistan precisely because they were secular & socialist under Nasser and Qaddafi..allies of USSR , just as India was then. The Shah supported Pakistan not as a muslim but as a slave of USA, just as Pakistan was.
Iran never claimed or blamed Pakistan for the centrifuges. They did, and said so, that it obtained the parts on the open market. In fact Musharraf is now ready for a blackmail by the US thugs and it won`t be long before he will be sitting in the company of Saddam, Noriega, Marcos, Shah, Aristedis, Soekarno, Cao Ky, Pinochet and many many others. Anyone who ever made any democracy-deals and freedom-trades with these thugs has been trounced and trashed at payout time.
You are proud of your Islami heritage . That is really what matters. Rest is detail.
Just to reiterate and set the record straight: emphasis are mine
An excerpt from: Shariful Mujahid
The writer was Founder-Director of the Quaid-I-Azam Academy (1976-89), and authored Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation (1981), the only work to qualify for the President’s Award for Best Books on Quaid-I-Azam.
(Courtesy DAWN Tuesday December 25, 2001)
But should equal citizenship for one and all, with equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations, necessarily mean a secular state? Does Islam nullify this concept? Jinnah did not think so; (nor did Iqbal). This is evident from his July 17, 1947 press conference and his reply to Mountabatten at the transfer-of-power ceremony on August 14. Consider the following extracts from his press conference:
Question: “Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?”
Mr. M. A. Jinnah: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.”
A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.
Mr. M. A. Jinnah: “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 when Mountbatten commended Akbar’s model in dealing with non-Muslims, Jinnah invoked the Medinite model:
The tolerance and goodwill that great Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims (he said) is not of recent origin. It dates back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet (Peace be upon him) not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with those humane and great principles, which should be followed and practised.
Remember, this response was really off-the-cuff since Jinnah was not provided with an advance copy of Mountbatten’s address and, hence, had no time to deliberate, mull over it, and formulate a suitable response. In other words, he had to depend on the quickness of his mind and his basic convictions to come up with a ready response. This means that Jinnah regarded equal citizenship for one and all as an integral part of Islam’s legacy.
Indeed, in all of Jinnah’s multitudinous pronouncements during 1934-1948, which I have pored over, time and again, the word, “secular”, does not occur even once. Then, how could he have conceived the indivisible Pakistani nationhood concept in a “secular” context, and not in the Islamic one, especially when Islam was his constant refrain and the counter piece of his rhetoric all through the momentous 1937-47 decade.
And because, as Dr Fazlur Rahman has pointed out, those who understand modernity do not know Islam and those who understand Islam do not know modernity, and because we are, alas! not a research-oriented society and not even a “reading society” such as Iran, Syria and Egypt, we have failed to establish linkages between Jinnah’s and classical (not traditional) Islam’s view-points. More critical and grievous is the spectacular failure of our West-oriented elites and cultural affiliates whose ignorance of Islam is matched, if at all, by their playing hostage to the professional clergy’s distorted version (or interpretation) of Islam, motivated as it is by their personal, sectarian and political agendas.
Though Jinnah might not have been aware of it, his “national” framework, comprising both Muslims and non-Muslims as equal citizens of a political unit, has a hallowed Islamic precedent. And that precedent is the Misaq-i-Madina (622/623), which Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, the renowned Islamic scholar, describes as “the first written constitution of the world”.
Articles 1 and 2 of the Misaq describe the Quraishite and Medinite (Yathrib) Muslims as “a political unit (ummah) as distinct from all the people (of the world)”, and Article 25 lays down that “verily the Jews of the Banu’ Awf shall be considered as a community (ummah) along with the Believers, for the Jews being their religion and for the Muslims their religion…” (Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution in the World; Lahore: Ashraf, 1968, pp. 41, 48). Articles 26-35 accord the same status to other Jewish tribes, which were also placed within the ummah canopy.
Thus, the Quraishites, the Medinites and the Jews, who together constituted a “political unit” or political community in multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-racial Medina, were accorded equal rights, equal privileges and equal responsibilities. For one thing, without such rights, such privileges and such responsibilities, these constituent sub-units could never have become integral parts of a political unit or community (ummah), nor delineated as such in the Misaq.
True: unreserved equality in terms of rights, privileges and responsibilities in a polity is today considered a “secular” value, but long before this principle was discovered as a “secular” value, it was enshrined as an Islamic value in the Misaq, and that by the Prophet (Peace be upon him) himself. If this assertion jolts West-oriented intellectual elites and “cultural affiliates” they have none but themselves to blame. For sure, they have found it convenient aquitable and tolerant one i.e., a society which is absolutely free from the cantankerous evils of creeping prejudice and invidious discrimination, and which does not debar any one from his entitlement to a fair deal on the basis of his race, language, and religion. Thus, fourteen hundred years ago, Islam set its face against the extermination of minorities through ethnic cleansing as witnessed in the blood-drenched twentieth century in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Palestine.
