Jinnah and the religious right

Published: January 16, 2011
SHARES
Email
The writer is a lawyer with Malik, Chaudhry, Ahmed, Siddiqi and Waheed in Karachi

The writer is a lawyer with Malik, Chaudhry, Ahmed, Siddiqi and Waheed in Karachi

Recent events have brought to the forefront the death grip that the religious right has over the ideology and direction of the state. However, what is seldom discussed is the inherent contradictions in the politics and ideas of the religious right from pre-Partition days to the present.

At the time when Jinnah was spearheading the movement for Pakistan, the religious right, and more specifically the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Jamaat-e-Islami founder Maulana Maududi, were vociferous opponents of the concept of Pakistan. On March 3, 1940, the working committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar met in Delhi and reportedly passed a resolution disapproving the Pakistan plan and in some subsequent speeches, the Ahrar leaders reportedly dubbed Pakistan as ‘palidistan’. Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, an Ahrar leader, appealed to the people not to be misled by the slogans for Pakistan and, on other occasions, even referred to Jinnah as Kafir-i-Azam.

Maulana Maududi was also hand in hand with the Ahrar in opposing Jinnah’s Pakistan. Maududi is reported to have stated that “Pakistan is a fool’s paradise and an infidel state of Muslims” and that “the Muslim migrants are deserters and cowards, who fought a national battle, but when the time came to pay the price, they took the path of escape”. The Maulana, as well as the Ahrar, felt that Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was a territorial anomaly which went against the Islamic principle of universal brotherhood and, therefore, was against the injunctions of Islam.

It should be noted that these are the same religious organisations or people, amongst many others, who moved to Pakistan after Partition and therein instigated the anti-Ahmadi movement, and browbeated the state into relinquishing its secular tendencies in favour of a theocratic state. This was, in part, due to the fact that the religious forces, even at the time of Partition, knew that religion could be effectively used as a tool to stoke emotions and heighten sensitivities in the new state, thereby necessitating the relevance and importance of religious clerics in society.

It is in lieu of this that, after Partition, the very same organisation started painting Jinnah in a religious cloak, to garner greater legitimacy, suppressed their historical opposition to the creation of Pakistan and manipulated and altered their own pseudo-religious stands in order to gain power in the otherwise ‘un-Islamic’ nation state, so much so that the same religious parties and persons who were ferociously in league with the Congress in India, and in favour of a secular and united India, were demanding a theocratic Muslim state in Pakistan against the very concept of universal brotherhood that they espoused so passionately pre-Partition! In fact, the religious right went as far as co-opting, propelling and garnering a religio-political cloak of legitimacy for the military dictators of the country, who, in return, augmented the street appeal of the religious parties with actual power in the corridors of governance.

It has always been a power struggle. And the people of Pakistan, being as gullible as we are, have sadly been at the forefront, ensuring their success. In fact, by allowing the religious right to play on its religious sensitivities and sensibilities over the past 60 years, the people of Pakistan have allowed the same to triumphantly weave a web of lies, whereby the biggest opponents of the state of Pakistan miraculously became its saviours. And if that isn’t a shame, I don’t know what is.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 17th, 2011.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (70)

  • Humanity
    Jan 16, 2011 - 9:53PM

    You have stated the facts and made the case brilliantly.

    The need of the hour is to reach the masses who read Urdu. Please translate and publish for the masses. Thank you.Recommend

  • Jan 16, 2011 - 10:10PM

    Jinnah was a secular and liberal person in his private life but his political philosophy was quite conservative and religious. People who paint Jinnah as a big moderate, actually just talk about his personal life or personal views but they forget that Jinnah’s Muslim League was never a secular party. Recommend

  • [email protected]
    Jan 16, 2011 - 10:18PM

    Religious forces have always tainted the reality of Pakistan. I think this problem has gone far beyond our control. Jinnah’s Pakistan was just Pakistan not Islamic Republic as it is now. We need secualr Pakistan.Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 16, 2011 - 10:27PM

    When Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan was asked by Jinnah to visit religious groups to garner support for the idea of Pakistan, he went to Qadian first where he met Mirza Bashir-u-deen, the leader of Ahmadis who was sleeping but when he heard of Sardar Shaukats visit, he came down to tell him that we have been praying for this idea ever since we heard of it (the birth of Pakistan) and no Ahmadi will go against the Muslim league.

    In high spirits, Sardar Shaukat went to Deoband to meet Maulana Maududi, leader of Jamaat e-Islam Hind, who scoffed, why would we support Na-Pakistan, Sardar Shaukat angrily left.

