You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” - Jinnah.
PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues
Secular Pakistan - The Vision of M.A. Jinnah, Who Hijacked it?
(477 posts)-
Not Possible
BlockedPosted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 17:39 # -
shafiq12
memberPossible
You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” - Jinnah.
The statement has nothing to do with secularism, Don't put ur own personal thoughts on the view of Quaid, The statement only shows the freedom given to minorities and Islam give this freedom.
Secularism is Curse, Secularism destroy Moral values.
Moral values, such as honesty, trustworthiness, justice and chastity, are originally innate values which Allah planted in the hearts of mankind; then He sent His messengers with a system of life in accord with this innate disposition to affirm it.
"So set your face toward the religion, as one by nature upright; the instinctive (religion) which Allah has created in mankind. There is no altering (the laws) of Allah's creation. That is the right religion but most people do not know." [Surat Al-Rum:30].
A believer adheres to these moral values because his nature, fortified by faith, induces him to do so, and because the religion he believes in commands him with them and promises him a reward for them in the Hereafter.
Secularism, on the other hand, even in its less virulent form that satisfies itself with removing religion from political life, rejecting it and the innate values as a basis for legislation, undermines the two foundations for moral values in the hearts of mankind. As for secularism in its extreme atheistic form, it completely demolishes these two foundations and replaces them with human whims, either the whims of a few rulers in dictatorial systems or the whims of the majority in democratic systems.
"Have you seen the one who has taken his own desire as his god? Would you then be a guardian over him?" [Al-Furqan:43].
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 18:16 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: You are missrepresenting Mr. Jinnah. What he's talking about here is 'religious freedom' in a Muslim state.
A Muslim state as per Islam from Muhammad (SAW) is 'plural' in nature. Every person has 'freedom' to excersize his or her religion.
Secondly, there is no 'discrimination' among Muslims based on caste, creed, colour, language, etc etc.
First question;
(1) How do you substantiate this claim of Mr. Jinnah wanting a 'secular' Pakistan ?
I claim;
(a) Mr. Allama Iqbal
(b) Mr. Jinnah
(c) as well all the millions of Muslims of Indian subcontinentwho struggled for Pakistan, who made Pakistan possible, none of them wanted 'secular' Pakistan or 'secularism' in Pakistan.
..and I can prove my claim through rational arguments. I have words of Mr. Jinnah as evidence. And I have more arguments to support my claim.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 18:19 # -
khanseena1
MemberThe religious parties, feudals and generals.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 18:35 # -
Interestingly, this ad was in the paper today:
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 18:58 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@khanseena1: How do you substantiate your claim ?
This is just the first question, of the many I have for you, all of you, who subscribe to secularism.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 18:59 # -
Not Possible
BlockedPeople play with words all the time. Dont pick on words focus on the underlying concept.
What is secularism? a divine constitution? only religous law is divine. Islam is divine.
By Secularism I dont mean absence of religion, not at all. By secularism I mean freedom to pratice ones religion, free from oppression and persecution in the name of faith, ethnicty, caste creed or language. Thats exactly what the Quaid said.
If the defintion I ascribe to Secularism holds true, i.e. freedom to express or live according to ones faith and values is a true sense of secularism, then according to what you have said that Islam gurantees these freedoms that would mean the divine law of Islam itself is secular.
Consider this if Islam gives these freedoms to minorities and we didnt consider secularism as a western god less concept but one that Islam itself gave then would the word secular seem that bad?
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 19:16 # -
Not Possible
BlockedQuaid-e-Azam was a Khoja Ithna Ashari Shia, according to your version of Pakistan he would be called kafir in his own state and persecuted, hounded and butchered to death.
So basicaly the Quaids vison was to create a State where he would have been abused, called a kafir and then be killed. hmm intresting very intresting. fascinating!
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 19:16 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: If you want to use Mr. Jinnah as your 'scapegoat', then I'll prove to you through Mr. Jinnah's discourse, that he wanted a Muslim Pakistan, a Muslim state, a state where Islam's ways, principles, standards, rules, laws, etc etc will be implemented.