Pluralism means co-existence of various groups on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Clubbing together the Quraishites, the Medinites and the Jews under an all-embracing ummah canopy means equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations for all members of the constituent sub-units, Moreover, Islam puts a premium on meritocracy and the principle of equality in legal terms. Then how can Muslims have an edge over non-Muslims in the political sense? And this is what Jinnah laid down: “Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims… in the political sense as citizens of the state”.
Religion intrudes into the business of the state only to the extent as the people, either directly or through their representatives, wish it to. It may become the fountainhead of the cluster of overarching values that constitute the ideology of the nation, that become the source of public morality, that shape and determine its social philosophy and ethos. In the case of Pakistan all that has been ensured through the objectives Resolution (1949), which is an integral part of the constitution. This Resolution envisages an “Islamic democracy”, and incorporates the core Islamic aspirations behind the Pakistan movement. If we had only implemented the Resolution in Pakistan’s public life, Pakistan could have become an “Islamic democracy” in the true sense of the term.
Islam not only rejects the concept of a “chosen people”, but it also countenances pluralism: “those who believe (in the Quran) and those who are the Jews and/the Christians and the Sabians-whoever believe in God and the Last Day and does good works-/they shall have their reward with God, and no fear/shall come to them nor shall they grieve.” (al-Quran, al Maida, 5:69).
And remember, this ayaat did not belong with the Meccan period, when the Prophet (Peace be upon him) was courting the Jews and the Christian, but with the Medinite era, after the battle of Khaybar (630), when the Jews, in making “tangible contribution towards the Meccans’ campaign to raise an army of ten thousand men against Medina” in brazen contravention of the pluralist Misaq, had proved implacably hostile and utterly untrustworthy.
And when Allah promises salvation to non-Muslims in the hereafter, how could you deny them fundamental rights in this world?
These pluralist tendencies in Islam also explain why, much against the Lahore Ulema’s interpretation, the Objectives Resolution recognized not the followers of a particular faith, but the people- all “the people, irrespective of whatever faith they may follow”, as emphasized during the debate on the Resolution- as the vehicle of “the authority” – i.e., the sovereignty- by Allah to the state of Pakistan. And this, in turn, explains why Mian Iftikharuddin (1907-62), the foremost spokesman of the Left during Pakistan’s formative years (1947-58), waxed so eloquent on the concept of “Islamic democracy” during the debate on March 10, 1949, saying “Sir, I repeat, no one need object to the word ‘Islamic’. If we can use the words ‘Roman Law’ or the ‘British Parliamentary system’ and so many other terms without shame or stint, then why not ‘Islamic’? But you must give to the world an Islamic constitution. Had we given the world a proper Islamic constitution, a fine ideology, a new way of achieving real democracy, I think we would have performed a great task.” He could commend Islamic democracy because, unlike the later day Western elites, “progressives” and cultural affiliates, he knew his Islam and refused to become hostage to the clergy’s myopic and motivated version.
This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not. In his speech on the Objectives Resolution, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1885-1949), the foremost alim of the day, who should know Islam much better than the half-baked, self-appointed clergy, declared categorically that “an Islamic state does not mean the ‘Government of the Ordained Priests’. How could Islam”, he asked, “countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words”: “They (The Jews and the Christians) took their priests/and their anchorites to be their lords besides Allah to (the) derogation to God (al-Quran, al-Ta’uba, 9:31)
Prime Minister Liaquat was emphatic: “… theocracy … is absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognize either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and, therefore, the question of theocracy does not arise in Islam.” Iqbal has expressed serious reservations about the vetoing power accorded to the Mujtahids in the Persian constitution of 1907, in his Reconstruction (1930). And Jinnah had ruled out theocracy time and again, especially in his broadcast talks to the peoples of Australia and the United States, in February 1948.
To conclude then: there is no contradiction in Jinnah’s enunciation, on the one hand, of the concept of a united Pakistani nation, with all its members’ full entitlement to equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations and his call, on the other, to the officers and men of the 5th Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir on February 21, 1948, “to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of man-hood in your own native social” (italics ours)
Indeed, Islamic democracy subsumes the concept of one, indivisible Pakistani nation-hood.
The writer was Founder-Director of the Quaid-I-Azam Academy (1976-89), and authored Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation (1981), the only work to qualify for the President’s Award for Best Books on Quaid-I-Azam.
(Courtesy DAWN Tuesday December 25, 2001)
#127 by bongdongs on April 9, 2004 8:57am PT
Thanks bongdongs for teaching someting to the ``teacher``. I wanted someone else to show this mirror to the jahil.
