Who hijacked Jinnah's Pakistan?
Moulvis, feudal lords and Jinnah himself
PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues
Secular Pakistan - The Vision of M.A. Jinnah, Who Hijacked it?
(477 posts)-
Posted 1 year ago on 10 Sep 2010 16:37 #
-
quaidkamazaar
MemberI think no one but feudals.
Feudals are the crux of the problem... believe me brothers.
I ask you to support those forces that are anti-feudal... mqm or someone else its up to you,,, it doesnt matter. just put an end to this slavery.
Posted 1 year ago on 10 Sep 2010 19:25 # -
As pointed out on another thread, today is not only Eid, it is also Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's death anniversary. Please to remember him in your prayers.
Posted 1 year ago on 11 Sep 2010 8:58 # -
naseemkhanan
MemberDon’t forget Unionists the key players against pre partition Muslim league. They still are active after 1947 partition and Independence. One has just to dig the remnant Unionists from the second even third generations of post independence Pakistan.
David Gilmartin on Page 189 of his book “Empire and Islam” says “the Unionist Party, Jinnah and his supporters declared, was a creation of the British“.He and his clan were the recipients of British largesse and got their knighthoods for supporting the British Raj in suppressing the war of independence of 1857 and successive serf revolts in the Punjab. Their other accomplishments were to provide cannon fodder of Muslim bodies to the Empire.
Dr Ian Talbot says “The Tiwanas rasied a 400 strong cavalry troop to aid the British” (Dr. Ian Talbot Page 103, # 3 The Politics of Inheritance of Pakistan) 8) Even Alama Iqbal knew that dealing with the Unionists was dangerous to the Muslim League. To leaders like Iqbal” Sikindar’s action after his return from Lucknow only confirmed their worst fears about Unionist plans to turn the League into Unionist ends”.
The defection of Noon and Tiwanas weakened the Unionists and their Gandhi backers. The elections of 1946 were a watershed in Punjabi politics-the election triumph of the Muslim League proved critical in 1946 because it made the ultimate establishment of Pakistan inevitable.
“After the elections, Malik Khizar Hyat and the remaining rump of the Unionist Party formed a coalition with the Akali party and the Congress ..to keep the Muslim League out of power.”
Pakistan was formed in spite or despite the wrangling of the Zamindara and the Unionist
Parties.
http://pakhistorian.com/2009/02/16/sir-chottu-rams-zamindara-party-became-the-anti-muslim-league-unionist-party/
Identification and exposure of these remnant Unionists and their offsprings/generations may help.Posted 1 year ago on 11 Sep 2010 9:22 # -
naseemkhanan
MemberFrom a different angle by peeking into history:
Expressing his views on Hindu-Muslim relations in the twentieth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah observed:
“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different.”Mr. Aakar Patel has been given space in Pakistani newspapers to propagate the same old arguments that were rejected by the Pakistanis and the Muslims of South Asia. No Indian paper gives any space to Pakistani writers to disseminate the “Two Nation Theory” and the basis for Pakistan. Here is Mr. Patel obfuscating the issues and characterizing Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the bigoted views of the Hindu Mahasaba.
Jinnah after August 11, 1947 Sunday, September 28, 2008 by Aakar Patel. Jinnah was secular and liberal, but he deliberately left the door open for Pakistan to become an Islamic state.
On August 11, 1947, Jinnah delivered his great speech to the Constituent Assembly. He said Pakistanis should take as their ideal Great Britain, where “Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen.”
“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.”
The speech was precise and elegant, as his speeches often were. It was delivered without notes; as he put it, he said “a few things as they occur to me.”Liberal Pakistanis hold the speech up as proof of Jinnah’s determination to see Pakistan produce a secular constitution instead of an Islamic one. But he doesn’t use the word secular and his speeches after Aug 11 do nothing to support this view.
If anything, they support the view of Jinnah’s associates like Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar. On March 9, 1949, six months after Jinnah’s death, Nishtar told Hindus in Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly who opposed the Islamic language of Liaquat’s Objectives Resolution, that though Jinnah had “given pledges to the minority, (he) had also given pledges to the majority.”
