Ali raza babar
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Irony for you is , I am Trained in KICKS , :)
"Stop distorting Jinnahs words" Prof A H Nayyar
- Thread starter M Ali Khan
- Start date
Irony for you is , I am Trained in KICKS , :)
I assure you he is very much dead. Been dead for the past 60 or so years. Not just clinically dead; whose evidence is pretty easy to ascertain but also in the metaphorical sense - Whose evidence you can see in present day Pakistan. So dead men can't walk or talk or do anything for that matter. Stuff that even Islam teaches you. I thought you knew that.
If 90% want Shariah then you would've implemented that from the get go. Since you are still unable to pop out your Khalifah, I think you are having some issues. And not just medical ones. :P Surely that pesky 10% isn't holding you back for 60+ years!? You all can't be that bad at implementing Shariah? Can you? lol.
Aladdin
Senator (1k+ posts)
Ghalti se dislike ho gya
Kissi ke khayalat ko tolerance se sunna chahiye na key usse budtameezi ke saath zaleel kiya jaye. Yehi jazbatiyat humein aagay badhne nahi deti. Listen to other's views irrespective of his faith or nation.
Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a secular leader as projccted by foriegn funded Media of Pakistan these days. .
Today is 14th August 2013 and Guns are being fired in the federal capital in honour of creation of homeland Called Pakistan.
After such bloody and turbulent event of 1947 followed by a war , today when some state that jinnah was secular it deserves some reply.
Some writers try to establish Mr.Jinnahs credentials as a thoroughly secular person and attack the objective resolution and its prime mover Shabbir Usmani alleging them to be diametrically opposed to idea of Jinnah about Pakistan .
Nothing could be far from truth , Jinnah wrote in his will that his funeral procession should be lead by Shabbir Usmani and that it should be in a manner like that that of ordinary Muslims . He did not approve his daughter marrying a Parsi and partly cut her off , though she was included in his hereditary will . Obviously Jinnah was not a bigot or indecent or ethnic cleanser or a mobster , yes he was opposed to population transfer as such was never formal part of Pakistan movement supported and voted by the masses of Muslims .
Pakistan movement has been misread and deliberately distorted by the school historians of India and Pakistan . Jinnahs struggle was to get political share for 33% Muslims of United India and his agenda has at various times till 1946 excluded nothing to improve Muslim lot politically including idea of Three unit within United India , Two Pakistans , One Pakistan as is now and so on and these have been well documented in relatively authoritative books as Stanley Wolperts book on Jinnah . Jinnahs emphasis on Political status of Indian Muslims were offcourse based on idea of it being a separate community despite its being of many races and languages and this in itself incorporates the two nation theory .
It must be remembered that Muslim leagues funding and Pakistan Movement engine was well greased by Jinnahs personal friends made during legal carrier involving cases of Nawabs and by masses in Central Indias Muslim provinces . He never included any senior politicians in his leadership cadre who was a fence sitters thus giving him power unparalleled in the Movement . Muslim league later on became well organized mass movement in what was later to become Pakistan . To say that since Jinnah accepted Cabinet Mission plan does not mean he did not stand for two nation theory . Jinnah being leader of all Muslims including those in central India had to give fair chance to all political ideas which were beneficial to all the Muslims of India Remember Jinnah was a a Pan Islamicist not narrow Nationalist .Cabinet plan included constitutional guarantees for Muslims of central representation and Muslim political domination in peripheries of India in what later became Pakistan and was therefore a Pakistan plan in less explosive and less divisive manner and not a negation of Pakistan . Congress was confident in its economic and miscreant power and rejected it but could not prevail later .
Jinnahs quoted speech in the article emphasizing non discrimination between Muslims and non Muslims was made in the context of indecent and beastly sectarian carnage of 1947 and were therefore not only healing words but it emphasized what is fundamental to Islam that personal conduct was crucial in the hereafter and not mob conduct , it did not mean he stood for a secular state but he did stand for a fair state taking care of its citizens . The Zimmi empire of Islam , last being Ottoman empire , was a state meant to disseminate superior ideas and beliefs of Islam whilst maintaining all rights of property , personal dignity and life for its non Muslim citizens . This was a time when slave making , loot , killing was the pursuit of the day in empire making in rest of the world.
