"Stop distorting Jinnahs words" Prof A H Nayyar

[atensari]

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.

"Muslim cannot seize to be Muslim in any sense including political sense as indicated by your answer". What he (Muslim) would be then?

Yes, he was just a show piece to cover Secularism.

 

[Unicorn]

"Muslim cannot seize to be Muslim in any sense including political sense as indicated by your answer". What he (Muslim) would be then?

Yes, he was just a show piece to cover Secularism.

In that case he was not secular or he had no idea what Islam is. In my opinion the latter is true.

 

[ejunooni]

Exactly and 90 % of the Nation Wants Shariah so lets Implement that and move to the Islamic system. Although you dont have authority to talk about it. I will allow you this one statement :)

You are a joker. 90% of the nation wants shariah? keep dreaming

 

[lurker]

In that case he was not secular or he had no idea what Islam is. In my opinion the latter is true.

There's a famous shair for all the great men that have come on this planet.

Yeh Log Mar kyun nahi jatay
Guzray howe log Guzar kyun nahi jatay

 

[Unicorn]

There's a famous shair for all the great men that have come on this planet.

Yeh Log Mar kyun nahi jatay
Guzray howe log Guzar kyun nahi jatay

It is so true in a sense with relation to this thread that no-one wants to express what they want for the future of the country but what Jinnah wanted for the country. Had the Congress party accepted the cabinet mission that would squarely leave him in Secular square.

 

[atensari]

In that case he was not secular or he had no idea what Islam is. In my opinion the latter is true.

Your opinion 100% fits on a Muslim who claim himself "Secular Muslim", a Muslim who claim himself "Muslim" might be/might be not.

 

[deltaforce]

There's a famous shair for all the great men that have come on this planet.

Yeh Log Mar kyun nahi jatay
Guzray howe log Guzar kyun nahi jatay

khuda ne qaid e azam ki ijjat bacha li , nahi to ab tak pakistan me unhe hinduo ka agent karar de kar jail bhej diya jata ya sharab ke chakkar me tarah tarah ke ilzam laga kar kafir / hindu declare kar dete .

 

[desicad]

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.

you are assuming that a muslim state treats minorities well which is total fallacy........the fact is niether they allow a non muslim to become head of state nor do they treat minorities well.......whereas for example in US a minority person can be head of the state as well as it treats its minorities much better than how any muslim country treats its minorities........
and second thing why should a muslim US president stop crusade (assuming there is any)?......he is supposed to be loyal to US constitution and serve his country and people, not islam.....and same holds for your example of Gyani Zail Singh....he was president of India who happened to be a sikh.....if the sikh extremists were hiding in the Golden temple, it was his duty to flush them out who were acting against the state and killing people........

 

[atensari]

you are assuming that a muslim state treats minorities well which is total fallacy........the fact is niether they allow a non muslim to become head of state nor do they treat minorities well.......whereas for example in US a minority person can be head of the state as well as it treats its minorities much better than how any muslim country treats its minorities........
and second thing why should a muslim US president stop crusade (assuming there is any)?......he is supposed to be loyal to US constitution and serve his country and people, not islam.....and same holds for your example of Gyani Zail Singh....he was president of India who happened to be a sikh.....if the sikh extremists were hiding in the Golden temple, it was his duty to flush them out who were acting against the state and killing people........

It’s your assumption that I am saying this

Not only Muslim any state should treat minorities well. Allowing a minority person to become head of states is not equal to good treatment. A Muslims state should not be hypocrite to bring a show piece in front and badly treat others.

How a Muslim president can stop crusade, even a Christen President cannot because he is a puppet of Bankers. BJP is a hindu extremist party which president will flush them out.