Then we can later talk about 'secularism', it being at odds with Islam, and why, as well as about 'those' who subscribe to secularism.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 19:32 # -
Pakistan was carved out of the subcontinent as a Muslim Majority State so that Muslims would live without any fear of oppression or subjugation being ruled by a Hindu Majority.
State Religion according to its constitution is Islam.
When Islam as a deen is there for Muslims to follow and abide by than there is no place left for any man made flawed -isms or –als to be slotted in.
As long as a very large majority of Pakistanis is Muslim by faith, a Secular Pakistan will remain a wishful dream unlikely to be realized. Not in foreseeable future.Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 19:33 # -
Not Possible
BlockedSeems like no one is reading what I have said. Okay take the word secular out if you want dosent bother me the least.
My intention was to refer to a State that protects rights of all citizens regardless of faith, caste, creed or ethnic back ground. A state that does not discriminate on the basis of a majority or minority. Was that not the Quaid-e-Azams vison, was that not the vison of the founder of the nation?
Quaid-e-Azam was a Khoja Ithna Ashari Shia, according to your version of Pakistan he would be called kafir in his own state and persecuted, hounded and butchered to death.
So basicaly the Quaids vison was to create a State where he would have been abused, called a kafir and then be killed???
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 19:40 # -
khanseena1
Member@Not Possible
I agree with you - Islam and Secularism are compatible.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 19:45 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: I'm reading what you wrote. I just don't have the time to answer you.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 19:56 # -
quaidkamazaar
Memberif secularism means freedom for all religions, and equal rights for them...
then Islamic system is based on secularism.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 20:56 # -
achtung
Memberi agree with quaidkamazar bhai.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 21:17 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: Secularism means totally opposite to how you define it, or the definition that you find from other sources to copy/paste. Secularism does not mean (and I quote from above);
--------------------------------------------------------
freedom to pratice ones religion, free from oppression and persecution in the name of faith, ethnicty, caste creed or language.
--------------------------------------------------------There is no such thing as 'persecution in the name of faith'. Especially from Muslims. 1400+ years of history of Muslims should prove it more than enough times for you to trust Muslims on this.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) Secularism in-fact means, allegiance to no religion at all. Secularism wants all religions to die. And for damn good reasons, that can be explained.
(2) Secularism does not mean 'freedom'. Secularism means 'slavery', 'oppression', 'persecution' on a universal scale, at the hands of those human beings who promote it i.e., Zionists/Unjust Jews and all of their supporters, slaves, etc etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
@Not Possible: The definition of 'secularism' that you advertise to everyone here, has never held true
We can see, we can note this past century as ample example of it.
(1) There is no right to free speech in the west. There is only 'right to free speech as long as you do what they want you to do'. As long as you do as who wants you to do ? Zionists/Unjust Jews and their supporters, their slaves, the people who they control, etc etc.
(a) The happening at the many G20 meetings should be more than enough proof of that
(b) Talk of injustice of Zionists/Unjust Jews and their supporters, their slaves, etc etc, publicly in the west and see what happens to you
(c) Talk against anything Zionists/Unjust Jews and their supporters, their slaves, etc etc, want to do publicly in the west, and see what happens to you
(d) Interfere in 'unjust' plans of Zionists/Unjust Jews and their supporters, their slaves, etc etc in the west, and see what happens to you
(e) note the sharp difference between rich and poor in the west ? Research the underlying reasons behind it. Try to correct those reasons and see what happens to you
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 21:31 # -
achtung
Memberharis bhai
how you substantiate your claim?
india is a secular state. you think all people there abandoned there religion. in all secular states in world all people are free to practice any religion they like.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 21:37 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: Tell me;
(1) Are you a Muslim ?
This question needs to be answered for 'intellectual' 'discourse'. I will use this information in one part of my arguments.
(2) Have you researched Islam in detail ?
(3) Have you researched secularism in detail ?(4) Have you compared the many details of Islam and Secularism, keeping in view thousands of years of history of mankind ?
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 21:41 # -
shirazi
Member@HK
"Secularism in-fact means, allegiance to no religion at all. Secularism wants all religions to die."