    The Ahmadis then organized their men, the likes of Sir Zafarullah Khan, the writer of Lahore Resolution and who later presented Muslims at the boundary commission. Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum Khan, a leader of Pakhtunwa, set up the support for Muslim league in his province and many other high profile men were hard at work for Pakistan like Mian Mohammed Salik and Mr Ibrahim Dard.

    It was Parsis and Ahmadis who put their own money into the treasury of Pakistan after it’s creation and Ahmadis fought for Kashmir under the force called the Furqan Force Battalion.

    But according to Pakistani history books, Maududi was one of the founding fathers of Pakistan.Recommend

  • ST
    Jan 16, 2011 - 10:29PM

    Jinnah did say that he would like Pakistan as a laboratory for Islamic principles in action. That was one big reason why he wanted a country separate from ‘Hindu’ India. Well, the results of that experiment are finally coming out.Recommend

  • M M Malik
    Jan 16, 2011 - 10:30PM

    Basil, We are indebted to you for outlining the bitter truth of our mullas. These ignorant and arrogant maulanas are once again misleading the Muslims of Pakistan. Instead of educating people of the Islamic concept of universal love, tolerance, prayers (dua) and controlling of emotions they are preaching hatred, incitement to violence and vengeance. Recommend

  • Rabia
    Jan 16, 2011 - 11:01PM

    So large portions of the religious opposed the creation of Pakistan. So what? We’ve all known that there was always a turf war for ownership of the leadership role in the Indian Muslim community between the Aligarh Muslims and the religious right. In 1947, there was a brief period of victory for the Aligarh Muslims, but their space was easily filled by the religious right, which, unlike the Aligarh Muslims has a degree of legitimacy at the grassroots. Just asserting that “we are right”, “we created Pakistan”, “this is not Jinnah’s Pakistan” is clearly not sufficient for maintaining ownership of the state that was created. Politics is not a logical argument, wherein you can win by simply proving you were the original owner of a project. Things change. Aligarh Islam was always an elitist project which consisted of claiming ownership of a large and diverse population with which the Aligarh Muslims (and their descendants) shared very little except a superficial sense of identity. It’s always easy to use the scary right wing on your side to intimidate opponents on the other side. However, once you actually have to rule the monsters you’ve piggybacked to power on the backs of… that’s where it all falls apart. Recommend

  • Alap Khan
    Jan 16, 2011 - 11:17PM

    you said: “maulana maudoodi is reported to have said….”

    Please quote the name of book and page/s (whaich u have read!), else chew your words.Recommend

  • Adeel Ahmed
    Jan 16, 2011 - 11:41PM

    Are you saying that the Objective Resolution 1949 was a brain child of these so-called religious right that you are talking about? The same Objective Resolution that makes sure that nothing which is against Quran and Sunnah should be allowed in the country…???
    Are you saying the likes of Liaquat Ali Khan, who fought against these very Mullahs who called Mr. Jinnah ‘kaafir-e-azam’, were inspired and coerced by them?
    I doubt it.

    I think Pakistan was always supposed to be a non-secular, Islamic state, (and should be) following the true essence of Islam, which was taught, preached, followed at the time of the Prophet PBUH and the Khulfa-e-Rashideen. The kind where minorities have the right to ask the leader of the country how he got two pieces of cloth, when everyone else got one (just to quote the most common example).

    That Islam, that Pakistan was Jinnah’s dream. The creators of this country, the shahuda of this country, envisioned that Pakistan.

    What these Mullahs envisioned was power and greed and a cult following, wearing a veil of religion over a very dirty and corrupt body. These so-called religious right were always the bane of Pakistan’s problem… always will be.

    Pakistan needs to go back to its roots. If we cant go back to Prophet PBUH and the khalifas, lets read Iqbal and Jinnah… both completely non-secular, teaching us the same lessons Prophet PBUH taught us. The true spirit of Islam.
    That same beautiful Islam that has now been corrupted and maligned by these so-called caretakers of religion… these mullahs… the same ones that called Mr. Jinnah kaafir-e-azam.Recommend

  • Kittu
    Jan 17, 2011 - 12:16AM

    To start with…Dividing a country based on religion is a shame. Recommend

  • Anoop
    Jan 17, 2011 - 1:06AM

    All Jinnah did was to gift the Extremists a whole State.