 

[cms123]

Since there is discussion of being honest:
First of all the author of this note starts with the words
"The writer retired as a professor from Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad"

With all due respect. You are dishonest to start with. You retired as "Associate Professor" not as a Professor.
Please present yourself honest then start quoting a great leader.
Sorry, did not have wrong intentions. But such a sad to hear that Mr. A. H. Nayyar was keep talking against Pakistan's nuclear program and left QAU as associate professor to join a big money oriented NGO. I am surprised to see this kind of article from a person like A.H. Nayyar.

 

[desicad]

It’s your assumption that I am saying this

Not only Muslim any state should treat minorities well. Allowing a minority person to become head of states is not equal to good treatment. A Muslims state should not be hypocrite to bring a show piece in front and badly treat others.

How a Muslim president can stop crusade, even a Christen President cannot because he is a puppet of Bankers. BJP is a hindu extremist party which president will flush them out.

It is not my assumption , but that is what you mean........what you basically are saying is that when a minority person becomes head of state, he/she by default is a showpiece and cannot be a genuine case.........and just because he/she will always be considered a showpiece, he should not be given that right to reach the top.........so starting with maulana abul kalam azad (not president, but first education minister) in '47, then zakir hussein, zail singh, a. p. j. kalam and many others to the current prime minister and the army chief, each and everyone of them were/are not capable people, but just showpieces?.........are you serious?........the term showpiece is just an excuse for you to deny the basic right of an individual that he/she if capable also can reach the top........
now BJP is not an extremist party, they come to power by votes and not guns.....they don't indulge in anti state activities and killing people (you will want to associate them with babri masjid, gujarat riots which are abberations and sometimes happen in communally charged up atmosphere), that way you can also accuse congress of the anti sikh riots......if you recall the first real push for the peace initiatives with pakistan was carried out by the BJP govt with Vajpayee visiting lahore.......

 

[M Ali Khan]

MUST READ piece on Quaid!!!

Jinnah's Pakistan

By:Kunwar Khuldune Shahid Tuesday, 13 Aug 2013 7:11 am | Comments (16)

The mirror image of the mans own contradictions

It is in the ethos of every nation to mull over its ideological raison detre as the Independence Day of their state approaches. One of the most common ways for a people to commemorate the day is to ponder over what the founding fathers were thinking when they came up with the idea to create their nation.

The Egyptians think about Saad Zaghlouls desires; The Indians try to figure out what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi wanted out of India; The Israelis deliberate over David Ben-Gurions aspirations;the Germans wonder what Otto von Bismarck had in mind for a United Germany; the Chinese debate over how Mao Zedong perceived China; the French try and figure out how Charles de Gaulle saw Frances future; while Americans collectively fight over the underlying principle behind the creation of their nation and what their founding fathers really wanted.

Except that none of this ever happens.

Musing on what kind of a state our founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted, decades after the countrys inception is almost exclusively a Pakistani sport. And the primary reason behind this of course is twofold:

a) Jinnahs massive anthology of contradictory speeches and acts; and
b) Pakistans paradoxical identity crisis and the ensuing dearth of nationalism.

There are those who believe that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state and then there are those who claim that he wanted a secular one.

The former quote his March 22, 1940 speech, among many others, while the latter quote two lines from his August 11, 1947 speech, which is their holy gospel. The former highlight the illogicality behind creating a state for Muslims where Islam wouldnt be the ruling authority while the latter use subplots like economic safeguard of the Muslim community as the justification for a separatist movement; the former cite Jinnahs endeavour to earmark Muslims as a separate nation, while the latter present his personal lifestyle to elaborate what kind of a Pakistan he actually wanted.

And while both sides are relentlessly at daggers drawn, neither of the two camps pauses for a moment to think that merely the existence of the opposing camp and the evidence they provide for their case, should suffice in ascertaining Jinnahs contradictions.

Therefore, only one man can be blamed for the fact that even after 65 years since he died Pakistanis still cant reach a consensus over what kind of a Pakistan Jinnah struggled for: Mohammad Ali Jinnah himself.