Are you kidding me? I thought you were educated individual. Do you think Republicans (dominated by practicing Christians) in America want Christianity to die? BJP (dominated by practicing Hindus) want Hinduism to die?
Your statement is a joke and seems like coming out of typical uneducated mullah. Where did you learn about secularism. Would you mind sharing your resources?
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 21:51 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shirazi: (1) Do you have knowledge of history ?
Your words force me to believe you have zero knowledge of history. In-fact you don't care about history. You think its worthless, boring.
On the contrary, history has 'powerful' lessons for those who understand, for those who have 'high aspirations', especially conquerors.
--------------------------------------------------------
Do you 'understand' my words when I say;
(a) Zionists/Unjust Jews control the entire western world
Whether Christians like it or not, they are in total!, and I repeat, total! control of 'Zionists/Unjust Jews'. In good time, these same Christians will ask Muslims to help them get rid of slavery at the hands of 'Zionists/Unjust Jews'.
Republicans ? Aren't they already 'willing slaves' at the hands of the same Zionists/Unjust Jews ? Haven't they been slaving it out to them for decades! ?
Have they shown any signs, they want to fight or end their slavery at the hands of Zionists/Unjust Jews ?
Do you understand how Zionists/Unjust Jews have been able to control them, rule over them for centuries ?
(b) History of Hindus tells us, they have always been 'willing' 'slaves' to whoever has 'conquered' them, plus they have always been 'willing' 'slaves' to their 'humanly' 'desires', 'lust'
We/Muslims have ruled over Hindus' for 1000 years. Remember any of it ?
Perhaps you don't see the numbers of Hindus' accepting Islam. I notice some of them from time to time.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) Btw, have you watched, have you been keeping up with the mass media stuff I'v posted on the;
thread: Programs in Western Mass Media of Interest to Muslims
?
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 21:57 # -
naseemkhanan
MemberIndia can go to hell where there is a sham democracy; virtually no religious freedom under the umbrella of RSS, Jan Sahgh, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Saina hindutva extremists. Dalits in their thousands spat on their Hindu lords by getting converted into Christianity and Islam and they continue to do so.
Perhaps regular lynching, massacres of Sikhs, Christians and Muslims is not enough evidence for the likes and types of anti Pakistan pseudo intellectuals.
We are talking about Islami Jamhoriya Pakistan. Tunnel vision secular liberal fascists can keep pressing on with their false propaganda, fibs, lies and half truths. Who cares? Pakistan will stay firm to its constitution.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:03 # -
shimatoree
MemberThe premise of this thread is based on the method where you take one small piece of what someone says and then make it the identity of that person.
Here one person has used( many have done the same before) ONE utterence of Jinnah and made it appear as everything that he said and that he MEANT.
This is intellectually dishonest.
Jinnah said many different things at many different times in many different public gatherings like any leader of men. After all he is the one who is responsible for helping create this country for the Muslim " nation" .
It would be better if a more complete analysis of Jinnah's sayings/ speeches is made available for discussion.
Instead we have a scenario where those that prefer the Western model of life are pitted against those that might have a different point of view.
And that is not fair either to Jinnah and his legacy or to the commentators.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:07 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shimatoree: (1) Yet, it has come to my attention that Mr. Jinnah has never!, and I repeat, Mr. Jinnah has never! used the word 'secularism'.
(2) I have made available one document that I found readily available online, which contains speeches from Mr. Jinnah. It is available on the thread: pkpolitics book club
Perhaps you or others in this community can make the effort to find more stuff from Mr. Jinnah, that is, if you people can maintain objectivity, sense of justice ?
Thus far, I am a one man team. I can't 'afford' to trust others. I do my own independent research on most everything.
Having said that, a 'community' implies that individuals present can help each other, in 'collective efforts', which helps in making 'things' go much faster than what an individual could achieve.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:09 # -
Affirmative.
I had been searching for some documentary evidence but as of yet nothing. I believe he never did!
