Twilight of a Passionate Love Affair
Umair Raja August 9, 2004
#92 Posted by MantoLives on August 15, 2004 9:52:59 pm
Echo... atif2... etc...
You can twist turn and lie all you want till the 31st...
After the 31st... I will be back and I will settle all scores, past present and future...
Sincerely
YLH
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#91 Posted by echoboom on August 15, 2004 6:09:23 pm
The Last word.
The last speech of our beloved Quaid-e-Azam .
Excerpt from that speech:(state-bank)
``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 of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended 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``.
No comments.
& no further playing of the flute in front of the buffaloe-bills.
The last speech of our beloved Quaid-e-Azam .
Excerpt from that speech:(state-bank)
``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 of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended 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``.
No comments.
& no further playing of the flute in front of the buffaloe-bills.
#90 Posted by Raw_Dust on August 15, 2004 2:58:32 pm
Re: echoboom:
Answer post no.86 in plain english.
The extent of Islam`s ``tolerance`` towards Dhimmies is not the subject.
What Jinnah`s view for Pakistan as a modern, secular state IS being discussed and it is very clear from the following excerpt taken from his speech delivered on 11 August, 1947. Read the passage in its entirety instead of quoting second hand sources.
``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 States 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 where 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 Catholics and Protestants do not exist; 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. ``
Answer post no.86 in plain english.
The extent of Islam`s ``tolerance`` towards Dhimmies is not the subject.
What Jinnah`s view for Pakistan as a modern, secular state IS being discussed and it is very clear from the following excerpt taken from his speech delivered on 11 August, 1947. Read the passage in its entirety instead of quoting second hand sources.
``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 States 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 where 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 Catholics and Protestants do not exist; 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. ``
#89 Posted by echoboom on August 15, 2004 1:28:49 pm
S.M.Burke writes:
( as an Introduction to)
`` Jinnah Speeches``
by Salim Qureishi
oxford university press. 2000?
``Some commentators have suggested that Jinnah was too westernized to conceive Pakistan as an Islamic state. To support their argument they usually cite his speech* at the inaugural session of the Pakistani Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 .
``aside
[The infamous* `` you are free to go to your temples....`` blah blah blah. As if one ever needed permission to do that prior to the arrival of the British baboons or the bible/flag mafia-missionaries]
aside ends.
``However, when this is read with Jinnah`s other pronouncements it becomes quite clear that he was recommending generous treatment of non-Muslims not as a commendable secular principle but as a mandatory Islamic injunction. Only thirteen days later during the transfer of power ceremony on August 14 when Mountbatten praised the Emperor Akbar`s policy of political and religious tolerance, Jinnah pointed out: `The tolerance and goodwill that the Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back to thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet not only by words but by deedstreated the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs`.
``In his Eid Day message on November 13, 1939, he had already pointed out that `no injunction is considered by our Holy Prophet more imperative and more divinely binding than the devout but supreme realization of our duty of love and toleration towards all other human beings`.``
( as an Introduction to)
`` Jinnah Speeches``
by Salim Qureishi
oxford university press. 2000?
``Some commentators have suggested that Jinnah was too westernized to conceive Pakistan as an Islamic state. To support their argument they usually cite his speech* at the inaugural session of the Pakistani Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 .
``aside
[The infamous* `` you are free to go to your temples....`` blah blah blah. As if one ever needed permission to do that prior to the arrival of the British baboons or the bible/flag mafia-missionaries]
aside ends.
``However, when this is read with Jinnah`s other pronouncements it becomes quite clear that he was recommending generous treatment of non-Muslims not as a commendable secular principle but as a mandatory Islamic injunction. Only thirteen days later during the transfer of power ceremony on August 14 when Mountbatten praised the Emperor Akbar`s policy of political and religious tolerance, Jinnah pointed out: `The tolerance and goodwill that the Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back to thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet not only by words but by deedstreated the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs`.
