Why We Need Islamization of Science

Re: # 537

Will wait for your post. It is sad that people like you are so driven by hate as to prove something that just can`t be proven.

Re: # 538

Yes I know your objective... and it is clear from your posts that you have failed miserably in it as usual.

Re: # 536

As has become a habit with you, you are jumping to conclusions. My aim is to prove that Jinnah was an opportunist of the worst kind who caused the massacre of lakhs of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs just to satisfy his ego. Like a cat on a hot tin roof, only you are getting jumpy and agitated.

May I suggest you stay calm till I come back online tomorrow?

Manto,

I have read your post. I will present a detailed reply when I`m back online tomorrow.

Re: # 535

PS: Harish Hyd

Please also observe how you are now jumping from argument to argument. You had raised a point about an alleged quote to question my stance on a secular Pakistan. It turned out to be from Maulana Mohamed Ali. Then you moved on to the inviability of Pakistan and how the creation of Bangladesh proved it wrong... when I showed you that the original demand had many states and not just one, you ``golmoled`` it. Now you have moved on to the issue of the loss of life during partition, which I have answered above.

What do you call this? I call this desperation on your part, arising from a refusal to read objective history.

Re: # 534

For a person who was untill yesterday confusing two very different South Asian leaders, you seem to speak like you are an authority... which is just sad. It is no wonder that you take such a simplistic view of history:

``In that case, what was the demand for Pakistan all about? Care to explain?``

The Pakistan demand was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. It has been proved by the transfer of power papers and many researchers including Mr. H M Seervai, the constitution expert from India and a historian.

``The professed aim of ‘your’ (since you seem to love that word) Jinnah and his cohorts was a nation where Muslims would be in a majority, where they need not fear domination by Hindus.``

No... please refer to my response to Rahul Capri.

Also thanks for admitting that the creation of Bangladesh in no way was a negation of the so called Pakistan demand. Bangladesh was always envisaged in the original resolution as an independent entity.


``And you have proved that love is indeed blind. In your worship of Jinnah, you seem blind to his faults. History holds him guilty for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus as well as Muslims, not to forget Sikhs.``

No responsible historian does that, be it Ainslee T Embree, Raj Mohan Gandhi, H V Hodson or Wolpert... ofcourse some journalese authors (mostly Indian) have their own way of looking at things, but then they never claimed to be historians. In fact quite the contrary a serious historian and legal luminary of India, H M Seervai holds Nehru and Patel responsible. Now here is a respected member of the Indian legal fraternity going through the transfer of power papers and coming to this conclusions. The fact is no matter how you look at it.. the massacres of hindus muslims and sikhs happened because of the partition of Bengal and Punjab, to which Muslim League was opposed. If at all you will find a scape goat it will be Nehru, Patel and Mountbatten who insisted on the partition of these provinces... creating the havoc.

Love is not blind... but hatred certainly is .. of which you are a perfect case. You refuse to read history, you make awful errors, and you think that you can rationalize the past in your head. No wonder Pakistan-India relations are doomed... because people like you represent the future.

I can just hope that some day you will pick up a reasonable book on history and bury those snakes of hate...

-YLH

#532 by Mantolives

[1) Neither Iqbal, nor the famous Lahore Resolution by Zafrullah Khan envisaged that all Muslims would come to Pakistan. In fact both were clear in stating that there would be no exchange of populations.]

In that case, what was the demand for Pakistan all about? Care to explain? The professed aim of ‘your’ (since you seem to love that word) Jinnah and his cohorts was a nation where Muslims would be in a majority, where they need not fear domination by Hindus. If there was to be no exchange of populations, don’t you think it was a meaningless demand?

[2) The Lahore Resolution did not speak of ONE state. Iqbal for example only spoke of the North west India... and Rahmat Ali gave the idea of ``Pakistan`` and ``Bang-e-Islam/Bangistan`` ... Even as late as 1947, Jinnah was ready to entertain the idea of an independent Bengal... it was your Nehru who balked and said this would lead to ``Balkanization`` of India...]

Please tell me where I have disputed that. One or two, the idea was to have Muslim-majority nation/s, where Muslims need not have to fear subjugation by Hindus.

[On both counts you have proved that little knowledge is dangerous.]

And you have proved that love is indeed blind. In your worship of Jinnah, you seem blind to his faults. History holds him guilty for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus as well as Muslims, not to forget Sikhs.

Re: # 529

Your conclusion is based on a defective premise...

Jinnah and the League had actually offered a confederal sikh unit to the Sikh leaders within Pakistan.

Master Tara Singh was under influence of Nehru...

Re: # 530

First you confuse Maulana Mohammed Ali, held as a great hero by your Gandhiji, with Mr. Jinnah ... and now you are attributing ideas that I have not expressed. Please do show me where I have said that Jinnah used Islam to instill a spirit of Muslim nationalism... quite the contrary, I said that it was the lack of religiousity which made him attractive to all Muslim sects.