115 years after his death, no one has an inkling of doubt about what kind of a Germany Bismarck wanted.
86 years following Zaghlouls death no one questions his perception of Egypt.
65 years after Gandhi was murdered theres a general consensus over what he wanted out of India.
Similarly there is almost unanimous agreement over what Mao, De Gaulle, Ben-Gurion and pretty much every founding father wanted their states to function like.

And this is because either their actions had no contradictions, or their contradictions have been identified and acknowledged by the generations that followed them. None of them is above criticism, and none of them is perceived as an angel moulded out of perfection.

Again, its not really a question of what Jinnah wanted, more a question of what his actions resulted in. Modern-day Pakistan, the crowning achievement of Jinnahs political career, might not be what he desired, but it sure as hell is the bona fide corollary of his struggles. This is Jinnahs Pakistan; not because the clergy rules the roost or because we still have flag-bearers of secularism in this country. But because it is the hub of conflicting ideas that are constantly at loggerheads, and forcing them to coexist results in the mess Pakistan finds itself in. The Pakistan of 2013 is the mirror image albeit prodigiously enlarged and tarnished of Jinnahs own contradictions.

Why would the proponent of Hindu-Muslim unity defend Ilam Din in court, even though he did not support death penalty for blasphemy and had warned against misusing Section 295-A?
Why would someone who believed in religious coexistence marry a Parsi woman who had to convert just so she could marry him, and then go onto scream bloody murder when his own daughter married a non-Muslim?
Why would the person who had distanced himself from Islamic obligations and didnt share anything with the historically revered custodians of Islam, launch a movement to safeguard Islam?
Why would he expect the minorities in Pakistan to play a positive role in the newly formed states unity, when he had failed to do so himself by leading a separatist movement in United India?

At times he was proud of introducing religion into politics, When we say This flag is the flag of Islam they think we are introducing religion into politics a fact of which we are proud (Gaya Muslim League Conference, January 1938); categorically stating that Pakistan would be an Islamic state, (Pakistan) will be an Islamic state on the pattern of the Medina state (Muslim League session Allahabad, 1942); showcasing a state which would be governed by Islamic laws, The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions, and Islamic Laws (Frontier Muslim League Conference November 21, 1945) and portraying Pakistan as the Premier Islamic State (February 1948).

And then he would epitomise secularity, There will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities, which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life; (Interview with Doon Campbell of May 21, 1947) and clearly rebuffing the idea of a theocratic state, In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission (USA broadcast, February 1948).

There can only be two possible justifications for Jinnahs contradictions. The first one is that Jinnah was an oxymoronic liberal Muslim, the creed of which can be found among the Pakistani intelligentsia, who believe that Islamic ideals and secular ideals do not contradict one another. An example of this can be found in a statement during his July 17, 1947 press conference: When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.

Even so, despite all the clamour of Jinnah extrovertly vying to make Pakistan a secular state, one cant find one quote where he used the term secular for Pakistan. Even when he was directly posed the question, in the aforementioned press conference, Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?, his answer was as wooly as they get: You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.

If Jinnah believed that by stating that Pakistan would be secular he wouldnt be contradicting almost every single one of his speeches post-1937 elections, why would he hesitate in saying so? And why despite mentioning most of the ideals of secularity in several speeches after Pakistans creation, he never categorically used the term secular Pakistan? These questions are answered by the second, and quite possibly the more accurate, of the two aforementioned justifications for Jinnahs contradictions.

Jinnah was a lawyer. Pakistan was the biggest case of his life.

Most of his quotes for religious freedom are from his speeches when he addressed a foreign audience or had a significant proportion of minorities in the crowd. And most of his quotes envisioning the establishment of an Islamic state are from speeches where he was addressing the Indian Muslims and the Islamic clergy.

Jinnah said what was needed, when it was needed, to strengthen the prospects of an independent state called Pakistan.