``In his Eid Day message on November 13, 1939, he had already pointed out that `no injunction is considered by our Holy Prophet more imperative and more divinely binding than the devout but supreme realization of our duty of love and toleration towards all other human beings`.``
#88 Posted by echoboom on August 14, 2004 11:15:17 pm
#87 Posted by MantoLives on August 14, 2004 11:15:16 pm
Atif2
Thankyou for admitting you are a liar...
Now read my post again... and see that if people like you and followers Maudoodi believe in a sense of fairplay and equality, I will even be your ally.
Echoboom...
Your selective rendering will not change the facts... the fact is that Maulana Maudoodi when asked by the justice Kiyani if he agreed with Jinnah`s conception of Pakistan, replied that any such conception would be kufr. This is a well known fact. Maudoodi didn`t even consider Jinnah a Muslim... let alone agree with his conception of Pakistan... His opposition to the Pakistan Movement is well known. You are pretty much whitewashing History by lying again and again on these boards and your ilogs.
Clearly they don`t teach the real core ``HAQ`` or ``TRUTH`` which neither of you Chowk Mullahs learnt in your Madrassah... but rest assure is the core of the true Islam. When you can become truthful... and accurate... and when you can stop lying... then come and talk to me again.
Thankyou for admitting you are a liar...
Now read my post again... and see that if people like you and followers Maudoodi believe in a sense of fairplay and equality, I will even be your ally.
Echoboom...
Your selective rendering will not change the facts... the fact is that Maulana Maudoodi when asked by the justice Kiyani if he agreed with Jinnah`s conception of Pakistan, replied that any such conception would be kufr. This is a well known fact. Maudoodi didn`t even consider Jinnah a Muslim... let alone agree with his conception of Pakistan... His opposition to the Pakistan Movement is well known. You are pretty much whitewashing History by lying again and again on these boards and your ilogs.
Clearly they don`t teach the real core ``HAQ`` or ``TRUTH`` which neither of you Chowk Mullahs learnt in your Madrassah... but rest assure is the core of the true Islam. When you can become truthful... and accurate... and when you can stop lying... then come and talk to me again.
#86 Posted by MantoLives on August 14, 2004 11:15:16 pm
PS: The Phadda that happened happened because YOU atif insulted an Old man who we all respect by calling him all sorts of things under the sun.. because you are a pathological liar, you probably don`t remember...
As for the JI thing.... escapist made that story after he got his rearside whooped and the contradictions of his arguments exposed...
Here is the link:
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003740&channel=gulberg&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=
Everyone can see that you are a pathetic liar.
#85 Posted by PM on August 14, 2004 11:15:16 pm
Re. echoboom #79;
Nice attempt by you [and Mawdoodi] to reconcile Mawdoodi’s views with Jinnah’s pronouncements on secularism.
Alas, it is flawed.
You quote Mawdoodi: “To say, that by way of a principle the process of ‘tauhid’ (unity) is the base of freedom, equality and solidarity of the human species. Now if we see from this angle then according to Islam, the State will mean our endeavour, that these supreme and ideal principles be expressed as the space time forces,…”
Wrong. First, the process of Tawheed is based on the acceptance of a particular religious ideal; not one remotely discernible as common to all mankind—except, perhaps in the minds of some religious thinkers in their ivory-towers—far removed from the vicissitudes of practical political life.
In reality, seen from any angle, according to Islam, the State should (“will” being another matter altogether) endeavour to align law with these supreme and ideal principles as laid down in the Shariah and informed, of course by the Holy Qur’an and Sunnat.
(What space-time forces have to do with any of this I still haven’t figured, but then, Theoretical Physics never was my forte)
Now, while I may or may or not have problems with a political system based on such lofty ideals of Tawheed– whether or not that idea might inevitably lead to the creation of a superior class of folks— and putative equality and solidarity of the human species, what I do find more than a little troublesome is the attempt to marry the above position with Jinnah’s “The State has Nothing to do with Religion” (Manto will provide the exact words, but I’m sure I do not misrepresent the position here.)