There is much more but as I said earlier the Parrot-mynahs who mistake inglo-culture for having acquired learning are the curse on Pakistan. No wonder he is trying to gain converts to his creed of slavism. He has to find safety in numbers. Who else would employ him?
The reality in Aitchison is different. Other than the name, it is still somewhat better than the
money-for-education-for-money factories. No matter how hard the secularist/atheist might try, it is from such schools that most maulvi-look-alikes emerge once they realise how they have been cheated and robbed. Such record is there for all to see and that is why the ``teacher`` gets the goosebumps.
Haroon:
Egypt and Libya were against Pakistan precisely because they were secular & socialist under Nasser and Qaddafi..allies of USSR , just as India was then. The Shah supported Pakistan not as a muslim but as a slave of USA, just as Pakistan was.
Iran never claimed or blamed Pakistan for the centrifuges. They did, and said so, that it obtained the parts on the open market. In fact Musharraf is now ready for a blackmail by the US thugs and it won`t be long before he will be sitting in the company of Saddam, Noriega, Marcos, Shah, Aristedis, Soekarno, Cao Ky, Pinochet and many many others. Anyone who ever made any democracy-deals and freedom-trades with these thugs has been trounced and trashed at payout time.
You are proud of your Islami heritage . That is really what matters. Rest is detail.
Just to reiterate and set the record straight: emphasis are mine
An excerpt from: Shariful Mujahid
The writer was Founder-Director of the Quaid-I-Azam Academy (1976-89), and authored Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation (1981), the only work to qualify for the President’s Award for Best Books on Quaid-I-Azam.
(Courtesy DAWN Tuesday December 25, 2001)
But should equal citizenship for one and all, with equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations, necessarily mean a secular state? Does Islam nullify this concept? Jinnah did not think so; (nor did Iqbal). This is evident from his July 17, 1947 press conference and his reply to Mountabatten at the transfer-of-power ceremony on August 14. Consider the following extracts from his press conference:
Question: “Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?”
Mr. M. A. Jinnah: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.”
A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.
Mr. M. A. Jinnah: “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 when Mountbatten commended Akbar’s model in dealing with non-Muslims, Jinnah invoked the Medinite model:
The tolerance and goodwill that great Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims (he said) is not of recent origin. It dates back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet (Peace be upon him) not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with those humane and great principles, which should be followed and practised.
Remember, this response was really off-the-cuff since Jinnah was not provided with an advance copy of Mountbatten’s address and, hence, had no time to deliberate, mull over it, and formulate a suitable response. In other words, he had to depend on the quickness of his mind and his basic convictions to come up with a ready response. This means that Jinnah regarded equal citizenship for one and all as an integral part of Islam’s legacy.
Indeed, in all of Jinnah’s multitudinous pronouncements during 1934-1948, which I have pored over, time and again, the word, “secular”, does not occur even once. Then, how could he have conceived the indivisible Pakistani nationhood concept in a “secular” context, and not in the Islamic one, especially when Islam was his constant refrain and the counter piece of his rhetoric all through the momentous 1937-47 decade.
And because, as Dr Fazlur Rahman has pointed out, those who understand modernity do not know Islam and those who understand Islam do not know modernity, and because we are, alas! not a research-oriented society and not even a “reading society” such as Iran, Syria and Egypt, we have failed to establish linkages between Jinnah’s and classical (not traditional) Islam’s view-points. More critical and grievous is the spectacular failure of our West-oriented elites and cultural affiliates whose ignorance of Islam is matched, if at all, by their playing hostage to the professional clergy’s distorted version (or interpretation) of Islam, motivated as it is by their personal, sectarian and political agendas.
Though Jinnah might not have been aware of it, his “national” framework, comprising both Muslims and non-Muslims as equal citizens of a political unit, has a hallowed Islamic precedent. And that precedent is the Misaq-i-Madina (622/623), which Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, the renowned Islamic scholar, describes as “the first written constitution of the world”.
Articles 1 and 2 of the Misaq describe the Quraishite and Medinite (Yathrib) Muslims as “a political unit (ummah) as distinct from all the people (of the world)”, and Article 25 lays down that “verily the Jews of the Banu’ Awf shall be considered as a community (ummah) along with the Believers, for the Jews being their religion and for the Muslims their religion…” (Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution in the World; Lahore: Ashraf, 1968, pp. 41, 48). Articles 26-35 accord the same status to other Jewish tribes, which were also placed within the ummah canopy.
Thus, the Quraishites, the Medinites and the Jews, who together constituted a “political unit” or political community in multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-racial Medina, were accorded equal rights, equal privileges and equal responsibilities. For one thing, without such rights, such privileges and such responsibilities, these constituent sub-units could never have become integral parts of a political unit or community (ummah), nor delineated as such in the Misaq.