    How long can a country which derives its legitimacy based on Division ,based on Religious ground, can upheld a Secular look? Not long, as the case of Pakistan shows. Even the most popular and secular Muslim Leaders in India, like Maulana Azad chose to stay in India. Azad had even predicted the Bengalis would ask for their own state if their Identity was threatened. Jinnah, who asked Pakistanis to adopt a language which was not even native to the Geography(Urdu), didnt posses such wisdom.

    India had the thoroughly Secular and Progressive combine of Nehru and Patel to guide India. And, India did not have a shortage of good leaders to bank on, which Pakistan lacked.Recommend

  • Ani
    Jan 17, 2011 - 3:47AM

    This argument that Jinnah was a secularist is disingenuous His one speech in 1948 is often cited as the bedrock of his secular ideals. Perhaps, he was and that too only in his personal life. Perhaps that is. Politically he kept company with conservatives and demanded Pakistan on the basis of the “specialness” of the Muslims. He incited his followers to believe that they were a separate nation and deserved to live away from the Hindus. Towards independence he openly called for violence to get his Pakistan. Now when he attains his objective, he gives a speech where he calls for all citizens of Pakistan to follow their own faith! Intellectually and politically the religious right called his bluff. Rest is history as they say. By the way since the OBJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS in 1949 – merely one year after his death, so called Pakistani moderates adopted the agenda of the religious establishment willingly and consciously. These attempts to paint Jinnah as an apostle of moderation and secular ideals are false. Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 17, 2011 - 5:19AM

    @ Anoop

    Firstly, Pakistan throughout much of its life was spared from extremism, it only reared it’s ugly head because of political pandering to the religious right who took the nation hostage.

    Pakistan did well till very recent times and it upheld a tolerant society where many achieved a lot. Abul Kalam Azad was of the view that with the creation of Pakistan, the islamisation of India will be hindered and it did.

    As for Bengalis, they were never a part of the idea of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh & Balochistan (PAKSTAN), they joined the movement later but Jinnah wanted them to be a separate state, he even told Suhrwady to work for independent Bangladesh.

    Maybe you should comment on the underlying ills of your nation, afterall it was a cesspool for most of it’s life while Pakistan boomed.

    Every nation goes through rough and difficult periods, we are undergoing one now just like India did for a large time from the 70’s.Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 17, 2011 - 5:25AM

    Anoop,

    Please explain the very odd and questionable actions of Gandhi:
    GandhiRecommend

  • Jan 17, 2011 - 5:45AM

    great article i am sharing :)Recommend

  • docsport
    Jan 17, 2011 - 6:27AM

    @ kittu and anoop…

    Division of country based on religion is shameful? Perhaps it is. and the causes that lead to it are worse, they’re inhumane and criminal. When you have systematic discrimination against a minority religion, ethnicity or race officialized at every level in a country, such feelings are bound to erupt and then theres no saying which course such emotions will take.

    Socially active citizens in both Pakistan and India have enough examples within their borders where they acutely need to do some introspection, create awareness and make progress against such social problems.

    Such pot and kettle conversation is “like, sooo immature”.Recommend

  • Jan 17, 2011 - 8:46AM

    Is there was no religious persons that time other than madudi??

    There were hundred of Muslim Ulam how suport Pakistan.

    But sickular brigade history end on “madudi & 11 august speech”!Recommend

  • zahid
    Jan 17, 2011 - 10:12AM

    Quid e Azam’s pakistan was country freedom to followers of all religion.
    if today pakistan is hub of hub of religious extremists and terrorists we ourself responsible leave country mercy to these terrorists organization.
    Who is founder of taliban?
    Two things have brought pakistan to the edge of destrubtion.
    1: Intelligence Agencies
    2: Religious extrimists

    —Intelligence agencies have used extremists for their interest.
    —Religious interests destoyed the peace in pakistan in the name of religion.Recommend

  • Arifq
    Jan 17, 2011 - 10:32AM

    No doubt Jinnah was a secularist but he also promoted the “two nation theory” based on religion. Once the element of religion was introduced it was a matter of time and weak leadership which allowed the religious lobbies to manufacture consent. Ideologically speaking, the only secularists left in Pakistan are those writing in English newspapers, majority of the population is conservative with tribal or Baradari affiliations. Two major cities Karachi and Lahore both are under attack from extremists and have become hostage to violence, until and unless State of Pakistan does not come down on the militant command and control structure across Pakistan there is very little hope. Recommend