It would seem very unrealistic and foolish to consider that Jinnah would retain name of his party Muslim league and stand for Non Muslim politics and secular objectives , that is tantamount to distorting and rewriting history . Jinnah was offcourse no Mullah . His emphasis on Quranic Islam rather than Sunni or Shia Islam was basis of Pakistan . Offcourse congress wanted to label him a Shia minority via Mullahs of other sects but that did not work as he owned no sect .
Had Jinnah been a secular leader he would not will Shabir Usmani to lead his funeral prayer , he would have renamed Muslim league , he would not have partly disowned his daughter for marrying a Parsi , he would have remained in Congress , he would not have asked for Pakistan and he would not have approved the flag of crescent of Pakistan which was a symbol of Muslim power of the both the Ottomans and even the Mughals .
To say that Jinnah was secular in later life is therefore incorrect and to say that he was a mad religious fanatic and ethnic cleanser as projected in India is also wrong . Jaswant Singhs book although meant not to reinstate Jinnah but to insinuate Congress in Indian in its complicity in division of India is also a form of partial correction of History in Bharat and Jaswant is back in BJP .
Neither Jinnah not even Gandhi was an ethnic cleanser , Jinnahs speech to constituent assembly and Gandhi recitations in 1947 were in an atmosphere of raging inter religious violence and were meant to be soothers to Muslims and Hindus respectively and a call to decent citizenry , they were no repudiation of their life long stands . i.e Jinnah of Islamic Pan Islamism and Gandhi of Indian Nationalism . Stanley Wolpert book clearly quotes proceedings of Muslim league before partition and its last day was always reserved for Pan Islamic issues and Muslim league via its resolution opposed creation of state of Israel .
Jinnah was a modern politician , Muslims were so educationally weak that there was no option except to retain British Civil servants , the Muslim was so economically weak that he was not happy with total exodus of business man class which was exclusively of Hindus and in fact expected some refugees to return in the opinion of Indian writer Khushwant Singh before India occupied Kashmir . People like Mandal who later quit Pakistan but were earlier aligned with Jinnah were expecting the Indian politics to take different turns . Mandals interest in league was if jinnah did not succeed in making separate Pakistan Mandal would still have the option of aligning lowcaste Hindus with Muslim Vote beginning a new type of politics within Unified India against Congress of Hingh castes mainly , and if he did succeed which Mandal which Mandal admitted he thought Jinnah would probably not , the residual 20% minority in Pakistan would still need political leadership like Mandal. Both events did not happen . Jinnah has a third headache, large sections of ruling British were not interested in separate Muslim state so a strategic way to convince them was to be found and not ally with Hindus Militarily . So liberal stance of Jinnah is wrongly construed now by later day experts as of secularism.
We all need some humanity and enlarging our scope of thought . We follow Islam , we propagate and preserve our Islamic values as we think it is superior to others . We cannot rate a superior and inferior thing equally and if we do it we shall be unfair with ourselves and civilization .
Finally , A ruling high caste Hindu of 50 years back will not eat along a Muslim fearful of being contaminated and a English would gladly write on Englands street ends , Dogs and coloured not allowed . What secularism would Jinnah stand for in that context one may ask , He actually did not !
Today is 14th August 2013 and Guns are being fired in the federal capital in honour of creation of homeland Called Pakistan.
After such bloody and turbulent event of 1947 followed by a war , today when some state that jinnah was secular it deserves some reply.
Some writers try to establish Mr.Jinnahs credentials as a thoroughly secular person and attack the objective resolution and its prime mover Shabbir Usmani alleging them to be diametrically opposed to idea of Jinnah about Pakistan .