True: unreserved equality in terms of rights, privileges and responsibilities in a polity is today considered a “secular” value, but long before this principle was discovered as a “secular” value, it was enshrined as an Islamic value in the Misaq, and that by the Prophet (Peace be upon him) himself. If this assertion jolts West-oriented intellectual elites and “cultural affiliates” they have none but themselves to blame. For sure, they have found it convenient aquitable and tolerant one i.e., a society which is absolutely free from the cantankerous evils of creeping prejudice and invidious discrimination, and which does not debar any one from his entitlement to a fair deal on the basis of his race, language, and religion. Thus, fourteen hundred years ago, Islam set its face against the extermination of minorities through ethnic cleansing as witnessed in the blood-drenched twentieth century in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Palestine.
Pluralism means co-existence of various groups on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Clubbing together the Quraishites, the Medinites and the Jews under an all-embracing ummah canopy means equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations for all members of the constituent sub-units, Moreover, Islam puts a premium on meritocracy and the principle of equality in legal terms. Then how can Muslims have an edge over non-Muslims in the political sense? And this is what Jinnah laid down: “Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims… in the political sense as citizens of the state”.
Religion intrudes into the business of the state only to the extent as the people, either directly or through their representatives, wish it to. It may become the fountainhead of the cluster of overarching values that constitute the ideology of the nation, that become the source of public morality, that shape and determine its social philosophy and ethos. In the case of Pakistan all that has been ensured through the objectives Resolution (1949), which is an integral part of the constitution. This Resolution envisages an “Islamic democracy”, and incorporates the core Islamic aspirations behind the Pakistan movement. If we had only implemented the Resolution in Pakistan’s public life, Pakistan could have become an “Islamic democracy” in the true sense of the term.
Islam not only rejects the concept of a “chosen people”, but it also countenances pluralism: “those who believe (in the Quran) and those who are the Jews and/the Christians and the Sabians-whoever believe in God and the Last Day and does good works-/they shall have their reward with God, and no fear/shall come to them nor shall they grieve.” (al-Quran, al Maida, 5:69).
And remember, this ayaat did not belong with the Meccan period, when the Prophet (Peace be upon him) was courting the Jews and the Christian, but with the Medinite era, after the battle of Khaybar (630), when the Jews, in making “tangible contribution towards the Meccans’ campaign to raise an army of ten thousand men against Medina” in brazen contravention of the pluralist Misaq, had proved implacably hostile and utterly untrustworthy.
And when Allah promises salvation to non-Muslims in the hereafter, how could you deny them fundamental rights in this world?
These pluralist tendencies in Islam also explain why, much against the Lahore Ulema’s interpretation, the Objectives Resolution recognized not the followers of a particular faith, but the people- all “the people, irrespective of whatever faith they may follow”, as emphasized during the debate on the Resolution- as the vehicle of “the authority” – i.e., the sovereignty- by Allah to the state of Pakistan. And this, in turn, explains why Mian Iftikharuddin (1907-62), the foremost spokesman of the Left during Pakistan’s formative years (1947-58), waxed so eloquent on the concept of “Islamic democracy” during the debate on March 10, 1949, saying “Sir, I repeat, no one need object to the word ‘Islamic’. If we can use the words ‘Roman Law’ or the ‘British Parliamentary system’ and so many other terms without shame or stint, then why not ‘Islamic’? But you must give to the world an Islamic constitution. Had we given the world a proper Islamic constitution, a fine ideology, a new way of achieving real democracy, I think we would have performed a great task.” He could commend Islamic democracy because, unlike the later day Western elites, “progressives” and cultural affiliates, he knew his Islam and refused to become hostage to the clergy’s myopic and motivated version.
This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not. In his speech on the Objectives Resolution, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1885-1949), the foremost alim of the day, who should know Islam much better than the half-baked, self-appointed clergy, declared categorically that “an Islamic state does not mean the ‘Government of the Ordained Priests’. How could Islam”, he asked, “countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words”: “They (The Jews and the Christians) took their priests/and their anchorites to be their lords besides Allah to (the) derogation to God (al-Quran, al-Ta’uba, 9:31)
Prime Minister Liaquat was emphatic: “… theocracy … is absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognize either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and, therefore, the question of theocracy does not arise in Islam.” Iqbal has expressed serious reservations about the vetoing power accorded to the Mujtahids in the Persian constitution of 1907, in his Reconstruction (1930). And Jinnah had ruled out theocracy time and again, especially in his broadcast talks to the peoples of Australia and the United States, in February 1948.
To conclude then: there is no contradiction in Jinnah’s enunciation, on the one hand, of the concept of a united Pakistani nation, with all its members’ full entitlement to equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations and his call, on the other, to the officers and men of the 5th Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir on February 21, 1948, “to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of man-hood in your own native social” (italics ours)
Indeed, Islamic democracy subsumes the concept of one, indivisible Pakistani nation-hood.