Continues: … as if it is an aspiration that these principles be seen openly working in a definite human social organization. It is, therefore, in this meaning that the Islamic State is expressed as the theocracy (Hukumat-e-Ilahiya), and not in the sense that authority is conferred upon some representative (Zil) of God on earth, who under the excuse of his supposed innocence (infallibility) screens his despotic rule.`` It means that theocracy in Islam is not in the sense that there be some monopolist religious class, which alone should be the source to know the will of Allah. So this was the thinking of Allama Iqbal in the light of Islamic teachings and disposition.”
Never mind the wishful thinking that Islam (or any system that derives authority from a divinely mandated and incontrovertible source) will lead to a theocracy sans authority of a veritable monopolist “philosopher class”—human nature being what it is. What should be more than apparent is that even the best-case scenario makes for a happy system only within Islamia, or those cognizant of the supreme authority of the Quran/Shariah. (It would be interesting to know how such a system would treat Ahmedis.) It is far from clear that followers of other and no religions will not be “monopolized” by the noble Islamic theocracy, even one that somehow manages to rise above the pale of (Islamic) sectarian “favouritism”.
Unless, of course, you consider dimmhihood as the gold standard of justice in dealing with religious minorities in a modern nation state.
It would be interesting also to see how you or Mawdoodi would attempt to reconcile this problem- assuming, of course that you accept that Jinnah envisioned a modern nation-state in Pakistan, and that there (therefore) is an inherent problem in marrying it with the vision of Mawdoodi, however noble it may be.
And we’ll leave for later the discussion on why it’s silly to always compare Islam in it’s pristine, theoretical form (where, you know, there is no mullah class, no class inequality and everyone joins hands singing Kumbaya (since there are no more hungry to feed or poor to clothe) with those horrible religions of Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism, which, as we all know, must be inferior to Islam since they silly concepts like priesthood and trinities and whatnot!
Nice attempt by you [and Mawdoodi] to reconcile Mawdoodi’s views with Jinnah’s pronouncements on secularism.
Alas, it is flawed.
You quote Mawdoodi: “To say, that by way of a principle the process of ‘tauhid’ (unity) is the base of freedom, equality and solidarity of the human species. Now if we see from this angle then according to Islam, the State will mean our endeavour, that these supreme and ideal principles be expressed as the space time forces,…”
Wrong. First, the process of Tawheed is based on the acceptance of a particular religious ideal; not one remotely discernible as common to all mankind—except, perhaps in the minds of some religious thinkers in their ivory-towers—far removed from the vicissitudes of practical political life.
In reality, seen from any angle, according to Islam, the State should (“will” being another matter altogether) endeavour to align law with these supreme and ideal principles as laid down in the Shariah and informed, of course by the Holy Qur’an and Sunnat.
(What space-time forces have to do with any of this I still haven’t figured, but then, Theoretical Physics never was my forte)
Now, while I may or may or not have problems with a political system based on such lofty ideals of Tawheed– whether or not that idea might inevitably lead to the creation of a superior class of folks— and putative equality and solidarity of the human species, what I do find more than a little troublesome is the attempt to marry the above position with Jinnah’s “The State has Nothing to do with Religion” (Manto will provide the exact words, but I’m sure I do not misrepresent the position here.)
Continues: … as if it is an aspiration that these principles be seen openly working in a definite human social organization. It is, therefore, in this meaning that the Islamic State is expressed as the theocracy (Hukumat-e-Ilahiya), and not in the sense that authority is conferred upon some representative (Zil) of God on earth, who under the excuse of his supposed innocence (infallibility) screens his despotic rule.`` It means that theocracy in Islam is not in the sense that there be some monopolist religious class, which alone should be the source to know the will of Allah. So this was the thinking of Allama Iqbal in the light of Islamic teachings and disposition.”