Nothing could be far from truth , Jinnah wrote in his will that his funeral procession should be lead by Shabbir Usmani and that it should be in a manner like that that of ordinary Muslims . He did not approve his daughter marrying a Parsi and partly cut her off , though she was included in his hereditary will . Obviously Jinnah was not a bigot or indecent or ethnic cleanser or a mobster , yes he was opposed to population transfer as such was never formal part of Pakistan movement supported and voted by the masses of Muslims .
Pakistan movement has been misread and deliberately distorted by the school historians of India and Pakistan . Jinnahs struggle was to get political share for 33% Muslims of United India and his agenda has at various times till 1946 excluded nothing to improve Muslim lot politically including idea of Three unit within United India , Two Pakistans , One Pakistan as is now and so on and these have been well documented in relatively authoritative books as Stanley Wolperts book on Jinnah . Jinnahs emphasis on Political status of Indian Muslims were offcourse based on idea of it being a separate community despite its being of many races and languages and this in itself incorporates the two nation theory .
It must be remembered that Muslim leagues funding and Pakistan Movement engine was well greased by Jinnahs personal friends made during legal carrier involving cases of Nawabs and by masses in Central Indias Muslim provinces . He never included any senior politicians in his leadership cadre who was a fence sitters thus giving him power unparalleled in the Movement . Muslim league later on became well organized mass movement in what was later to become Pakistan . To say that since Jinnah accepted Cabinet Mission plan does not mean he did not stand for two nation theory . Jinnah being leader of all Muslims including those in central India had to give fair chance to all political ideas which were beneficial to all the Muslims of India Remember Jinnah was a a Pan Islamicist not narrow Nationalist .Cabinet plan included constitutional guarantees for Muslims of central representation and Muslim political domination in peripheries of India in what later became Pakistan and was therefore a Pakistan plan in less explosive and less divisive manner and not a negation of Pakistan . Congress was confident in its economic and miscreant power and rejected it but could not prevail later .
Jinnahs quoted speech in the article emphasizing non discrimination between Muslims and non Muslims was made in the context of indecent and beastly sectarian carnage of 1947 and were therefore not only healing words but it emphasized what is fundamental to Islam that personal conduct was crucial in the hereafter and not mob conduct , it did not mean he stood for a secular state but he did stand for a fair state taking care of its citizens . The Zimmi empire of Islam , last being Ottoman empire , was a state meant to disseminate superior ideas and beliefs of Islam whilst maintaining all rights of property , personal dignity and life for its non Muslim citizens . This was a time when slave making , loot , killing was the pursuit of the day in empire making in rest of the world.
It would seem very unrealistic and foolish to consider that Jinnah would retain name of his party Muslim league and stand for Non Muslim politics and secular objectives , that is tantamount to distorting and rewriting history . Jinnah was offcourse no Mullah . His emphasis on Quranic Islam rather than Sunni or Shia Islam was basis of Pakistan . Offcourse congress wanted to label him a Shia minority via Mullahs of other sects but that did not work as he owned no sect .
Had Jinnah been a secular leader he would not will Shabir Usmani to lead his funeral prayer , he would have renamed Muslim league , he would not have partly disowned his daughter for marrying a Parsi , he would have remained in Congress , he would not have asked for Pakistan and he would not have approved the flag of crescent of Pakistan which was a symbol of Muslim power of the both the Ottomans and even the Mughals .
To say that Jinnah was secular in later life is therefore incorrect and to say that he was a mad religious fanatic and ethnic cleanser as projected in India is also wrong . Jaswant Singhs book although meant not to reinstate Jinnah but to insinuate Congress in Indian in its complicity in division of India is also a form of partial correction of History in Bharat and Jaswant is back in BJP .
Neither Jinnah not even Gandhi was an ethnic cleanser , Jinnahs speech to constituent assembly and Gandhi recitations in 1947 were in an atmosphere of raging inter religious violence and were meant to be soothers to Muslims and Hindus respectively and a call to decent citizenry , they were no repudiation of their life long stands . i.e Jinnah of Islamic Pan Islamism and Gandhi of Indian Nationalism . Stanley Wolpert book clearly quotes proceedings of Muslim league before partition and its last day was always reserved for Pan Islamic issues and Muslim league via its resolution opposed creation of state of Israel .