The writer was Founder-Director of the Quaid-I-Azam Academy (1976-89), and authored Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation (1981), the only work to qualify for the President’s Award for Best Books on Quaid-I-Azam.
(Courtesy DAWN Tuesday December 25, 2001)
#134 Posted by echoboom on April 9, 2004 7:34:20 pm
If you are not an illiterate in Pakistan, you should have no problem in reading this.
A slap on the face of goaagoochaater NGOs and intellectuals.
A slap on the face of goaagoochaater NGOs and intellectuals.
#135 Posted by rsridhar on April 9, 2004 9:04:53 pm
re:#130 by haroonellahi
``If the demographics of the situation had been different and muslims had been in majority and hindu`s in minority then I`m sure congress would have denounced democracy and push for a seperate hindu state.``
Of all the countries in the world with a muslim majority, how many are democratic? I can think of only Indonesia but even that is fragile.
If prepartition India had a muslim majority, Jinnah would have assumed dictatorial powers (as he did anyway in a free pakistan). Hindu minority headed by Gandhi would have then fought for a sepeate democratic hindu state.
Get the picture now?
Sridhar
``If the demographics of the situation had been different and muslims had been in majority and hindu`s in minority then I`m sure congress would have denounced democracy and push for a seperate hindu state.``
Of all the countries in the world with a muslim majority, how many are democratic? I can think of only Indonesia but even that is fragile.
If prepartition India had a muslim majority, Jinnah would have assumed dictatorial powers (as he did anyway in a free pakistan). Hindu minority headed by Gandhi would have then fought for a sepeate democratic hindu state.
Get the picture now?
Sridhar
#136 Posted by MantoLives on April 9, 2004 11:38:30 pm
Rsidhar,
Your understanding is incorrect. Don`t quote Romair on it... he usually bases his argument on nothing but his own interpretation... and in this case he is simply echoing an earlier piece of writing which frankly doesn`t make sense.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by dictatorial powers... if it means that Jinnah towered above all the rest in Muslim League, that was natural. If it means that as the Governor General of Pakistan, he exercised executive authority... Jinnah`s powers were those of the Governor General as given by the Government of India Act 1935. Infact Jinnah`s usage of these powers was less than what he was allowed to do. Infact if you read history you will realize that Jinnah was unable even to rein in Punjab Muslim League and its leadership of Daultana and Mamdot... and he was living only a few miles away in the `Jinnah House` near the new Lahore Airport... and remember not only was the constitutional Governor General but also the founder of the nation who could stamp his will more authoritatively. He didn`t even impose a constitution of his choice.... Nehru as the Prime Minister of India under the constitution of India framed in 1949 exercised more authority than Jinnah... Nehru was the statesman who towered above all others... does that mean he became dictatorial?
There was clamour from the leaguers especially leftist leaguers (irony) to make Pakistan a one party state (ofcourse after transforming Muslim league to Pakistan League and opening up the membership to all people ).... yet Jinnah did not ban all the other parties, but infact protected them against such propaganda... included in these parties was the `Pakistan National Congress` a sister association of the Indian National Congress. Jinnah`s idea of the Pakistan League also couldn`t be implemented because of public opinion against it.
So what was so dictatorial...? By December Jinnah was in Lahore... and the Government was operating in Karachi.... the claim that he presided over Cabinet sessions is based on the meeting for the solutions to the communal trouble and the rehabilitation of refugees. I read the official correspondence between the Cabinet ministers, and they are always addressed to the Prime Minister and never to Jinnah...
1) So Jinnah did not chair the cabinet meetings as claimed by Romair
2) He did not impose his constitution on the PCA
3) He did not make Pakistan a one party state
4) The ministers reported to the Prime Minister and not to Jinnah
5) None of Jinnah`s actions were in violation of Government of India Act 1935
(For reference please read B>Alan Mcgrath`s book `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` in which he rubbishes this argument. Also read Ayesha Jalal`s `The state of Martial rule` in which she hits back against this view that Jinnah`s assumption of GGship was wrong. Read K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the formative Phase`, I also refer to `Jinnah Papers` Volume VI `Pakistan Battling against all odds` especially the letters by Mandal, Chundrigar, Rab Nishtar, Francis Mudie and others. )
These are the facts ... now I know people will hide behind `you are a Jinnah worshipper` and not address these facts and not answer questions... My responsibility was to apprise you of the facts and nothing more. Sometimes I wish Jinnah would have been more dictatorial and behaved more like a founder of the nation instead of a constitutional head... but he was too fine an individual, too constitutional minded to use his authority as the undisputed father of the nation... he could have forced the Constituent assembly to submit to his will and imposed a constitution based on the guidelines he had given in his 11th August speech... but he didn`t. In this he didn`t understand the utter stupidity of his people... maybe we needed a tough military man like Ataturk as the father of the nation who had spent ordering people instead of a liberal democrat who had spent his life debating constitutionally within the four walls of the parliament and the courhouse.