  • Jan 17, 2011 - 10:33AM

    It is not just the Ahrar or Jamat e Islami, but also the Unioinists from Punjab and few economic migrants from muslim minority areas who have done damage to Quaid’s Pakistan. The facade of so called Liberals in Pakistan, who have no tolerance for political dissent and consider it kosher to plunder this country’s state resources has no relevance to Quaid’s concept of a welfare democratic state. Look at the performance of these self proclaimed liberals in Pakistan during the last three years. Jinnah was a man of principles. He never lied to the people, which is why they trusted him. Name one politician in Pakistan, who has any credibility. The Jamat e Islami is not a relevant political force, nor are the Ahraris. Pakistan today faces a cancer in the form of corruption, which has eroded our economy, state security and political culture. Who would you term those responsible for target killings, street crimes and extortion in Karachi. The JUI even today is closely linked with Jamiat e Hind, which considers the creation of Pakistan a mistake. What matters today is the character, credibility and committment of those who head our political parties. Unfortunately they have no stakes and no committment to this country. ZAB had some credibility and integrity and that is why inspite of his other problems, he enjoyed popular support. Recommend

  • Manoj
    Jan 17, 2011 - 10:59AM

    @ the Editor,

    I read most of the online edition of the newspapers of Pakistan.

    One thing which is common in all newspaper is over (ab)use of religion and history in almost all the article/ editorial/ columns.

    I can not understand what purpose it serves for the people of pakistan to keep on digging irrelevant history and to look at every issue from the religion prism.

    You read newspaper of all other countries and no where one finds so much absuse of religion and history to justify oneself.Recommend

  • Adeel Ahmed
    Jan 17, 2011 - 11:01AM

    @ Anoop…

    What makes you think Pakistan even wants to uphold ‘a secular look’ ?
    We have never said we are a secular nation… never will be. We are striving to be a country where Islam, the real Islam, is wide spread, and its principles and teachings are followed to the last bone. These would include, but not limited to, improved law and order, freedom of speech and rights for all, minorities having full right to practice their religion, no corruption, the leaders being of the highest character and calibre, emphasis on humanity, education, culture, etc.
    Thats where we want to be.

    Now… one… go read your history. Anyone who says urdu wasn’t native to the Geography is a bigot.
    Two… you think India is secular? A country which is known for the biggest genocide of 21st century on religious grounds is secular? 5,000 Muslim families burnt, raped, killed with the blessings of the police and your very own government. A country that can’t make the simplest of decisions on the Barbari Mosque without having to fear backlash from Hindus is secular? A country that goes crazy on Rahul Gandhi when he correctly points out Hindu extremists as the biggest threat to India, is secular?
    Sort out your own country first mate…
    Thanks.Recommend

  • Shahid Aziz
    Jan 17, 2011 - 11:48AM

    Mr Jinnah accepted the plan for a united India where the provinces would have autonomy. This would have meant a secular united India. If Qaid i Azam wanted an “Islamic” Pakistan he would not have agreed to it.

    Qaid i Azam also wanted the Punjab and Bengal not to be partitioned and join Pakistan as whole provinces. This would have meant a Pakistan where Muslims were 55%. Would the 45% minority accepted an Islamic Pakistan?

    The Qaid wanted to assure security for Muslims that was all. To say Pakistan will be run by Islamic principles is not the same as to say that it will be theocratic. It meant that all its citizens will feel secure and equal and have equality of opportunity.

    Pakistan was created more by the short sightedness and inflexibility and arrogance of people like Mr Nehru and Sardar Patel rather than by efforts of the Muslim League.Recommend

  • sandeep limaye
    Jan 17, 2011 - 4:15PM

    i request all my pakistani muslim brothers to do one thing. choose your representatives. 50 persons from all walk of life. come to india. and visit all major cities. you will surprised to know that in india muslims are owning big shops, shopping malls. go to there locality. you will find them that there are pucca roads. and you will see them living in better condition. roam here morning or evening time you will here sound of azan. so dear we treat our minority with respect and care. come i m inviting you. include all in your touring party. specially zaid Hamid.
    in my city the biggest shopping mall till yet is Pakistan. owned by Muslim and he had small prayer rooms. people here in India welcome a Muslim by saying
    asalamwalekum. in your Pakistan do you welcome Hindu by saying ram ram
    please see what is real India and them comment. not a single law is there in india which is discriminatory in nature though in practice some flaws creep in. our army is secular. in every kind of religious place is there in army cantonment
    what Jinnah said in his one speech our army is implementing it one day to day basis. our judiciary is secular. Recommend