Jinnah was a modern politician , Muslims were so educationally weak that there was no option except to retain British Civil servants , the Muslim was so economically weak that he was not happy with total exodus of business man class which was exclusively of Hindus and in fact expected some refugees to return in the opinion of Indian writer Khushwant Singh before India occupied Kashmir . People like Mandal who later quit Pakistan but were earlier aligned with Jinnah were expecting the Indian politics to take different turns . Mandals interest in league was if jinnah did not succeed in making separate Pakistan Mandal would still have the option of aligning lowcaste Hindus with Muslim Vote beginning a new type of politics within Unified India against Congress of Hingh castes mainly , and if he did succeed which Mandal which Mandal admitted he thought Jinnah would probably not , the residual 20% minority in Pakistan would still need political leadership like Mandal. Both events did not happen . Jinnah has a third headache, large sections of ruling British were not interested in separate Muslim state so a strategic way to convince them was to be found and not ally with Hindus Militarily . So liberal stance of Jinnah is wrongly construed now by later day experts as of secularism.
We all need some humanity and enlarging our scope of thought . We follow Islam , we propagate and preserve our Islamic values as we think it is superior to others . We cannot rate a superior and inferior thing equally and if we do it we shall be unfair with ourselves and civilization .
Finally , A ruling high caste Hindu of 50 years back will not eat along a Muslim fearful of being contaminated and a English would gladly write on Englands street ends , Dogs and coloured not allowed . What secularism would Jinnah stand for in that context one may ask , He actually did not !
Pakistan1992
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a secular leader as projccted by foriegn funded Media of Pakistan these days. .
ofcourse, he wasn't
ofcourse, he wasn't
adnan_younus
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a secular leader as projccted by foriegn funded Media of Pakistan these days. .
one question on yr stupid argument tat he didnt allow his daughter to marry a parsi... so it is ok for Quad-e-azam to eat ham sandwiches???? drink alcohol yet u dont call him secular
one question on yr stupid argument tat he didnt allow his daughter to marry a parsi... so it is ok for Quad-e-azam to eat ham sandwiches???? drink alcohol yet u dont call him secular
Wow. A balanced post on Siasat.pk. Now that's a rarity.
Mohammad Tariq
Voter (50+ posts)
Re: Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a secular leader as projccted by foriegn funded Media of Pakistan these days. .
Pls read the book Jinnah of Pakistan written by Hector Blitho First edition 1954.
Pls read the book Jinnah of Pakistan written by Hector Blitho First edition 1954.
hans
Banned
Re: Mr.Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a secular leader as projccted by foriegn funded Media of Pakistan these days. .
Sir Jeeeee You did work hard on the post.... trying very hard to prove that Father of our Nation was a Islamic leader. Sir, if Quaid was a True Mard a momin then what do you say about all the Mullah of his time that declared him as Kafir?
Both can not be True Representatives of Islam. AGREE???? One of them has to be Kafir!
Now let me clear one thing, there is a huge difference between the word and meaning of Muslim and Islam.
Islam is religion, Muslim can be a good Muslim and a Very Very bad Muslim... like SSP or LJ or Taliban they try there best to be true Muslim but in real terms we all know they are Heretic.
And we all know Heretic sure are 110% Kafir. KOI SHAK!!
As for him being a Shia, we all know very well... when he was just a lawyer he was Shia, when he became a Father of Nation, he stood more as Human being. He was above Shia Sunni dispute. In fact his action was above any religion. Ask your self why did he chose to have his birth date changed to 25th Dec?????? Why??????
Sir Jeeeee You did work hard on the post.... trying very hard to prove that Father of our Nation was a Islamic leader. Sir, if Quaid was a True Mard a momin then what do you say about all the Mullah of his time that declared him as Kafir?
Both can not be True Representatives of Islam. AGREE???? One of them has to be Kafir!