-YLH
Your understanding is incorrect. Don`t quote Romair on it... he usually bases his argument on nothing but his own interpretation... and in this case he is simply echoing an earlier piece of writing which frankly doesn`t make sense.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by dictatorial powers... if it means that Jinnah towered above all the rest in Muslim League, that was natural. If it means that as the Governor General of Pakistan, he exercised executive authority... Jinnah`s powers were those of the Governor General as given by the Government of India Act 1935. Infact Jinnah`s usage of these powers was less than what he was allowed to do. Infact if you read history you will realize that Jinnah was unable even to rein in Punjab Muslim League and its leadership of Daultana and Mamdot... and he was living only a few miles away in the `Jinnah House` near the new Lahore Airport... and remember not only was the constitutional Governor General but also the founder of the nation who could stamp his will more authoritatively. He didn`t even impose a constitution of his choice.... Nehru as the Prime Minister of India under the constitution of India framed in 1949 exercised more authority than Jinnah... Nehru was the statesman who towered above all others... does that mean he became dictatorial?
There was clamour from the leaguers especially leftist leaguers (irony) to make Pakistan a one party state (ofcourse after transforming Muslim league to Pakistan League and opening up the membership to all people ).... yet Jinnah did not ban all the other parties, but infact protected them against such propaganda... included in these parties was the `Pakistan National Congress` a sister association of the Indian National Congress. Jinnah`s idea of the Pakistan League also couldn`t be implemented because of public opinion against it.
So what was so dictatorial...? By December Jinnah was in Lahore... and the Government was operating in Karachi.... the claim that he presided over Cabinet sessions is based on the meeting for the solutions to the communal trouble and the rehabilitation of refugees. I read the official correspondence between the Cabinet ministers, and they are always addressed to the Prime Minister and never to Jinnah...
1) So Jinnah did not chair the cabinet meetings as claimed by Romair
2) He did not impose his constitution on the PCA
3) He did not make Pakistan a one party state
4) The ministers reported to the Prime Minister and not to Jinnah
5) None of Jinnah`s actions were in violation of Government of India Act 1935
(For reference please read B>Alan Mcgrath`s book `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` in which he rubbishes this argument. Also read Ayesha Jalal`s `The state of Martial rule` in which she hits back against this view that Jinnah`s assumption of GGship was wrong. Read K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the formative Phase`, I also refer to `Jinnah Papers` Volume VI `Pakistan Battling against all odds` especially the letters by Mandal, Chundrigar, Rab Nishtar, Francis Mudie and others. )
These are the facts ... now I know people will hide behind `you are a Jinnah worshipper` and not address these facts and not answer questions... My responsibility was to apprise you of the facts and nothing more. Sometimes I wish Jinnah would have been more dictatorial and behaved more like a founder of the nation instead of a constitutional head... but he was too fine an individual, too constitutional minded to use his authority as the undisputed father of the nation... he could have forced the Constituent assembly to submit to his will and imposed a constitution based on the guidelines he had given in his 11th August speech... but he didn`t. In this he didn`t understand the utter stupidity of his people... maybe we needed a tough military man like Ataturk as the father of the nation who had spent ordering people instead of a liberal democrat who had spent his life debating constitutionally within the four walls of the parliament and the courhouse.
-YLH
#137 Posted by MantoLives on April 9, 2004 11:39:00 pm
echoboom...
Ata ul Haq Qasmi is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the populist sentiments... he is not a writer... he is a rabble rouser and a liar.
His claims against the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater patriots than he is ... they have spoken out more on Kashmir and Palestine than he can give them credit for... and his claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his narrow minded vision.
The SDPI report doesn`t say anywhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.
If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like AtaulHaq Qasmi and Dushka Syed.
Ata ul Haq Qasmi is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the populist sentiments... he is not a writer... he is a rabble rouser and a liar.
His claims against the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater patriots than he is ... they have spoken out more on Kashmir and Palestine than he can give them credit for... and his claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his narrow minded vision.
The SDPI report doesn`t say anywhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.
If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like AtaulHaq Qasmi and Dushka Syed.
#138 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 6:17:10 am
A word about Sharifulmujahid... he admitted much to the shame of the entire `Quaid-e-Azam academy` that during his tenure as the director, he had ordered/created distortions in Fatima Jinnah`s `My Brother` book....
On 15th March this year the British Council held a meeting of all the schools affiliated with Cambridge International Examinations. I was representing the International School of Choueifat... there at the Cambridge meeting, the other reps started protesting the syllabus for Cambridge A Level Urdu which according to them was insensitive to the Pakistani people....