Never mind the wishful thinking that Islam (or any system that derives authority from a divinely mandated and incontrovertible source) will lead to a theocracy sans authority of a veritable monopolist “philosopher class”—human nature being what it is. What should be more than apparent is that even the best-case scenario makes for a happy system only within Islamia, or those cognizant of the supreme authority of the Quran/Shariah. (It would be interesting to know how such a system would treat Ahmedis.) It is far from clear that followers of other and no religions will not be “monopolized” by the noble Islamic theocracy, even one that somehow manages to rise above the pale of (Islamic) sectarian “favouritism”.
Unless, of course, you consider dimmhihood as the gold standard of justice in dealing with religious minorities in a modern nation state.
It would be interesting also to see how you or Mawdoodi would attempt to reconcile this problem- assuming, of course that you accept that Jinnah envisioned a modern nation-state in Pakistan, and that there (therefore) is an inherent problem in marrying it with the vision of Mawdoodi, however noble it may be.
And we’ll leave for later the discussion on why it’s silly to always compare Islam in it’s pristine, theoretical form (where, you know, there is no mullah class, no class inequality and everyone joins hands singing Kumbaya (since there are no more hungry to feed or poor to clothe) with those horrible religions of Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism, which, as we all know, must be inferior to Islam since they silly concepts like priesthood and trinities and whatnot!
#83 Posted by echoboom on August 14, 2004 5:51:47 pm
Hum Mustafavi haiN
Recorded in 1974: Music Sohail Rana: Voice Mehdi Zaheer
story behind the event:
The Second Islamic conference was scheduled. Time was short. JamilUDDIn wrote the song and as you will notice that it is in ``rajaz`` meter. It was decided that either Umm-Kulsoom or subhaan [ the great singers from egypt] would be retained. Sohail Rana suggested that we should use our own talent. Mehdi Zaheer, of Radio pakistaN- A legend in his own lifetime both as a scholar and as an artist. His recorded songs in Arabic were already popular in the Middle East but he was himself pretty shy and evasive of publicity & commercialism.
The galloping and advancing of horses, after the introductrey [rajaz] which was a part of battle protocol and strict rule among arabs, is a masterpiece in music composition by a genius as well as singing by another genius.
Enjoy!
Pakistan ko Salgirah Mubarak ho.
PakistaaniON ko salgiraaH mubarak ho.
CHOWK ko salgirah mubarak ho.
Recorded in 1974: Music Sohail Rana: Voice Mehdi Zaheer
story behind the event:
The Second Islamic conference was scheduled. Time was short. JamilUDDIn wrote the song and as you will notice that it is in ``rajaz`` meter. It was decided that either Umm-Kulsoom or subhaan [ the great singers from egypt] would be retained. Sohail Rana suggested that we should use our own talent. Mehdi Zaheer, of Radio pakistaN- A legend in his own lifetime both as a scholar and as an artist. His recorded songs in Arabic were already popular in the Middle East but he was himself pretty shy and evasive of publicity & commercialism.
The galloping and advancing of horses, after the introductrey [rajaz] which was a part of battle protocol and strict rule among arabs, is a masterpiece in music composition by a genius as well as singing by another genius.
Enjoy!
Pakistan ko Salgirah Mubarak ho.
PakistaaniON ko salgiraaH mubarak ho.
CHOWK ko salgirah mubarak ho.
#82 Posted by anil on August 14, 2004 5:23:19 pm
Dear Romair (#77 by Romair on August 14, 2004 7:33am PT)
``Our children will be Canadian Muslims. Assuming we stay here, we have decided to raise them as 100% Canadians. Not Pakistani-Canadians or Canadian-Pakistanis. There identity will be Canada.``
How can you be so sure... What if they exercise their rights guaranteed by constitution of the land, and change their land or religion. What if the nation-state identity fades in their life time. I have two daughters who were born and grew up in California, believe me what you are saying is easier said than done, and quite wishful.