Mr. Patel cherry picks the quotes to justify the carnage in South Asia. He doesn’t present a holistic picture of the historical realities of that era. Here is a quote from Dr. Ambedekar–the Dalit leader who defines “Pakistan” through Hindu eyes.
“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible.
The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .
…Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .
…If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes.” Pratap of Lahore, Lala Hardayal in 1925. Quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan”Haldiram’squote is as pertinent today as it was in 1925. The likes of Haldiram were propagating a Spanish Inquisition type of expulsion of all Muslims from South Asia after the conquest of Afghanistan. Muslims ruled Spain from 711 to 1492, but after losing their last foothold were converted back to Christianity or expelled from Spain. The RSS, the BJP, the VHP still believe in Shuddi and Shangtram movements which want to reconvert the Muslims back to Hinduism and keep them in their place as Untouchable Dalits.
Shabbir Ahmed Usmani reminded the Assembly of Jinnah’s letter of March 10, 1945, to the Pir of Manki Sharif, where he promised that the Constituent Assembly would enact laws for Muslims “not inconsistent with the Shariat laws and Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws.”
There were other instances.
On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:
“Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”
“Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”Seculars may keep dreaming of a 'Secular Pakistan'.
Posted 1 year ago on 11 Sep 2010 11:03 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Hussain Farooqui: You know my friend, you talk 'too much'.
Tell me;
(1) Which of these two do you accept -> 'secularism' or 'Islami Nizam' ?
(2) Are you willing to put your money, time, life on the line, to 'make the effort', to 'struggle', to;
(1) come together
(2) to learn
(3) to organize
(4) increase in number in preparation for bloody revolution
(5) go into bloody revolutionin order to change our current system ?
Posted 1 year ago on 11 Sep 2010 13:21 # -
quaidkamazaar
Memberwhen one 'struggles' for a revolution,
they are not only putting their own life at stake, thats the last thing they care about.
they are putting their whole families life at stake as they might get killed and hung like Sialkot kids for no reason.
revolution is a mere word but the sacrifices attached with it are great and Pakistanis today believe in revolution but are not willing to go through the hurdles. hurdles in which they see their family dead.
will sacrifice ourselves but not our family.
fine you guys hate Altaf Hussain keep that hate aside, but what happened to his family? 2 of his close relatives where found mutilated dead because he kept speaking against system.
Posted 1 year ago on 12 Sep 2010 3:37 # -
toamin
member@Naseem,
thanks for sharing the citation:
David Gilmartin on Page 189 of his book “Empire and Islam” says “the Unionist Party, Jinnah and his supporters declared, was a creation of the British“.He and his clan were the recipients of British largesse and got their knighthoods for supporting the British Raj in suppressing the war of independence of 1857 and successive serf revolts in the Punjab. Their other accomplishments were to provide cannon fodder of Muslim bodies to the Empire.
Dr Ian Talbot says “The Tiwanas rasied a 400 strong cavalry troop to aid the British” (Dr. Ian Talbot Page 103, # 3 The Politics of Inheritance of Pakistan) 8) Even Alama Iqbal knew that dealing with the Unionists was dangerous to the Muslim League. To leaders like Iqbal” Sikindar’s action after his return from Lucknow only confirmed their worst fears about Unionist plans to turn the League into Unionist ends”.@Nota
Yes, I agree it is indeed a life long journey, after all we depend on research work other historians, some favorable towards him and some biased, but i picked the ones who were favorable to jinnah such as ian talbot & ayesha jalal-
Posted 1 year ago on 12 Sep 2010 6:53 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Salam: The 'context' in which these statements are being made is not mentioned here.
Isn't it obvious, this stuff is 'questionable', as a result ?
Posted 1 year ago on 12 Sep 2010 14:20 # -
toamin
memberHK, i am not surprised to see that you missed the 'context', isn't that obvious?
Posted 1 year ago on 12 Sep 2010 15:18 # -
Hussain Farooqui
Memberhariskhan
Wa Aleikum As Salam Wa Rehmatullah-e-wa Bhraktuhu
All the points mentioned above by you are undoubtedly agreeable. The problem is that our nation has no reliable leadership to attain our goals. We are Muslims so all our relevant affairs are obliged to be Islamic; including our methods of sovereignty.