Sick of the nonsense, I finally spoke out... I told Dr. Fred Burke there was nothing wrong with the syllabus and that people should open their minds. After that the voices that were quiet started speaking out in agreement... and none of the people who were vocally protesting against the syllabus spoke after that.
If the extremists scream... You have to scream louder.
-YLH
#139 Posted by echoboom on April 10, 2004 6:17:11 am
#137 by Mantolives on April 9, 2004 11:39pm PT
echoboom...
Ata ul Haq Qasmi is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the populist sentiments... he is not a writer... he is a rabble rouser and a liar.
His claims against the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater patriots than he is ... they have spoken out more on Kashmir and Palestine than he can give them credit for... and his claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his narrow minded vision.
The SDPI report doesn`t say anywhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.
If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like AtaulHaq Qasmi and Dushka Syed.
REPLY to above:(*****) fill in your favourite writers. Also, the words in Caps are mine
(*****) is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the ELITIST sentiments... he is not a writer... he/SHE is an INTELLECTUALISER and a liar.
His/HER claims FOR the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater GORAAGOOS than he/she is ... they have NEVER spoken out on Kashmir and Palestine than he/she can give them credit for... and his/her claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is NOT a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his/her narrow minded vision.
The SDPI report says somewhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it DOESN``T says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.
If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like (*****).
P.S: (*****) fill in your favourite writers. Also, only the words in Caps are mine.
Either no one told you or it has not dawned upon you as yet:
You are already a genius!-- they acknowledge this behind your back; just out of politeness.
echoboom...
Ata ul Haq Qasmi is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the populist sentiments... he is not a writer... he is a rabble rouser and a liar.
His claims against the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater patriots than he is ... they have spoken out more on Kashmir and Palestine than he can give them credit for... and his claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his narrow minded vision.
The SDPI report doesn`t say anywhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.
If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like AtaulHaq Qasmi and Dushka Syed.
REPLY to above:(*****) fill in your favourite writers. Also, the words in Caps are mine
(*****) is the one the most illiterate people I have come across... I have heard him speak at places and he doesn`t even have a real argument ever, except appealing to the ELITIST sentiments... he is not a writer... he/SHE is an INTELLECTUALISER and a liar.
His/HER claims FOR the compilers of the SDPI report are based on lies. SDPI`s authors are greater GORAAGOOS than he/she is ... they have NEVER spoken out on Kashmir and Palestine than he/she can give them credit for... and his/her claim that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is NOT a conspiracy of America and Israel just proves his/her narrow minded vision.
The SDPI report says somewhere to make a hero out of Raja Dahir and condemn Muhammed bin Qasim... it DOESN``T says teach the kids real history instead of lies. No one is a hero or a villian as such... all are actors with their own interests subject to their own times.
If you ask me why we are in the pits today.. its because of people like (*****).
P.S: (*****) fill in your favourite writers. Also, only the words in Caps are mine.
Either no one told you or it has not dawned upon you as yet:
You are already a genius!-- they acknowledge this behind your back; just out of politeness.
#140 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 6:17:11 am
Dear Echo...
`` If you are not an illiterate goraagoochaater you will be able to read this ``
Given that I was a high achieving student in GCE A levels Urdu, I can read all the nonsense from the Urdu press that you are posting up here...
However we are well aware that Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah couldn`t speak Urdu very well nor read it. The only other script that he knew well other than English was the Gujurati script ... the script that is also there on his grave in Karachi.
Are you then suggesting that he too was an illiterate ``Goraagoochaater``?
-YLH
`` If you are not an illiterate goraagoochaater you will be able to read this ``
Given that I was a high achieving student in GCE A levels Urdu, I can read all the nonsense from the Urdu press that you are posting up here...
However we are well aware that Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah couldn`t speak Urdu very well nor read it. The only other script that he knew well other than English was the Gujurati script ... the script that is also there on his grave in Karachi.
Are you then suggesting that he too was an illiterate ``Goraagoochaater``?
-YLH
#141 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 6:17:11 am
PS: Echoboom.... Your quotes prove that Islam is completely and totally compatible with the working of a modern secular state... and that a Muslim majority state should not be a sharia honking theocracy but a modern secular democracy...
Am I right in my interpretation of your position?
#142 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 6:17:11 am
PS: On second thought to ascribe the idea of one party state especially to the leftists in the league is perhaps not accurate, since the greatest leftist of them all Iftikharuddin was then associated with two other parties ... 1) Azad Pakistan Party 2) Pakistan Peoples` Party (not the Bhutto one founded in 1967, but the party formed in early 1948 which was also joined by G M Syed and Abdul Ghaffar Khan).
Please ignore the part `especially the leftist leaguers (irony)` ...