``So when Pakistan plays Canada in the cricket world cup, I might be cheering for Pakistan, and they will be cheering for Canada.``
This seems like a diktat from a proud father... please don`t predict the future... that ``....they will be cheering for Canada.`` The is to give good family values, education and let them feel proud of themselves and their identity. After that the only thing a father can do is become a number one fan and number cheerleader..
Good luck... in growing up the family of Canadians...
Anil
``Our children will be Canadian Muslims. Assuming we stay here, we have decided to raise them as 100% Canadians. Not Pakistani-Canadians or Canadian-Pakistanis. There identity will be Canada.``
How can you be so sure... What if they exercise their rights guaranteed by constitution of the land, and change their land or religion. What if the nation-state identity fades in their life time. I have two daughters who were born and grew up in California, believe me what you are saying is easier said than done, and quite wishful.
``So when Pakistan plays Canada in the cricket world cup, I might be cheering for Pakistan, and they will be cheering for Canada.``
This seems like a diktat from a proud father... please don`t predict the future... that ``....they will be cheering for Canada.`` The is to give good family values, education and let them feel proud of themselves and their identity. After that the only thing a father can do is become a number one fan and number cheerleader..
Good luck... in growing up the family of Canadians...
Anil
#81 Posted by atif2 on August 14, 2004 1:52:06 pm
echoboom sahib - # 79 post was a very interesting read. In fact, if one is open minded, rational thinker, and is not consumed by hatred and bigotry, he/she would come to understand that although maududi was wrong in somethings (humans as we all are), he was right, and very modern in many things too. For those who call maududi a mullah, are in fact narrow minded mullahs themselves.
Thanks for sharing this post.
Thanks for sharing this post.
#80 Posted by echoboom on August 14, 2004 12:38:40 pm
It should never ever be forgotten that It was Maulana Maudoodi himself who was invited by Allama Iqbal to set up a Islami-model (experimental) township. He asked him to leave Hyderabad Dakkan and move to Pathankote. This was done as planned, land acquired and instituitons established and continued till the partition upheaval.
[To snuff out any ambiguity here and to quelch any word-corruption so as to justify WESTERNISM--never ever utter the word `secularism` Such attention somehow lends it some credence: always but always call it WESTERNISM--an alien concept, an enemy-alien concept; like cannibalism ]
Q. Concerning the fact, that Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam were against theocracy, it is said, that using all means, you intend to lead Pakistan to theocracy?
It is a fact and the same has been clearly expressed by Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, that Islam is not theocracy. Taking advantage of such statements (of the founders), some people try to impress that we held different opinion from them. In fact, these people forget that where Allama Iqbal discussed this subject, is the sixth speech of his ‘Khutbat’. The sense in which he expressed it in the speech is, that, ``To say, that by way of a principle the process of ‘tauhid’ (unity) is the base of freedom, equality and solidarity of the human species. Now if we see from this angle then according to Islam, the State will mean our endeavour, that these supreme and ideal principles be expressed as the space time forces, as if it is an aspiration that these principles be seen openly working in a definite human social organization. It is, therefore, in this meaning that the Islamic State is expressed as the theocracy (Hukumat-e-Ilahiya), and not in the sense that authority is conferred upon some representative (Zil) of God on earth, who under the excuse of his supposed innocence (infallibility) screens his despotic rule.`` It means that theocracy in Islam is not in the sense that there be some monopolist religious class, which alone should be the source to know the will of Allah. So this was the thinking of Allama Iqbal in the light of Islamic teachings and disposition.
Quaid-e-Azam has said, that he was against theocracy, because there was no concept of such a class in Islam that would enjoy the monopoly in religion, as it is found in Budhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism. The same thing has always been said in the same tone by Sayyed Abul a’ala Mawdudi and Jama’at-e-Islami, that, ``We are against theocracy; that theocracy has no relation to Islamic system``. In this respect, Maulana Mawdudi’s view could be ascertained from his books. Now, if an educated person does not go through all this, and considers the false Western accusations and slander to be sufficient knowledge, then it is only a proof of his fooly and narrow-mindedness.