Perhaps someone may come up to support this claim.Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:14 # -
shirazi
Member@hariskhan
Before passing a judgement on my knowledge read your words
""Secularism in-fact means, allegiance to no religion at all. Secularism wants all religions to die."
that tells everything how learned are you. You are nothing but a joke. It's a mistake to take your views serious on any thing. Say whatever you want dude.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:19 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shirazi: I standby my words. This is true.
I can prove it to you through rational arguments. I'll give you leads, you do your own independent research on them and come back with your findings.
How is that for a deal ?
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:22 # -
shirazi
MemberThanks but no thanks :)
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:24 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shimatoree: I'm still learning to not attribute things with others, unless its due. I'll struggle to improve on it, to control my sarcasm.
Many of my arguments on this thread will be based on hard facts.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:27 # -
aryan1
MembersThe Creator of Pakistan
At this point, Jinnah emerged as the leader of a renascent Muslim nation. Events began to move fast. On March 22-23, 1940, in Lahore, the league adopted a resolution to form a separate Muslim state, Pakistan. The Pakistan idea was first ridiculed and then tenaciously opposed by the Congress. But it captured the imagination of the Muslims. Pitted against Jinnah were men of the stature of Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. And the British government seemed to be intent on maintaining the political unity of the Indian subcontinent. But Jinnah led his movement with such skill and tenacity that ultimately both the Congress and the British government had no option but to agree to the partitioning of India. Pakistan thus emerged as an independent state in 14th August, 1947.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:37 # -
@hk
"(1) Yet, it has come to my attention that Mr. Jinnah has never!, and I repeat, Mr. Jinnah has never! used the word 'secularism'."Maybe it's just because the term "secularism" wasn't much in use in those times. But putting that aside, I didn't know there was a book out that says Justice Munir quote used to show Quaid being secular is a fabrication by Justice Munir. The book is:
“Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed”And 5 years later the same author has written another:
Secular Jinnah and Pakistan
This one claims Jinnah "was neither a secularist, nor a religionist, nor even a product of secular-Islam synthesis."Both should be interesting reads.
BTW: The author, Saleena Karim, is also the founder and director of Jinnah Archive, "world’s first comprehensive digital library on Quaid-e-Azam."
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:45 # -
shirazi
MemberJinnah was a political leader and everyone has right to agree or disagree with him. I have seen this inconclusive discussion for decades Jinnah wanted secular Pakistan no he wanted Islamic republic of Pakistan. To me it doesn't matter what he wanted. It's perfectly fine to hold a view point that is opposite to founding fathers of the nation.
Moulana Moudoodi was against dividing muslims of India (I hope HK will not start a new debate here) and I respect his opinion. I don't think his intentions were malicious. He just had different world view than that of Jinnah.
In my view MA Jinnah was secular leader but he created a country in the name of religion. ZAB was secular leader but he declared qadiyanis as non-muslims and tried to champion the cause of muslim ummah as oppose to third world. BB was suppose to be secular but created by Taliban.
This theocratic vs secularism is a theoretical debate. Practically all politicians make decision based on political expediency and not ideology. I understand and agree with this harsh reality of pragmatism.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:52 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@nota: Noted. Cool!. Thanks.
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 22:57 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shirazi: Note the fact that;
(1) last century as well as the present time, is the period when Muslims are 'recuperating' from;
(a) mass scale slaughter under decades of slavery at the hands of western colonials, 'functioning' under 'total' control of Zionists/Unjust Jews
(b) mass scale 'slaughter' (at the time of partition of subcontinent)
(c) intellectual, political, financial, judicial, social slavery
(d) lack of leadership
(e) lack of knowledge (be it of DEEN-e-Islam or materialistic/worldly knowledge)
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) Muslims have been taken away from;
(a) Arabic
(b) Persianlanguages. Muslims have preserved, in these two languages, over 1000 years of knowledge collected by Muslim scholars.
This is the era when Muslim UMMAH, as a collective, has been 'instigated' against to 'collapse' (i.e., March 1924).
Posted 1 year ago on 07 Sep 2010 23:14 # -
Not Possible
Blocked@hariskhan can you please read.
Go back to the 10th Post in this thread where I said in the first two lines.