#143 Posted by ferozk on April 10, 2004 7:09:46 am
re: Mantolives and bong-dongs
Thanks for correcting my mistake. I appreciate it. I was aware that during the Khailfat Movement, the Muslims and Hindus used to sing the song together, when there was a great deal of Hindu-Muslim unity specially after the Lucknow Pact of 1916. It was that reference, which made me make that statement and again, thanks for correcting my mistake.
Ciao
Thanks for correcting my mistake. I appreciate it. I was aware that during the Khailfat Movement, the Muslims and Hindus used to sing the song together, when there was a great deal of Hindu-Muslim unity specially after the Lucknow Pact of 1916. It was that reference, which made me make that statement and again, thanks for correcting my mistake.
Ciao
#144 Posted by echoboom on April 10, 2004 7:56:23 am
Mantolives:
Read THIS again. In your hatred against the Mulla, try not to lose your mental balance.
Sharia Law governs muslims, with or without state sanctions. It governs even a single muslim in a heathen land. There has not been yet a power which can undo that. Not that it is not attempted like the commies in recent history or by some ``civilised`` countries recently.
What muslims are trying is to bring back the highest level of civilisation the world has ever seen in human history. Even the muslims` worst enemy`s admit that.
This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not. In his speech on the Objectives Resolution, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1885-1949), the foremost alim of the day, who should know Islam much better than the half-baked, self-appointed clergy, declared categorically that “an Islamic state does not mean the ‘Government of the Ordained Priests’. How could Islam”, he asked, “countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words”: “They (The Jews and the Christians) took their priests/and their anchorites to be their lords besides Allah to (the) derogation to God (al-Quran, al-Ta’uba, 9:31)
[ summary : No Papacy(chritian), Punditcy(Hindu), Rabbicy(Jew) or Kaafircy(secularcy)]
Precisely because Islam does not have a separation of: spiritual and temporal, religious and secular, and mosque and state.]]
Articles 1 and 2 of the Misaq describe the Quraishite and Medinite (Yathrib) Muslims as “a political unit (ummah) as distinct from all the people (of the world)”, and Article 25 lays down that “verily the Jews of the Banu’ Awf shall be considered as a community (ummah) along with the Believers, for the Jews being their religion and for the Muslims their religion…” (Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution in the World; Lahore: Ashraf, 1968, pp. 41, 48). Articles 26-35 accord the same status to other Jewish tribes, which were also placed within the ummah canopy.
Islami Law or Sharia incorporates DEEN and DUNYAA, spiritual and secular. There is no need to USE labels like SECULAR [this label reflects a certain westernised mindset and gives an impression that suddenly something better is there. NOTHING better has yet been invented , and never will, for muslims and non-muslimsl other than the SHARIA]
Read THIS again. In your hatred against the Mulla, try not to lose your mental balance.
Sharia Law governs muslims, with or without state sanctions. It governs even a single muslim in a heathen land. There has not been yet a power which can undo that. Not that it is not attempted like the commies in recent history or by some ``civilised`` countries recently.
What muslims are trying is to bring back the highest level of civilisation the world has ever seen in human history. Even the muslims` worst enemy`s admit that.
This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not. In his speech on the Objectives Resolution, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1885-1949), the foremost alim of the day, who should know Islam much better than the half-baked, self-appointed clergy, declared categorically that “an Islamic state does not mean the ‘Government of the Ordained Priests’. How could Islam”, he asked, “countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words”: “They (The Jews and the Christians) took their priests/and their anchorites to be their lords besides Allah to (the) derogation to God (al-Quran, al-Ta’uba, 9:31)
[ summary : No Papacy(chritian), Punditcy(Hindu), Rabbicy(Jew) or Kaafircy(secularcy)]
Precisely because Islam does not have a separation of: spiritual and temporal, religious and secular, and mosque and state.]]
Articles 1 and 2 of the Misaq describe the Quraishite and Medinite (Yathrib) Muslims as “a political unit (ummah) as distinct from all the people (of the world)”, and Article 25 lays down that “verily the Jews of the Banu’ Awf shall be considered as a community (ummah) along with the Believers, for the Jews being their religion and for the Muslims their religion…” (Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution in the World; Lahore: Ashraf, 1968, pp. 41, 48). Articles 26-35 accord the same status to other Jewish tribes, which were also placed within the ummah canopy.
Islami Law or Sharia incorporates DEEN and DUNYAA, spiritual and secular. There is no need to USE labels like SECULAR [this label reflects a certain westernised mindset and gives an impression that suddenly something better is there. NOTHING better has yet been invented , and never will, for muslims and non-muslimsl other than the SHARIA]
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nkg: I was reading an... Karachi Riots! Who is
- tahmed32: Goldfinger #687 you are... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- nkg: Re: # 52 rf... that will... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- dost_mittar: Before any meaningful cooperatin... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 66 muthu anna, ... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 60 ekal... a lot... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- masanamuthu: And the whole... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- majumdar: Muthu, And the whole cycle... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