  • sandeep limaye
    Jan 17, 2011 - 4:23PM

    i m a teacher in ujjain a hindu religious city. the shopping mall i mentioned in my last comment is named pakiza not pakistan. sorry for typing mistake.
    in my school 30% of students are muslims. come to my facebook profile. 30% of my friends are muslim. india is trying to be secular. its foundation is secular. and pundits have no autority over common masses. they can’t issue fatwa to us. we rule the country not our pundits. nobody can declare other non hindu, he may believe on anything. so there is no grip of religius pundits on common man.
    as in pakistan if any one try to support minority he was called non muslim. so see the difference. and then comment.Recommend

  • abukhultaza
    Jan 17, 2011 - 4:25PM

    This issue can be easily resolved. Jinnah was a secular Muslim. Islam is a secular religion. The Quran says “there is no compulsion in religion” and the modern nation state is a coercive instrument so it has to be separate from religion. This is why Jinnah could talk about at the same time Pakistan being a non theocratic state with all having equal citizenship because Secularism is an Islamic value based on the Quranic teachings of non compulsion and the Prophets example from State of Madina. Secular does not mean disbelief. So there you go Jinnah was a good secular Muslim, who believed in United India but was forced to accept the idea of current Pakistan because of Nehru’s insistence on a strong federal India. The fact that in Pakistan we have a struggle between the spineless disbelieving liberals who claim to secular and the extremist religious right who claim to be believers is just a tragedy of history and of misunderstanding real Islam,Recommend

  • Jan 17, 2011 - 4:35PM

    Jinnah was the only one it seems who was of benefit to Pakistan and the People of Pakistan – the rest especially the Mullahs are simple bloodsucking leechesRecommend

  • Talha
    Jan 17, 2011 - 4:39PM

    Secular Jinnah ftw.

    The Raja started off by saying that since the Lahore resolution had been passed earlier that year, if and when Pakistan was formed, it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunna and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution. Mr. Jinnah banged his hands on the table and said: We shall not be an Islamic State but a Liberal Democratic Muslim State.

    Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’

    In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State (Islamic state) — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.

    We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.

    I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with particular reference to the Qadianis. My reply is that, as far as the constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole.

    Mr. M. A. Sabir tried as hard as he could to persuade the Quaid-i-Azam to declare Qadianis as being out of the fold of Islam. But the Quaid-i-Azam stuck resolutely to his principle and kept on replying: `What right have I to declare a person non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim’.

    Jinnah Secular Pakistan Zindabad.Recommend

  • Faarigh Jazbati
    Jan 17, 2011 - 5:56PM

    Guys and Gals

    I posted this on pkpolitics about two years ago and no one could agrue about it, so posting this here as well.

    Faarigh Jazbati Says:
    December 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Slaam Everyone

    I dont understand why people in Pakistan are stuck what Jinnah said or what he wanted Pakistan to be. If you say that Jinnah was a true democrat then under democratic principle if people of Pakistan decided to be a theocratic or secular or nationalistic or fascist state then so be it. What Jinnah said becomes less relevant as under democratic principle it is people who decide what type of government or state they want to be.

    On a different note for Muslims it is not what Jinnah said or not said IT IS WHAT Allah and His messenger SAW SAID. It is what type of government system or state system we are commanded by Allah and His messenger SAW.

    FJRecommend

  • Rizwan
    Jan 17, 2011 - 5:58PM

    Jinnah was the frontman of British Empire’s initiative to divide and rule. He furthered those ideologies by dividing India into two. He was planted into Muslim League when British found the division was inevitable. To favor their cause of divide and conquer, they needed someone working inside. As a whole sub-continent muslims, we lost Jonagrah and subsequently Hyderabad Deccan and we inherited Kashmir, a bone of contention. Jinnah met his fate like his brethren Mir Jaffar and Mir Sadiq. As part of the deal, he never endured hardships as fellow muslims had and just slow poisoned to meet his ultimate fate.

    By dividing Muslim India into parts, British have achieved indefinite disguised slavery of the nations in the Indian sub-continent. After more than 60 years, what have we changed: nothing. We are still living with the same outdated British penal code and the very same railway line they laid on etc. It is a false sense of pride and freedom. At least before we were slaves to British, now we are slaves to invisible hands who engulfing majority of the budget in the name of defence and public services on both sides of the border (90% percent budget is allocated for these two monsters in Pakistan and India has similar number) where citizens are uneducated, unhealthy and they are still slaves to the British slavery class system, aristocracy, military and jagirdars. What has changed after the division, I would say ‘unfortunately nothing’.