The affairs in our society have reached to such limits of chaos that a revolution is inevitable.
Posted 1 year ago on 13 Sep 2010 5:31 # -
Revivalist
memberSaying that Jinnah wanted Shariat is a weird claim. I think he himself was a confused person, as he made some extremely contrary statements about Islam and its role in the affairs of state. Moreover, for us as Muslims the reference point is very well defined, which is Quran and Sunnah. Hence any statement that is in line with the sources of Islam is acceptable either said by Jinnah or Dr. Iqbal otherwise rejected, it’s as simple as this!
Posted 1 year ago on 13 Sep 2010 6:37 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Hussain Farooqui: That is a lie.
Leadership has always been available. Its the people .. who didn't want to follow.
..it is their fate, that in the coming times, they'll be butchered mercilessly, slaughtered mercilessly by foreign entities, by non-Muslims, for committing that crime, over and over again, for sidelining/abandoning Islam, for being unjust, for 'purposefully' not listening to sane voices within their ranks.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 20:43 # -
most misquoted , misunderstood , misused ,misinterpreted quote of Quaid e Azam ...
you are free to go to your mosques , you are free to go to your temples , you are free to go to your worship places in the land of Pakistan.it was misquoted and twisted to the end th degree .
different school of thoughts has twisted the meaning of it towards their own favorable argument .but we need to see the background , in which Quaid was saying so.
when in india ,Muslims were pressed to not to perform their worships at mosques .
the same was expected when a separate state of Muslim came into being , that now Hindus or other non Muslims will face the same treatment ; as was faced by Muslims in united India .
so Quaid has to come up with the clarification of these negative perceptions about the newly born state .Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 5:54 # -
Beenia, eloquently expressed. But I don't quite see what the fuss and bother is all about. If an "Islami Nizam" were to come Pakistan in the strict sense of the term, are we going to chase away all our minority groups? If we are, then it would not be Islamic. And if we are not, then Quaid e Azam's words beautifully fit the situation, Our minorities would be free to pursue their religion in their worship places without any hindrance whatsoever on the part of the state.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 7:55 # -
toamin
memberHere is the basic case:
Mr. Jinnah is accepted by all in Pakistan as great leader & founder of Pakistan, no one can dare dispute with Mr. Jinnah publicly in Pakistan.
Secular view point holders think that Mr. Jinnah was a secular hence everyone should go in that direction-
Islamists view point holders think that Mr. Jinnah was a mard-e-mo'min who defied british and created Pakistan and wanted to implement Islam so everyone should go in that direction-
Basically these two circles are going in circular debate about him on what he actually was -Was Jinnah a Secular minded or Islamists?
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 10:08 # -
shafiq12
memberpeople have made Jinnah more than a Prophet.
All this is Britisher terminology. Where they got these rules to hang the Picture of Jinnah in their office to show what. That they are sincere to Jinnh more than Allah.
You are destroying ur selves with ur own hand
as u see the Britisher hanged the picture of Queen Victoria to show their gratitude to Victoria.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 10:28 # -
Super Soldier, I don't think you're being fair at all to Jinnah. Salam Sahib's comment was more relevant. If we respect Jinnah as the founder of Pakistan, it does not mean we have less respect or devotion to our Prophet (PBUH) as the Messenger of God. Come on, S.S., don't take the discussion in that unseemly direction: Jinnah versus the Prophet. God help us!
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 10:53 # -
rashidsaleem
MemberI have read extracts from this great speech by the father of the nation and I can easily say that his vision for Pakistan was as a secular country. That vision was hijacked by the Mullahs and it is up to us, the liberals to get it back.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 10:54 # -
toamin
member^^ here we go... :)
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 10:58 # -
On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:
“Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”
“Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/secular-pakistan-the-vision-of-ma-jinnah-who-hijacked-it/page/3#post-177052Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 11:12 # -
shafiq12
membermirza ghalib
A muslim should sincere to Allah subhana wa tahala and his prophet not the quaid e azam,
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 12:23 # -
Super Soldier, I quite agree with you. First and foremost there is Allah Talha and our Prophet.