Now let me clear one thing, there is a huge difference between the word and meaning of Muslim and Islam.
Islam is religion, Muslim can be a good Muslim and a Very Very bad Muslim... like SSP or LJ or Taliban they try there best to be true Muslim but in real terms we all know they are Heretic.
And we all know Heretic sure are 110% Kafir. KOI SHAK!!
As for him being a Shia, we all know very well... when he was just a lawyer he was Shia, when he became a Father of Nation, he stood more as Human being. He was above Shia Sunni dispute. In fact his action was above any religion. Ask your self why did he chose to have his birth date changed to 25th Dec?????? Why??????
abu zainab
Banned
some people say that pakistan should be secular because mr jinah wanted so..
some people say that pakistan should be islamic because mr jinah wanted so..
what is this nonsense....????.
you want enforcement of islam because jinah wanted so...??? you dont want enforcement of islam because it is the religion sent by ALLAAH..
THESE PEOPLE WILL SAY THAT WE ARE MUSLIMS BECAUSE JINAH WAS A MUSLIM....
whether jinah wanted a muslim state or secular state, we have to create an islamic state if we are muslims...
the promoters of secularism are not muslims....
some people say that pakistan should be islamic because mr jinah wanted so..
what is this nonsense....????.
you want enforcement of islam because jinah wanted so...??? you dont want enforcement of islam because it is the religion sent by ALLAAH..
THESE PEOPLE WILL SAY THAT WE ARE MUSLIMS BECAUSE JINAH WAS A MUSLIM....
whether jinah wanted a muslim state or secular state, we have to create an islamic state if we are muslims...
the promoters of secularism are not muslims....
Aeronaut
Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
Jinnah didn't want a theocracy nor a secular republic, what he wanted was an 'Inclusive Egalitarian Democratic Islamic Welfare State'. As a matter of fact, none of the Jinnah's speeches have ever mentioned the word 'Secularism' , is it a coincidence , or simply that Qaid who was known for his critical abilities was 'unaware' of this term?
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what Jinnah wanted. He got lucky that he died soon. Alexander the Great said, it is easy for one to create an empire; a totally different ball game to actually run it. Pakistan is now here. It exists. WE the living should decide what WE want.
Do the likes of A.H. Nayyar think that Aug 11 speech was the only speech Quai-i-Azam ever made? And even from that speech, they construct their whole hypothesis based on one paragraph.
Isn't it intellectual dishonesty to completely disregard hundreds of other speeches and statements that Quaid-iAzam gave?
Isn't it intellectual dishonesty to completely disregard hundreds of other speeches and statements that Quaid-iAzam gave?
atensari
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
To me it is a very Islamic statement. In Islam life, wealth, honor and respect (Political sense) of non-Muslims is as respected as Muslim. It is very obvious they are not equally religiously. A Muslims guy marriage with Hindu girl is not welcomed even in India. Quaid-a-Azam also opposed his daughter's marriage with a non-Muslim.
Definitely Pakistanis have to decide between two ideologies, one that do not exist and other which is a fact.
Unicorn
Banned
Can a non-Muslim be a head of state of Islamic country. If yes than there is no argument.
If no than how can Muslims seize to be Muslims in political sense to allow a non-Muslim to be the head of their state. This is just one example of a few where Muslims must seize to be Muslims in order to accommodate the affairs of the state.
atensari
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
The answer is, No.
What did Gyani Zail Sing achieved for Sikhs, I think it was his era when golden temple was attacked, or Abul Klam gained for Muslims. Will a Muslim president of USA able to stop crusades?
A minority person being head of state is just hypocrisy of majority for show off. Which thing is better, good treatment with minority or make one of them head of state and crush the rest.
Unicorn
Banned
I am going to highlight your answer NO. In this case Mr Jinnah's statement has to secular because a Muslim cannot seize to be Muslim in any sense including political sense as indicated by your answer.
Giani Zail Singh did not represent Sikhs only he represents all Indians regardless of their faith. Sikhs in India today are the most successful than any other community including Hindus their income is the highest.