A lawyer isnt too concerned if he contradicts himself during a trial as long he wins the case. And Jinnah won his case on August 14, 1947.

The writer is a financial journalist and a cultural critic. Email: [email protected], Twitter: @khuldune



- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/08/13/comment/columns/jinnahs-pakistan-2/#sthash.oXxd5TpL.dpuf

 

[M Ali Khan]

i also recommend people to also read Dr Mubarak Ali

http://www.geocities.ws/mubarak4one/mubarak/jinnah.htm

Jinnah: making a myth

-- Mubarak Ali -- Quaid-I-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had all peculiarities and characteristics in his personality to make a myth of himself. He was reticent, reserved, kept his personal matter in secrecy, behaved coolly and arrogantly and not friendly with anybody. Perhaps he wanted to create a halo of awe and fear around him. Sri Prakash, the first Indian High Commissioner, in his book ' Pakistan: Birth and early years' narrates about a reception which was given by the Governor General of Pakistan, just after the independence to the diplomats .It was also attended by the party leaders and bureaucrats. According to his version, Mr.Jinnah was sitting at a distance alone on a sofa and called one by one to those whom he wanted to talk. He exchanged notes with each one of them just for 5 minutes. To the High Commissioner, he appeared a lonely man, averse to people. His serious and somber expression made all those who interacted him uneasy in his company. This attitude gave the impression that he was the end all and all in every matter. The Muslim League and its leaders were just rubber stamps. His image of being a sole spokesman of his party and people created a number of myths. For example, one myth about his serious illness which is narrated by Larry Collins and Dominique Lappierre in their book" Freedom at Midnight" fascinates everybody and they are compelled to take it seriously. The version of their story is: "if Louis Mountbatten, Jawahrlal Nehru or Mahatma Gandhi had been aware in April 1947 of one extraordinary secret, the division threatening India might have been avoided. The secret was sealed onto the gray surface piece of a film, a film that could have upset the Indian political equation and would almost certainly have changed the course of Asian history. Yet, so precious was the secret that that film harbored that even the British C.I.D., one of the most effective investigative agencies in the world, was ignorant of its existence." These were the X rays of Jinnah diagnosed as a T.B. patient. The authors, after creating a suspense, further write that: "The damage was so extensive that the man whose lungs were on the film had barely two or three years to live. Sealed in an unmarked envelope, those X rays were locked in the office safe of Dr.J.A.L.Patel, a Bombay physician." On the basis of the story, Jinnah emerged as the one on whom depended the whole movement of Pakistan. The story further becomes interesting when a Hindu doctor kept the secret at the cost of Indian unity. His political inclinations were more important than his professional integrity. In 1997, on the occasion of the 5oth celebration of India-Pakistan independence, Patrick French published a book"Liberty or Death'. He, after his own investigation, refutes the whole story narrated by Collins and lappierre .According to him: "The idea that Jinnah's poor state of health was a closely guarded secret is absurd: it was referred to in the press at that time, and it is obvious from photographs taken in the mid 1940s that Jinnah was unwell. Moreover, the reduction of the Muslim league's wide popular backing to the whim of one man's 'rigid and inflexible' attitude is indicative of the way that Pakistan history has been traduced. A second problem with Collins and Lappierre's story is that it is not correct. Jinnah did not go to Bombay in May or June 1946, since he was busy in negotiating with Cripps in Simla and New Delhi. Nor did he have a doctor by the name J.A.I.Patel.Although it is possible that Jinnah had tuberculosis in 1946, there is no evidence among his archive papers to support the theory." However, Jinnah himself on many occasions expressed that he was the sole creator of Pakistan. In one of his famous sayings he said that he and his typewriter made Pakistan. The statement disregarded the efforts of his colleagues and the leader of Muslim League in matter of politics. It is also a denial of people's participation in the struggle for the separate homeland. There are evidence that he did not like the leaders of Muslim League.To him all of them were mediocre and incapable to lead the nation. Perhaps, that was the reason that Jinnah, knowing his fatal illness, accepted 'the moth eaten and truncated Pakistan'. The later history of Pakistan confirms Jinnah's assessment about the Muslim League's leaders who miserably failed to solve the problems of a nascent nation. The failure of these leaders has transformed Jinnah's image as a superman. He overshadowed every body. The nation also paid respect to its Great Leader in naming universities, colleges, airports, roads, hospitals, and institutions of different kinds with the result that a citizen of Pakistan feels his presence every where in the country wherever he goes. Moreover, his image as a Great Quaid is presented in the textbooks to mould the mind of the young generation encouraging him to follow in his footsteps. Scholars are writing continuously on different aspect of his life. Recently, a film is screened to counter the film Gandhi in which Attenborough distorts the image of Jinnah These efforts made him holy and sacred. Any criticism to his person is regarded a treason. He has become a paragon of virtues, beyond all weaknesses of a humanbeing. There is such a reverence and high regard for him that mere association with him catapults a person from a humble position to the rank of freedom fighter. There are a number of people who claim to have shaken hands with him (though he avoided to shake hands with people), seen him, talked to him, or merely attended his public meeting. The rulers of Pakistan, realizing the effects of his association, create myths of their links with him. Z.A.Bhutto claimed that as a student he wrote him a letter (it is not known whether he replied to that letter or not), Zia's sycophant bureaucrats discovered a diary of Jinnah (that was the time when Hitler's diaries were discovered and later on proved false) which disappeared along with him. Nawaz Sharif, assuming to follow his footsteps, called himself as 'Quaid-I-sani (The second leader). One such similar example is found in the history of France when Napoleon iii made an attempt to revive the image of Napoleon I in order to legitimize his authority. Marx jokingly comments in ' The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,' that "Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." Nawaz Sharif's self- given title proves it. Jinnah has become such a symbol of wisdom in the Pakistani society that people visualize Pakistan with his reference. His vision, his agenda, his dream and his ideals, all.remained unaccomplished because he died soon after the independence. It is commonly believed that had he lived some more years, history of Pakistan would have been different. There are few nations who rely so heavily on one individual. No doubt, Jinnah was a great leader of his people. He was a man of integrity and honesty, but to make him an idol and not allow anybody to emerge out of his shadow is pathetic. Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, attempt should not be made to repeat but to make a new history. People should be liberated from the shadow and allow them to flourish in a free atmosphere. Great leaders should be respected but not worshipped.