I just meant that any respect we may show the Founder of Pakistan does not detract in any way at all from or sincerity towards our Maker and His Messenger.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 12:32 # -
Imam in Arabic means leader, the one who leads, a guide. In this sense we as Pakistanis are grateful to Allah (ST) for providing us a great leader as Quaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah to lead us towards realization of our dream - Pakistan.
Alhamdolillah we are not living under a majority Hindu rule as was feared by Muslims in minority from the subcontinent.Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 12:32 # -
achtung
Member@super soldier
^^ here we go... :)
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 12:33 # -
toamin
memberdear semirza
with all due respect but pakistani territory was never under majority hindu rule? where muslims were in majority and had ruling is pakistan today-
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 12:52 # -
shafiq12
memberMirza Ghalib,
U celebrated the day of qauid on 25 december to show what?
sahaba loved prophet peace be upon him more than us. they didn't celebrate their days and nights. Sahaba didn't put flower on the grave of Prophet.Sahaba didn't put the picture of Prophet in their houses. So what do u want to prove by putting flower on the grave of Qauid to show that u love quid more than the sunnat of Allah. So what do u want to prove that u love quid more than the sunnat of Rasool
U Celebrate 14 Aug to show what that u love Pakistan more than the sunnat of Rasool. As Prophet never celebrated his victories as u are celebrating.
Alhamdolillah we are not living under a majority Hindu rule as was feared by Muslims in minority from the subcontinent
Good joke, see ur kids what they are doing by accepting the indian tradition. There is no difference b/w Pakistani and Indian. See how the people of pakistan have adopted the hindu culture.
saw a kid of 12 year dating with girl picking an indian movie in his hand.
Hindu are ruling on our generations. See the PTV, See the Geo, See the HuM TV. where is Quiad e Azam.
I honestly feel some christian channels are better than pakistani chaneels if u compare the dress of females
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 12:55 # -
@Salam
Perhaps I was not clear to what I meant actually.
If the subcontinent was kept undivided Muslims would have been a minority.
Subcontinental Muslims (barr-e-saghir) feared British would leave and Hindus would be in power being a majority.
That is why Quaid-e-Azam brought up a two nation theory according to which the subcontinent would be divided into a Hindu majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan.Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 13:01 # -
toamin
membersemirza bhai
what you said earlier is a common saying that i questioned, i hope you got the idea.
now regarding this undivided population ratio, would you please care to do a simple math by taking total population of muslims from pakistan/india/bengladesh (add'em all up), take population of sikh/christians, and take hindu population, what ratio would you get?
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 13:06 # -
@semirza and Salam bhai
Concentrations of Muslim majority areas were planned to be called Pakistan that did not happened accordingly as Kashmir, Hyderabad were held back by India.West Pakistan in general was a Muslim majority area. So was divided Bengal as East Pakistan (more or less 15 to 20 percent Hindus/non Muslims). Actual concentration/Majority was achieved after border demarcations that is when mass migration happened. Muslims left for Pakistan while Hindus and Sikhs left for India.Combined total of Christian, Sikh, Jain, Budihst do not add up to a majority both in India and Pakistan.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 13:14 # -
ammarisb
MemberA completely secular Pakistan seems like a far-fetched utopian dream, religion and religious doctrines are so entangled in Pakistan that it will take a strong political will to amend the constitution of Pakistan which allows all sects and marginalized communities equal opportunities. As per my understanding a reactionary model will not last long, the evolutionary process of liberalism is taking its due course and ultimately given to the actions of extremist elements the masses will root them out eventually
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 13:17 # -
@Salam
I have this link to some pre-partition maps (1909) showing Muslim, Hindus as majorities and some other religions too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India@patriot
Thanks for the explanation. I do agree with your point of view.Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 13:23 # -
toamin
memberwell brother, again muslims had big majority in balochistan/nwfp (over 70%), muslims had simple majority in punjab/bengal/sindh they had the political/local power
actual muslims that felt threatened joined AIML, they either migrated to Pakistan or remained there in india-
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 13:24 # -
That is true and I agree as todays Pakistan was a Muslim majority area. Still we received a large number of migrants from Ferozpur, Gurdaspur, Delhi, Amritsar and from as far as UP settling mostly in Punjab. Some from Hyderabad, Maharastra, Gujrat, Rajistan etc came on later and settled in much of the Sindh. Still many stayed behind. (A large number of Muslims in India and few Hindu/Sikhs in Pakistan).