In fact Allama Iqbal, Quaid-e-Azam and Sayyed Abul A’ala Mawdudi held similar view. Those who are attempting to create conflict in them and a division at the practical level, are not showing intellectual honesty, or else, instead of looking for the facts, they are prone to secular biases. Such elements neither understand theocracy, nor they are aware of the social, economic, international and political thoughts in Islam. I understand that from this aspect, they should correct their view point at the national level, so that we are able to put to practice the message given by Allama Iqbal and for which the Quaid struggled. As far as Maulana Mawdudi is concerned, he was an exponent of this thinking at the ideological front and proclaimed it in practical life
[To snuff out any ambiguity here and to quelch any word-corruption so as to justify WESTERNISM--never ever utter the word `secularism` Such attention somehow lends it some credence: always but always call it WESTERNISM--an alien concept, an enemy-alien concept; like cannibalism ]
Q. Concerning the fact, that Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam were against theocracy, it is said, that using all means, you intend to lead Pakistan to theocracy?
It is a fact and the same has been clearly expressed by Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, that Islam is not theocracy. Taking advantage of such statements (of the founders), some people try to impress that we held different opinion from them. In fact, these people forget that where Allama Iqbal discussed this subject, is the sixth speech of his ‘Khutbat’. The sense in which he expressed it in the speech is, that, ``To say, that by way of a principle the process of ‘tauhid’ (unity) is the base of freedom, equality and solidarity of the human species. Now if we see from this angle then according to Islam, the State will mean our endeavour, that these supreme and ideal principles be expressed as the space time forces, as if it is an aspiration that these principles be seen openly working in a definite human social organization. It is, therefore, in this meaning that the Islamic State is expressed as the theocracy (Hukumat-e-Ilahiya), and not in the sense that authority is conferred upon some representative (Zil) of God on earth, who under the excuse of his supposed innocence (infallibility) screens his despotic rule.`` It means that theocracy in Islam is not in the sense that there be some monopolist religious class, which alone should be the source to know the will of Allah. So this was the thinking of Allama Iqbal in the light of Islamic teachings and disposition.
Quaid-e-Azam has said, that he was against theocracy, because there was no concept of such a class in Islam that would enjoy the monopoly in religion, as it is found in Budhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism. The same thing has always been said in the same tone by Sayyed Abul a’ala Mawdudi and Jama’at-e-Islami, that, ``We are against theocracy; that theocracy has no relation to Islamic system``. In this respect, Maulana Mawdudi’s view could be ascertained from his books. Now, if an educated person does not go through all this, and considers the false Western accusations and slander to be sufficient knowledge, then it is only a proof of his fooly and narrow-mindedness.
In fact Allama Iqbal, Quaid-e-Azam and Sayyed Abul A’ala Mawdudi held similar view. Those who are attempting to create conflict in them and a division at the practical level, are not showing intellectual honesty, or else, instead of looking for the facts, they are prone to secular biases. Such elements neither understand theocracy, nor they are aware of the social, economic, international and political thoughts in Islam. I understand that from this aspect, they should correct their view point at the national level, so that we are able to put to practice the message given by Allama Iqbal and for which the Quaid struggled. As far as Maulana Mawdudi is concerned, he was an exponent of this thinking at the ideological front and proclaimed it in practical life
#79 Posted by atif2 on August 14, 2004 12:38:39 pm
Manto - Two things.
One, there was a huge PHADDA on chowk a few weeks ago where you posted some 20 threads using swear words for escapist and myself. That whole phadda was because you were baited into agreeing with JI solution. I don`t need to go and spend time looking for all the threads and interacts. Everyone on chowk remembers what you said.
Two, why is it that every conversation with you ends being about mullah bashing and Jinnah??? I mean this is an article about a man`s journey from America to Canada. We were all discussing that. But as soon as you jumped into the discussion, suddenly we find ourselves talking about mullahs in Pakistan and Jinnah !!!!!