    As far as Pakistan’s initial funding, it came from Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad not some Qadyanis or Parsis, it is a fact. Even one may find Osman’s wealth treasured in and backing Pakistani Rupee in State Bank of Pakistan; a gift in the shape of Gold Bricks.
    As those who belittle efforts of Aligarh school of thought, there were only two best schools for muslims; Aligarh and Osmania University. They provided Pakistan a solid footing at its inception.Recommend

  • Anoop
    Jan 17, 2011 - 6:08PM

    @Adeel,

    Dude, the word Secular has different meanings. Indian Secularism is defined as the acceptance of all types of World views towards God. Its not rejection of Religion as the West understands it, but acceptance of all Religions.

    “We are striving to be a country where Islam, the real Islam, is wide spread, and its principles and teachings are followed to the last bone. ”

    –> You people have humiliated Islam and its followers. Pakistan is less of a Muslim Country than it was in 1947. You are not striving towards Islam but striving to be away from it but claiming you are Muslims.

    Islam is perfectly compatible with Democracy and a Secular Government. The people(Muslims) of Turkey, India and Indonesia have proved this.

    The sooner you guys put an end to this charade that you are “striving to follow the path of Islam”, the better it is for the Religion and its followers all over the World.

    “Anyone who says urdu wasn’t native to the Geography is a bigot.”

    –> I guess its not me who needs a History lesson. Urdu was a language of Muslims and Hindus alike of UP and Bihar. A different strain of Urdu is spoken in South of India, like in Hyderabad and Karnataka(where I come from).

    Pakistan’s majority language in 1947 was Bengali(as there were more people in East Pakistan, who spoke Bengali, than Urdu speakers in West Pakistan) NOT Urdu. Naturally, Bengali should have been the choice Jinnah, by making Urdu, his choice for the national language, created Bangladesh during Pakistan’s first partition.

    “5,000 Muslim families burnt, raped, killed with the blessings of the police and your very own government. ”

    –> Show me one independent agency which nearly comes close to the number of 5000. UN had stated that around 1000 people died in Gujrat, out of which 200 were Hindus.

    These figures are from your imagination and 100 adds up every month. Next month you might say that 5100 people died.

    “Sort out your own country first mate…”

    –> India is a work in progress, as are all other developing countries. But, Pakistan, like its brother Afghanistan, is moving backwards.

    It’d be a sad day when a Pakistani Citizen asks an Indian that our problems are greater. That day will never come by the looks of things now.Recommend

  • Kittu
    Jan 17, 2011 - 7:42PM

    @docsport

    The consequences of dividing a country based on religion are there for us to see. Current situation in Pakistan is a classic example. Prior to partition, Muslims are not a minority . They are a majority in east (Bangladesh) and west (Pakistan). So I don’t understand how they can be descriminated as long they have local representation, That too on the day we got independence. They would have dictated central politics. What partition did is they made muslims in India an in-secure minority. A punjabi is not in-secure and not descriminated in punjab, A christian in not in-secure and not descriminated in kerala, A follower of budhism is not in-secure in arunachal pradesh. Jains thrive every where in India. So patition based on religion is infact a shame. I am not being immature, I am being wise. More over I don’t understand the term ‘ Secular Pakistan’, How could a country created based on religion be secular. Its just immature vision..Recommend

  • Jan 17, 2011 - 9:04PM

    The intelligentsia has muddled Jinnah,s philosophy by engaging in a superficial discussion of Islamist or secular, ignoring the fact that he visioned social justice, integrity, law and order, sovereignty for his country, nowhere to be seen to day. I am dead sure he did not want an undignified & sycophant leadership. These are also the integral components of a Muslim state. So why not get over right or left and practically do something.Recommend

  • Lal Khan
    Jan 17, 2011 - 9:30PM

    My dear writer…this is a beaten path taken a million times before to tell the mullahs this is not your Pakistan but ours! But my dear you can not wash Jinnah clean of the original ‘blunder’ of jumping the religious bandwagon to achieve the end: Pakistan (actually Islamistan!). No matter how much you try, its almost impossible to rescue Pakistan from that bandwagon called Islam. The day Jinnah used the ploy of religion, he presented this new country and its inhabitants on a platter to the mullahs. It was only a matter of time before the country fell fully deep into the lap of these regressive champions of our faith. Now only God can rescue the hapless people of this hapless country from the dark clutches of the violent mullahs!Recommend