We received more migrants comparably in numbers than those who left Pakistan (both East and West) for India is also true.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 13:37 # -
Hussain Farooqui
Memberhariskhan
Wa Aleikum As Salam
Can you please tell me which political party really qualifies the standards which are required for a good leadership?
The so called Islamic movement of 1977 is still fresh in my mind. The target of the movement was just to throw Bhutto's govt. on the CIA's directives. I myself took some part in it as a student. Later, I realized that we were simply deceived.
Dear Brother, your sentiments and zeal are admirable. We need to develop base root character of the nation to produce a good Islamic leadership.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 16:05 # -
hardrighter
MemberThe real problem has been that their is no religious political leadership taking a strong stance for Jinnah's version of Islam.
Jinnah's version of Islam is nothing new. This is the Islam of Abd ur Rahman of Spain, or that of the Abbasid Harun ur Rashid, or the open-mindedness of the Ottoman Empire.
And opposition to this version of Islam has also always been there, in our country it was Maududi and his party that opposed it ALL ALONG the Muslim League's stance for a separate country. Proponents of the ideology clearly called Jinnah Kaafir e Azam.
The most recent in Islamic history is the take over of the Kaaba by the Saudis/Wahabis by fighting against the Ottoman Caliph, which ultimately broke up the Caliphate.
We need strong leadership to counter Jamaat e Islami's Islam which is an extension of Wahabi/Saudi Islam, used purely for political gains over peaceful prospering Muslims, Jinnah's vision won't need more.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 19:19 # -
super soldier bhai ,
sari duniya apnay founder of the nation ki tasweer lagati hay har jagah ...
aik hum lagaien tou aapko drama bazi lag rahi hay ?no2 . Quaid e Azam ki tasweer se itna chirtay ho tou Rs.1000 ,500 , 100 ,50 ,10 ,5 kay note istemal karna chor do .
just go ahead with your hatred philosophy ...
come on man....Posted 1 year ago on 16 Sep 2010 6:03 # -
@choosy
Sari Dunya Sirf Tasweerain Lagati hai apnay leaders ki tasaweer ki magar HUMARI AQEDAT itni hai k Hum Quaid-e-Azam ki Tasaweer Jama Kartay hain aur woh bhi 7 Rangun mai aur is cheez ka humay Itna Shouq hai jis ki koi Had nahi....Waisay Ajkal apnay bhi bohat jama ki hongi tasweerain Eid ka season jo tha....:)
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 10:17 # -
shafiq12
memberChoosy
We are follower of Deen Ullah (Religion of God), Not the follower of "Sari Dunia" Majority of World is leading to evil.
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 10:21 # -
@super soldier
Islam Teach us to keep Deen and Dunya Together creating a BALANCE within it...Secular from the Western World means Complete separation from religion and World which makes sense because Christian Religion which was Mostly followed in West couldnt able to INCLINED with World but Islam can INCLINED with World and Worldly Interest perfectly and that is why every Muslim is HALF SECULAR cause even in his PURSUIT for INCOME their is clear Mentioned Benefits at the Judgment day in Quran....
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 10:33 # -
shafiq12
memberGazi123
A muslim should not be half secular, There was no such term as secular. Islam is complete code of LIFE. IF u follow islam it mean u are following Deen and Dunia both. The term half Secular mean that u r following Deen on some matters and u are not following Deen on Some other Matter.
See those who are half secular see the ayah. I think u don't know the meaning of term Secular.
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 10:55 # -
Hussain Farooqui
MemberWhen once Jinnah Sb. was notified that the leaders of Congress were secular. He remarked,"scratch a congressman and find a Maha Sabie (fanatic Hindu). Secularism is a fooling word for the Muslims. All the European states are Christian states and India is a purely Hindu states.