Is it because a) you are morbidly possessed and obssessed by mullahs? or b) mullah bashing and jinnah are the only topics you know something about (as opposed to other interactors who talk about various topics from science, technology, culture, travelogues etc) and thats why you keep turning every discussion into that same direction???
One, there was a huge PHADDA on chowk a few weeks ago where you posted some 20 threads using swear words for escapist and myself. That whole phadda was because you were baited into agreeing with JI solution. I don`t need to go and spend time looking for all the threads and interacts. Everyone on chowk remembers what you said.
Two, why is it that every conversation with you ends being about mullah bashing and Jinnah??? I mean this is an article about a man`s journey from America to Canada. We were all discussing that. But as soon as you jumped into the discussion, suddenly we find ourselves talking about mullahs in Pakistan and Jinnah !!!!!
Is it because a) you are morbidly possessed and obssessed by mullahs? or b) mullah bashing and jinnah are the only topics you know something about (as opposed to other interactors who talk about various topics from science, technology, culture, travelogues etc) and thats why you keep turning every discussion into that same direction???
#78 Posted by MantoLives on August 14, 2004 9:12:42 am
Atif2...
Ah... yaar where does your Islam run off to ... everytime the simple requirement of truth or Haq comes up...
Since you claim that I am on the record agreeing with Jamaat-e-Islami... I challenge you to show us exactly where I agreed to JI... I said that if Jamaat-e-Islami believes in a `non-theocratic, Liberal, democratic Islamic state`... then I agree.. but clearly they don`t. As for Mullahs not being real culprits... again this is your imagination. I said that corrupt and hedonistic elite of the country is allied to the Mullahs who are the real culprits.
I still hold on to both beliefs... I still believe that if Jamaat-e-Islami is willing to work for a `non-theocratic liberal democratic Islamic state` but it has to be all of that and nothing less ... I will welcome them, and I have always believed that Pakistan`s decadent elite is too selfish ... and so they are allied with the real culprits..
Here is the thread where I supposedly have agreed with what you say I have agreed with...
now if you have even an ounce of self respect in your body... you will show us where I said what I said...
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003740&channel=gulberg&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1
But you can`t.... and that is precisely why I think you and your hypocrite buddies here are a bunch of liars...
Now go and learn the essence of Islam i.e. ``HAQ` or `TRUTH`... ah but you didn`t really learn that lesson in your Madrassah did you ... you little twit...
-YLH
#77 Posted by Romair on August 14, 2004 7:33:35 am
vereesh #28: ``Will Romair or anyone else here please bring the shairi into English, please? Grateful indeed``
Too difficult and time-consuming to translate. You will have to learn Urdu......I thought everyone in Delhi understood Urdu or Hindi.....
satish #29: ````Mujh tak kab unki bazm me aata tha daur-e-jaam
Saqi ne kuchh mila na diya ho sharaab me``
phir dekhiye andaaz-e-gul_afshaanii-e-guftaar....
rakh de ko_ii paimaanaa-e-sahabaa mere aage
nazarhayatkhan #30: ``No matter what you say, you will always miss Margalla, dust, noise, chaos, mamoons, uncles, servants, world of your youth.....
However, your children will be proper Canadians. Actually you are sacrificing your life for your children.``
Yes, you are correct. Margalla and Pakistan is my identity. It is always good to have an identity, so that one does not remain in a state of confusion. Everyone will always view me as a Pakistani, regardless of where I go............