"Seems like no one is reading what I have said. Okay take the word secular out if you want dosent bother me the least."
you said in post 12
I'm reading what you wrote. I just don't have the time to answer you.
Apparently you did have time to answer a lot after that but you did not read what i had said so in my next post after this I will write what I said again adress that post and answer it if you can do not go off an a mantra before understanding what is being said.Ok Read the next Post.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 1:45 # -
Not Possible
BlockedMy intention was to refer to a State that protects rights of all citizens regardless of faith, caste, creed or ethnic back ground. A state that does not discriminate on the basis of a majority or minority. Was that not the Quaid-e-Azams vison, was that not the vison of the founder of the nation?
Quaid-e-Azam was a Khoja Ithna Ashari Shia, according to your version of Pakistan he would be called kafir in his own state and persecuted, hounded and butchered to death.
So basicaly the Quaids vison was to create a State where he would have been abused, called a kafir and then be killed???
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 1:48 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: I answered your questions. You just didn't bother to read them.
No. You are confusing too many things at the same time. You will never be able to understand it that way. Take them one by one.
The vision for Pakistan was, a place where Muslims could live their lives as per Islam, as per 'Islami Nizam'. Where 'Islami Nizam' would be implemented to demonstrate to the whole world, its benefits for all of mankind, to show the entire world an example of the best system for mankind.
We! are Muslims!. We got Pakistan to live by our DEEN, our standards.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 11:31 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: In this community, we have evidence, we have reason to believe, the words you posted in your original post were never uttered, never mentioned by Mr. Jinnah .. anywhere.
That these words are 'fake', a falsehood, a 'mockery' attributed with Mr. Jinnah by those who subscribe to secularism.
(1) How do you substantiate this claim of yours, that these words came from Mr. Jinnah ?
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 12:45 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Not Possible: After you'v answered my question in the above post, I'll compare Secularism and Islam for you in the many aspects of a human being's life.
I hope that objective analysis will help, that evidence will help you to understand the merits of both secularism, and Islam.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 12:48 # -
Well Quaid-e-Azam's own Personal life is more then enough to reflect his MINDSET and his THOUGHTS about Pakistan as well....Quaid-e-Azam did said that State for Muslims but he didnt said about Sharia or any other Law cause he didnt had any thing like that in his MIND so he was More concerned about STATE for MUSLIMS not STATE for ISLAM...their is a Big difference between Muslims and Islam as Muslims are people while Islam is their Faith so in this Prospective if the Statement of Quaid-e-Azam Understood in True Sense then He was MOST PROBABLY thinking about Secular State cause he MUST have mentioned the word SHARIA there as well....This notion of ISLAMIC STATE wasnt even develop back then as it was Introduced by one and only Mudoodi while before that even Khilafat had their own set of Laws that were PRACTICED Strictly and laws were made by keeping in mind that it moves parallel to Islam and its Teachings...
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 12:57 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@gazi23: How do you substantiate your claims ?
Mr. Jinnah on many occasions said;
(1) that Pakistan was for Muslims to live as per Islam
(2) that Pakistan was for us to show the entire world, an example of betterment, of a prosperous life, by living our lives as per IslamHe said on many occasions that Pakistan was being made to implement 'Islami Nizam' i.e., Islam's system, standards, principles, ways, rules, laws.
The problem is with you;
(1) You just don't read
(2) You don't confirm what you come across, and start spreading it. This is called spreading 'propaganda'Why blame others for your own mistake ?
I implore you to read Mr. Jinnah's speeches before partition of Indian subcontinent.
I implore you to read on the struggle of Muslims, their conditions, in those times.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 13:14 # -
@hariskhan
So lets check what you have Pointed out....
1. Where is the Claim of Islamic Law to be Implemented????by saying that living as per Islam means Daily routines Muslims can Practice Islam without any worries which wasnt possible in India...
2. Same Lifestyle as Lifestyle and Laws and Constitutions are TWO different things so he was trying to Explain that now Muslims can live their Lives freely following islam without any difficulty...
I dont know about his speech for Islami Nizam cause this term was Itself not clear back then what I have read from his statement is a "State for Muslims" which h Emphasize the most not "Islamic State" or "State for Islam" you should study his words first...