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:10 # -
@super soldier
Muslim being half Secular is what we can EXTRACT from Western definition of secularism as they ask for COMPLETE separation cause Christianity created HUGE HURDLE in their Worldly Lives and to such EXTENT that Once their most POWERFUL EMPIRES got Dust soon after Embracing Christianity most notable is Roman Empire while on the other hand Muslims Gain a lot of Influence by keeping Islam in their Code of Conduct which is only Possible because Islam never Create HURDLES in both Religious and Worldly Lives In fact it Create balance between Both Lives....So According to WESTERN DEFINITION of Secularism Muslims are HALF SECULAR....
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:23 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
It seems as if I haven't been on this thread for months.
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:25 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@hardrighter: Your argument about JI makes no sense, when we look at;
(1) history
(2) the facts mentioned on this thread
(3) the facts mentioned on multiple previous threadsI don't understand, why everyone is so afraid of JI. Most everyone is belligerent towards JI. Yet, after looking at all the facts, I don't find any rational, reasonable, legal basis for an argument against them.
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:27 # -
Md Akmal
Member@ India was divided on the "Two Nation Theory", propagated by Jinnah who in turn got insperation from the concept of "One Nation One State" of President Wilsom (President of USA) after the 1st World War. In those days most of the areas of Asia, Africa and South America were under colonial rule. So in order to get support from these vast majority people Wilso gave his famous theory.
@ Jinnah was from the very beggining was a secular. But realising from practical experience he changed his mind. What happened after the election of 1937 in the British controlled united India. Does the muslims got their due share? Again what happened after the election of 1946 ? Muslims were always lagging behind. It is true that initially Jinnah was in Congress(1915) but what happened when he made the "Lukhno Pact" the bondage between Muslims and Hindus. Once he failed to do that he left politics and remained at London. Soon in the 30s he came and joined Muslim Leaque in a changed person.
I think securalism is not suitable for pakistan, it may be possible in Bangladesh with lot of contravery as because a big portion population are non muslims.
Akmal, Dhaka, bangladesh
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:29 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:31 # -
shafiq12
memberAccording to WESTERN DEFINITION of Secularism Muslims are HALF SECULAR
The Western Definition fits on the Muslim of This age.
And see why we are going down and down. See this ayah of Quran.
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/secular-pakistan-the-vision-of-ma-jinnah-who-hijacked-it/page/3#post-177690
Secularism is curse whether it is half or Full!Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:35 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
Can Muslims of today fathom it ? There were no sects among Muslims, other than the 'Shia' stuff as late as 135 years ago.
ALL the sects' we see today, all the divisions between Muslims have come about in these last 135 years.
..and in most of this period, non-Muslims, especially Colonialists/Imperialists were in-charge. They were ruling over our land, our people.
--------------------------------------------------------
Also, this concept of 'secularism', 'capitalism', 'free market', etc etc, is also 'recent' when we look at world history.
I'v discussed 'secularism' before. There are very sharp differences between Islam and 'secularism' in social, political, financial, judicial, intellectual realms.
When I look at the facts, history of the past 600 years, there is no doubt in my mind 'secularism' is for 'detriment' of mankind.
Only thing keeping it alive is the 'will' of mankind to;
(1) 'remain' 'unjust'
(2) 'run' after their own 'desires', 'lust' 'blindly'
(3) 'disobey' ALLAH ALMIGHTY
(4) be 'disloyal' to ALLAH ALMIGHTY
(5) run away from ALLAH ALMIGHTYPosted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:41 # -
I think what is being implied on this thread is, Jinnah as a Brit agent should have said to the Brits
".. we do not want a freedom from you guys, we just want it from the Indians. Free India, but stick around in Pakistan, we luv ya here!. We're gonna be serving ya anyway, so why doin it in proxy way thru a local, cheesy Pakistan govt with a superficial constitution. Why don't we serve you masters directly?"
Had this been the course, we would not have had the problems we had all along, and have enjoyed good civil services: schools, colleges, hospitals, roads, railroads, police system and containment of all fiends. But dignity is such a subjective notion, it is one man's bliss and other's frailty.
Posted 1 year ago on 17 Sep 2010 11:43 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.