  • maKen
    Jan 17, 2011 - 10:29PM

    Agreed with Talha, BTW from where have you taken the text you’ve quoted above my post?Recommend

  • Khurshid Khan
    Jan 18, 2011 - 1:38AM

    If we really want to understand the issue and are seeking an understanding in the light of… history by authentic sources (as best as we can) then, please spend some more time on these two links posted at the end of the text. The issue is not that simple and the above article is a point of view which needs to be examined in proper historical context.I agree that our political leadership was not practicing mullahs but at the same time if they needed a non Islamic state what was wrong staying in India? are we implying that they needed political power and some president houses and long cars with flags only? If we were to have a secular democracy…..India did claim to be a inclusive,secularist democracy…..do you see the signs of that in India? If you do…then why not join India or why did we break up India in 1947?Are we also implying that Islam does not encompass all, plus much more then what secularism is all about? are we just talking about our so called mullahs who has taken up Islam as a religion of rituals and have very little understanding of Islam as a DEEN? because of lack of understanding and education about Quran and its message. I believe Alama Iqbal is a much better source in our founding leaders,religious or political….about DEEN Islam from Quran.If you read Alama Iqbal’s message and his work post his return from abroad you will have the clear answer of what type of society was envisioned by Iqbal and what our Quaid intended to help,create. He knew better then most what secular democracy means……. I would therefore request you, to spend some time reading Maulana Azad’s interview and Dr Israr’s historical video on the subject. If you do…..what will you lose……but it is possible to have a better understanding. This exercise will give us information in proper context and comprehensive from both point of view.

    1.http://www.razarumi.com/2009/11/27/maulana-azads-interview-given-to-shorish-kashmiri-1946/

    http://www.tanzeem.org/broadcast/video/streaming/Public_Lectures/031.htmlSee More
    Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 18, 2011 - 3:15AM
  • Mawali
    Jan 18, 2011 - 4:32AM

    Look thanks for beating the horse which is half dead anyways. Jinnah was secular and a reluctant leader. Anyone who says that Jinnah was religious must then be thinking of Jinnah to be associated with any other religion but Islam.

    The point being the religious wrong never had the power, wherewithal or the bite to make any difference in the shaping of opinion of Muslims on either side of the divide. Sure, they made some noise but no one really took them seriously. The real damage to Pakistan in the rise of the extremist element is not the doing of the religious wrong but the so called secularists both current and from your point of view pre-partition. It was the Muslim league (pre-partition) which first at least in recent times (initially it was raised by a malcontent by the name of none other than Syed Ahmed, not be confused with the great Sir Syed Ahmed Khan back in 1783 during the days of the british rule) raised the Islam-in-danger slogan to garner slipping Muslim support. The seed of introducing religion into politics was first sewn by the so called secularist of pre-partition India. Then, the Muslims of the new state now Pakistan picked it up from there and just made a mockery of it. From Auyb onwards, and then ZAB used the banner and issue of Islam to gain support or pacify the opposition.

    The so called elite of Pakistan who are a problem now were the problem even then and are directly responsible for the mess you find yourself in. Consider the statement made by Rehman Malik who said that he would personally shoot any person committing blasphemy. Quite reassuring I am sure! Rehman Malik is not a member of Jammat-a-Islami; is he?Recommend

  • Shuaib
    Jan 18, 2011 - 10:25AM

    @Talha, zabardast! Never knew this side of JinnahRecommend

  • Ajaz Hussain
    Jan 18, 2011 - 10:55AM

    Actually these MULAS have misinterperated the term SECULAR by saying that being secular means being “BAY DEAN” (Anti- Relegion). But this is totally wrong interpretation as these people do all the time just to give falls boostup to their politics. Actually these mulas have nothing with the relegion they need power to govern the people which is impossible, because the people of pakistan are fool but not that much as much they think.

    SECULAR means respect for each others relegion and beleives. Every body is free to practice his own relegion without any external fear.