 

[atensari]

It is not my assumption , but that is what you mean........what you basically are saying is that when a minority person becomes head of state, he/she by default is a showpiece and cannot be a genuine case.........and just because he/she will always be considered a showpiece, he should not be given that right to reach the top.........so starting with maulana abul kalam azad (not president, but first education minister) in '47, then zakir hussein, zail singh, a. p. j. kalam and many others to the current prime minister and the army chief, each and everyone of them were/are not capable people, but just showpieces?.........are you serious?........the term showpiece is just an excuse for you to deny the basic right of an individual that he/she if capable also can reach the top........
now BJP is not an extremist party, they come to power by votes and not guns.....they don't indulge in anti state activities and killing people (you will want to associate them with babri masjid, gujarat riots which are abberations and sometimes happen in communally charged up atmosphere), that way you can also accuse congress of the anti sikh riots......if you recall the first real push for the peace initiatives with pakistan was carried out by the BJP govt with Vajpayee visiting lahore.......

Condition and treatment with common Muslim depict what they were.

“BJP is not an extremist party”, is it a secular party?

“sometimes happen in communally charged up atmosphere”. Killing minorities and civilians is acceptable?

 

[desicad]

Condition and treatment with common Muslim depict what they were.
“BJP is not an extremist party”, is it a secular party?
“sometimes happen in communally charged up atmosphere”. Killing minorities and civilians is acceptable?

no, it is not acceptable....anyway this discussion was not about bjp.....and it seems you have no answer to the point raised....