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 13:30 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@gazi23: Again, it is your mistake that you don't read.
Two books have already been mentioned on this thread, as evidence of what Mr. Jinnah wanted. It would be wise of you to read them, before questioning others.
Secondly, as I said before, you need to read speeches of Mr. Jinnah from 1932 - 1947.
You can do your own independent research on speeches of Mr. Jinnah and find out reality for yourself.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 13:39 # -
Not Possible
Blocked@harish khan
"The vision for Pakistan was, a place where Muslims could live their lives as per Islam, as per 'Islami Nizam'. Where 'Islami Nizam' would be implemented to demonstrate to the whole world, its benefits for all of mankind, to show the entire world an example of the best system for mankind.We! are Muslims!. We got Pakistan to live by our DEEN, our standards."
err whos vision?
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 13:55 # -
@hariskhan
I know about one Female Writer(Dont remember his name at the moment) who had Comprehensively Written the Biography of this Life and his Struggle for Pakistan as well...and for your Info till 1940 Pakistan was NOTHINg in Ideas of Jinnah as he was concerned with Muslim Majority STATES within India till in 1945 when the Negotiation with Congress failed then Quaid-e-Azam came forward with this Idea cause Congress wasnt Interested in Muslim Interests but they were concern for POWER in overall India which is why Jinnah started Struggling for a COUNTRY rather then Muslim Ststes...
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 14:00 # -
toamin
memberi would suggest to forget about the words and pay attention to actions, how did Jinnah receive ruling decree, i mean transfer of power? Which governance model did he choose for his short term rule, and then after him how did his most trusted man nawab liaqat ali rule?
political slogans should be left on side while focus should be on political activities and ruling experience...
there is no doubt in my mind that Jinnah was secular and british agent -sorry to break heart of those who studied jinnah through school text books.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 15:24 # -
Moulvis especially fasadi moulvis have hijacked Jinnah's Pakistan and the way we are heading at the moment where socio-religious anarchy is at its peak chances are slim there will ever be a secular Pakistan. Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan but moulvis destroyed his dream of a secular Pakistan.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 15:40 # -
toamin
memberalso give some blame to Jinnah who after failing in election switched over the molvies to his side -why he brought in molvies, chaudries, maliks, sardars, vaderas of unionist party in his league?
he was after sort of paper marriage to gain control over center while keeping local constituencies same as old divided on the lines of ethnicities, tribes, castes etc etc
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 15:52 # -
@Salam
Good point
Why did he bring all these clowns to his side? Simple answer is to gain full control. Yar Salam I have been declared unpatriotic and anti-pakistani for talking about Jinnah by even my own cousins/friends and for discussing this topic of controversy so it is better I keep my mouth shut and keypad of laptop locked. You can carry on with your thoughts on this topic.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 15:58 # -
toamin
membersweettruth,
don't worry about people... let it out..
why jinnah used the call of oppressed muslims of UP and other minority states while making agreements with muslim majority provinces? he was after the areas that already had muslim majority, where muslims were in ruling positions, wasn't he suppose to fight for the rights of oppressed muslims in minority states??
did he ever rally political movements against british raj? or he was only a negotiator who played by the rules of raj only based on what was offered on table by masters-
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 16:02 # -
Er, you're all talking at cross purposes, seems to me. All off topic practically. Not Possible made the excellent point that Jinnah being a Shia, might well have been condemned to death in today's Pakistan which seems bent on sectarian suicide. It was an excellent point he made. In return he got semi-insults, questions such as: Are you a Muslim? and the like. If anyone knew Not Possible's contributions to this blog, they'd be ashamed to have sunk so low.
The second point I'd like to make is whether Muslim or "secular" whatever that elusive thing might be, the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan must absolutely be respected. Islam demands it as much as "secularism". So what was the argument all about? Islam is even more broad-minded about minority rights than any other form of government.
Lastly, I found Gazi's first comment and Salam Sahib's interesting take on Jinnah fascinating. The rest followed its usual pattern of ping-pong arguments.
Posted 1 year ago on 08 Sep 2010 16:03 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.