Jinnah`s final objectives were not to create Pakistan. That much is clear from H M Seervai`s book ``Partition of India: Legend and Reality`` ... and the transfer of power papers.

Now taking your argument at face value... the Pakistan Demand from day 1 never incorporated the two ``ideas`` you are attributing to it...

1) Neither Iqbal, nor the famous Lahore Resolution by Zafrullah Khan envisaged that all Muslims would come to Pakistan. In fact both were clear in stating that there would be no exchange of populations.

2) The Lahore Resolution did not speak of ONE state. Iqbal for example only spoke of the North west India... and Rahmat Ali gave the idea of ``Pakistan`` and ``Bang-e-Islam/Bangistan`` ... Even as late as 1947, Jinnah was ready to entertain the idea of an independent Bengal... it was your Nehru who balked and said this would lead to ``Balkanization`` of India...

So in essence your Indira ji basically finished off her Father`s idea of two states instead of three in 1971.

On both counts you have proved that little knowledge is dangerous.

Some interesting news about the ba$tard mullahs trying their best to reclaim the theological roots of TNT!!

Islamists mount big anti-Pervez protest

REUTERS[ WEDNESDAY, MARCH 09, 2005 11:27:20 PM ]

ISLAMABAD: Several thousand Islamists protested on Wednesday against policies of President Pervez Musharraf that they said are turning Pakistan into a secular state.

Shouting ``Down with Musharraf`` and ``friend of America is a traitor to Islam,`` about 5,000 followers of Islamic parties rallied amid Musharraf`s calls for people to combat extremism and stop the misuse of mosques and madrassas.

``The rulers want to turn Pakistan into a secular state,`` Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a central leader of the six-party Islamic alliance told an emotionally-charged rally. ``But we will never allow them to do so,`` he promised as the crowd cheered.

The latest confrontation between Musharraf and Islamic parties erupted after the government issued new machine-readable passports in October. In line with international standards, they do not include a column specifying the holder`s religion.

Previously, Pakistani passports required bearers to state whether they were Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or affiliates of other religions.

The change has enraged Islamists, who have vowed protests to force the government to reverse it. ``The column of religion was removed to appease America,`` said Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the main Islamic opposition alliance.

``We will not accept any change in Islamic laws. They will face strong reaction if they tried to do so,`` said Ahmed.

Islamic groups hope to use the issue to strengthen their anti-Musharraf campaign, which has so far failed to mount any major challenge to the military ruler who in December backed down on his pledge to step down as chief of the country`s powerful army.

#528 by Mantolives

[Now will you consider the possibility that since your premise was wrong... my conclusion might be right ?]

Absolutely not. Your premise was that Jinnah rallied Muslims in the name of Islam to instil a sense of Muslim nationalism in them. While it worked in that it helped Jinnah secure Pakistan, it was overall a failure, because of two reasons:

1. Bangladesh proved that Islam/Muslim identity alone cannot work as the unifying gel.

2. Jinnah demanded a separate nation for Muslims because he feared they would be relegated to second-class stature. Muslims left behind in India have proved that fear wrong.

Re: # 523
Re: # 517

Manto,

I will try to get hold of that book here in US, not sure how I can obtain it,
but meanwhile had a question if you would consider to answer...

If what you say is that Mr. Jinnah was seeking parity at the center (for Muslims I guess
since after 1937 he became spokesman for Muslims only),
and suppose that Pakistan would have come into existence without partition of Punjab
and Bengal thus inheriting large percentage of minorities (mainly Hindus and Sikhs),
was/would_have Mr. Jinnah promising/promised parity at the center for them?

If not, why? Because if he was asking for it, he should be willing to give it also, for the same reasons!
Or would he then have expected such people who did not trust him and
Muslim Leage thereby asking for parity at the center to leave Pakistan for India?
What was Muslim League proclaiming or offering them in the new nation that would have
made them not seek parity at the center?

Re: # 527

Now will you consider the possibility that since your premise was wrong... my conclusion might be right ?

Re: # 526

Thanks for the retraction... you have in the past acted in such a way as taking a condescending tone towards me.

#519 by Mantolives

OK Manto, I`m sorry I was wrong about it. It was indeed Maulana Mohammed Ali.

But when and where did I claim about being informed about South Asian history? It is puzzling.

Ladies and gentlemen...

It is sad to see a person like Harish Hyd, who claims to be informed about South Asian History, confusing Mohammed Ali of the Ali Brothers with Mr. Jinnah.

Sadly... people don`t listen when I tell them to read more. Mohammed Ali, Gandhi`s ally, had an axe to grind with Gandhi in 1924... after Gandhi left the Khilafat Movement. Gandhi also made a similar statement: ``I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian``.

Poor Jinnah had nothing to do with any of these statements by the two leaders held by the Indians as great freedom fighters... a.k.a Gandhi and Maulana Muhammad Ali.