 

[Rommel]

Recently Some People of Pakistan have started questioning the Two-Nation Theory that was the base for the creation of Pakistan. They are Under The influence of outrageous liars and From their falsehoods, they want to prove that Jinnah wanted a secular state.

There are hundreds of speeches of Quaid-e-Azam that can be slapped across their Zionist faces, but quoting here just some of them to revive the memory of Pakistani youth.

Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states.
​

Iqbals letter to Quaid, 28th May, 1937.

The Congress President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu-Muslim nation is impossible in India. In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities.
​

Iqbal to Quaid, June 1937.

To my mind the new constitution with its ides of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nation entitled to Self-determination just as other nation as in India and outside India are? ​

Iqbal to Quaid, June 1937.

The Palestine question is very much agitating the minds of the Muslims. I have no doubt that the League will pass a strong resolution on this question and also by holding a private conference of the leaders. Personally I would not mind going to jail on an issue which affects both Islam and India. The formation of a Western base on the very gates of the East is a menace to both. ​

Iqbal to Quaid, 1937.

Pakistan not only means freedom and independence, but also the Muslim Ideology that has to be preserved that has come to us as a precious gift and treasure. ​

Quaid-e-Azam, Chittagong, March,1948.

In Pakistan lie our deliverance, defence and honour. If we fail, we perish and there will be no signs and symptoms of Muslims or Islam left in the sub-continent. ​

Quaid-e-Azam, Pakistan Day, March, 1945.

The Constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed-I am sure it will be of a democratic type embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in modern times, as these were 1300 years agoin any case, Pakistan is NOT going to be a Theocratic State-to be ruled by the priests with a Divine mission. ​

Quaid-e-Azam, broadcast to the U.S.A. February,1948

Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrine, rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim Society, every department of life collectively and individually. ​

Quaid-e-Azam, Eid Massage, September, 1945.

In Islam, ultimate obedience belongs to God alone. The only way to follow this guidance is through the Holy Quran. Islam does not preach obedience to a king, parliament, person or institution. The Islamic Govt. means rule of the Quran. And how can you establish the rule of the Quran without an independent state?​

Quaid-e-Azam, address to the students of the Usmania University, Deccan, India, August, 1941.

Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody. Quaid-e-Azam, Presidential Address at the All India Muslim League, Lahore March 23, 1940.


The vital contest in which we are engaged is not only for the material gain but also the very existence of the soul of Muslim nation, Hence I have said often that it is a matter of life and death to the Musalmans and is not a counter for bargaining.​

Quaid-e-Azam, Presidential Address delivered at the Special Pakistan Session of the Punjab Muslim Students Federation, March 2, 1941

You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve. ​

Quaid-e-Azam, address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy and 6th Light Regiments in Malir, Karachi, February 21, 1948.

We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.​

Quaid-e-Azam, address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi, October 11, 1947.

We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.
​

Quaid-e-Azams speech at the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi, July 1, 1948.

 

[Rommel]

Was Quaid-e-Azam really Secular?
NO he was true Muslim and Ashiq-e-Rasool pbuh


[TUNEDOTPK]21280[/TUNEDOTPK]
​

 

[Rommel]

​

 

[atensari]

no, it is not acceptable....anyway this discussion was not about bjp.....and it seems you have no answer to the point raised....

your changing your statements:

"you are assuming that a muslim state treats minorities well which is total fallacy".

"what you basically are saying is that when a minority person becomes head of state, he/she by default is a showpiece and cannot be a genuine case"

 

[desicad]

your changing your statements:

"you are assuming that a muslim state treats minorities well which is total fallacy".

"what you basically are saying is that when a minority person becomes head of state, he/she by default is a showpiece and cannot be a genuine case"

I am not changing anything......problem is with your understanding......