Our children will be Canadian Muslims. Assuming we stay here, we have decided to raise them as 100% Canadians. Not Pakistani-Canadians or Canadian-Pakistanis. There identity will be Canada. So when Pakistan plays Canada in the cricket world cup, I might be cheering for Pakistan, and they will be cheering for Canada. They definitely will have it much easier than I have had it. But, I think their vision of the world will be quite a bit more limited than mine. They will have only lived in Toronto. Not in Toronto and Mianwali and Badin.
dost-mittar #32: ``Vo aayen hamare kaneda mein khuda ki kudrat hai
Kabhi hum unko kabhi apne kaneda ko dekhate hain! ``
aap say mil kar hum kuch badal say gayee
shair parhaney lagay; gungunay lagay
pehley mash-hoor thee apni sanjeedagi
abb to jub daikheyaay, muskoranay lagay
aslam644: ``Could it be you are in love with Canada because of it’s similarities with Kashmir. Lakes, pine forests, frozen wastelands,mountains``
Actually, I have never lived in Kashmir. Used to visit it regularly. I have driven or flown through much or its (and Northern areas) beautiful parts, from Chitral to Rawalakot to Muzzafarabad. The truly beautiful part of Canada is on the West coast, along Vancouver and Victoria etc. Vancouver is simply breathtaking. It is like a postcard. As are the roads between Rawalakot and Muzzafarabad. For those who have not visited Kashmir, there are some rest houses along these roads, that are the most beautiful I have ever seen in my life. As is the view from the Simon Fraser campus and Grouse Mountain in Vancouver....
Too difficult and time-consuming to translate. You will have to learn Urdu......I thought everyone in Delhi understood Urdu or Hindi.....
satish #29: ````Mujh tak kab unki bazm me aata tha daur-e-jaam
Saqi ne kuchh mila na diya ho sharaab me``
phir dekhiye andaaz-e-gul_afshaanii-e-guftaar....
rakh de ko_ii paimaanaa-e-sahabaa mere aage
nazarhayatkhan #30: ``No matter what you say, you will always miss Margalla, dust, noise, chaos, mamoons, uncles, servants, world of your youth.....
However, your children will be proper Canadians. Actually you are sacrificing your life for your children.``
Yes, you are correct. Margalla and Pakistan is my identity. It is always good to have an identity, so that one does not remain in a state of confusion. Everyone will always view me as a Pakistani, regardless of where I go............
Our children will be Canadian Muslims. Assuming we stay here, we have decided to raise them as 100% Canadians. Not Pakistani-Canadians or Canadian-Pakistanis. There identity will be Canada. So when Pakistan plays Canada in the cricket world cup, I might be cheering for Pakistan, and they will be cheering for Canada. They definitely will have it much easier than I have had it. But, I think their vision of the world will be quite a bit more limited than mine. They will have only lived in Toronto. Not in Toronto and Mianwali and Badin.
dost-mittar #32: ``Vo aayen hamare kaneda mein khuda ki kudrat hai
Kabhi hum unko kabhi apne kaneda ko dekhate hain! ``
aap say mil kar hum kuch badal say gayee
shair parhaney lagay; gungunay lagay
pehley mash-hoor thee apni sanjeedagi
abb to jub daikheyaay, muskoranay lagay
aslam644: ``Could it be you are in love with Canada because of it’s similarities with Kashmir. Lakes, pine forests, frozen wastelands,mountains``
Actually, I have never lived in Kashmir. Used to visit it regularly. I have driven or flown through much or its (and Northern areas) beautiful parts, from Chitral to Rawalakot to Muzzafarabad. The truly beautiful part of Canada is on the West coast, along Vancouver and Victoria etc. Vancouver is simply breathtaking. It is like a postcard. As are the roads between Rawalakot and Muzzafarabad. For those who have not visited Kashmir, there are some rest houses along these roads, that are the most beautiful I have ever seen in my life. As is the view from the Simon Fraser campus and Grouse Mountain in Vancouver....
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ajeya: #136 mohar11 The ONLY caveat... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ajeya: #136 mohar11 Amen to... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- masadi: Ras writes "RE: #6... Three Cups of Tea
- Inaara: http://allpoetry.com/poem/3988919
Inaara... Demon - Inaara: I was moved by... Demon
- pmishra2: Thanks, KaalChakra for posting... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- pmishra2: ugh, yet another of... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- captainjohann: Nobody is stopping legal... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