    QUAID-E-AZAM, himself belong to a minor muslim community “ISMAILI (AGA KAHNI)” which is considered to be a world civilized relegious sect. He did this imposible thing possible under the guidance and support of Aga Khan-III Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah his 48th sipritual leader (IMAM) and direct decendent of Prophat Muhammad.Recommend

  • G.Khan
    Jan 18, 2011 - 3:00PM

    @Anoop
    I strongly believe that if you don’t want to get respected, No one will ever give you any respect. Your own example is something like that. You come here and started firing on Jinnah and Pakistanis as terrorists since 1947. Want to see Real terrorist? It was those Hindu Mobs who were slaughtering migrating Muslims . Those were the first on record Terrorist. It was even before Pakistan came into being. Second act of Hindu terrorism was against Gandhi himself. Your leader Advani was on Babri masjid with his religious Hindu terrorists RSS soldiers who helped him bring it down. he planned that event 10 months in advance. Story of 1947 Hindu terrorist Mob mentality repeating once more in 1984 when Sikh Bodygaurds Killed Indira for her Demolishing the Golden Temple: Another act of State Terrorism against Sikh minority. Gujrat Muslim Massacre in which same Hindu terrorist mobs repeated 1947 story and killed 2000 Muslim women, and children including. 2006 Christian suffered by the hands of mobs which destroyed churches and killed scores of christians.

    Do you remember Samjhota express terrorists who are in your so called “protective custody” ? Hindu State Terrorism is going on in Kashmir for the last 25 years. 90,000 Kashmiris killed or disappeared by your Hindu Terrorist army? do you see who is terrorist here?

    There are other examples I can quote if these are not sufficient. Go, clean up your own mess first before even thinking of lecturing others on Terrorism. We all know who is real terrorist . Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 18, 2011 - 3:20PM

    Even Allama Iqbal stated that Pakistan was not going to be an Islamic State:

    Hindus should not fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states. I have already indicated to you the meaning of the word religion, as applied to Islam. The truth is that Islam is not a Church.

    For India, it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power; for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.”

    Recommend

  • abhinav
    Jan 18, 2011 - 3:45PM

    @Khurshid Khan

    Thanks for shairng Abul Kalam Azad’s interview. I couldn’t believe he said these things in 1946, most of his predictions come true with time.Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 18, 2011 - 3:46PM

    @ G.Khan

    Anoop just wants to get a reaction from you by offending all and one on this website.

    His tirdes against Pakistan and Pakistani’s are all over this website.

    Best to ignore him.Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 18, 2011 - 4:43PM
  • Anoop
    Jan 18, 2011 - 6:08PM

    @G.Khan,

    “It was those Hindu Mobs who were slaughtering migrating Muslims ”

    –> This is an absurd argument considering, equal number of Sikhs and Hindus died who were migrating from Pakistan to India. It was an Indian, alas, who went on a hunger strike to stop the killings. Then even the most avid haters of Gandhi were blown over by the determination of the Mahatma, when they saw him on his death bed. Gandhi wouldn’t drink or eat until his countrymen stopped the killings.

    Here is what the Time Magazine says about that episode:“Gandhi sought to deter further killings by living among Muslims himself, and he embarked on a hunger strike against communal violence that generated such public shame and outrage that sectarian tensions in the city gave way to universal concern for the aging man of principle. Gandhi broke his fast as weeping rioters laid their machetes at his feet.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1653773,00.html

    Jinnah, never spent a day in jail or did even remotely as life threatening as Gandhi and Nehru had done so repeatedly. India’s freedom and tolerance was a hard fought achievement, and the country has followed the path of its founders. Pakistan has also followed the path of its naive founder, who was handed the country without any struggle. Hence, the situation.

    Regarding Gujrat, Babri Demolition, total number of casualties didn’t go beyond 1000. Compare this to the darker Bengali Genocide by their Muslim brothers, the Pakistanis themselves. 3 MIllion people were killed. Not even 1% of that figure were killed in all of India’s riots combined.

    Now tell me. Which one is to be considered as Genocide? If you say that the above figures are untrue and falsehood, then I’ll point you to Justice Hammodar Rehman Commission report, a report of the probe initiated by the Pakistani Government whose findings were kept secret until a Indian publication revealed them. Thank God for that! Eh?

    Time Magazine goes on to say:””It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland.”, talking about Pakistanis killing Pakistanis.

    http://www.bangla2000.com/bangladesh/Independence-War/Report-Hamoodur-Rahman/default.shtm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971Bangladeshatrocities

    So, my friend no matter what you say, no act in India combined can eclipse the inhuman behaviour of Pakistanis in killing their own in 1971.

    “Do you remember Samjhota express terrorists who are in your so called “protective custody” ? ”

    –> It was India who broke the case and put in the perpetrators behind bars without a word from Pakistan. Pakistanis have no moral right to talk about it considering the leader of LeT, blacklisted by UNSC and Interpol, freely giving speeches in Lahore to thousands. No wonder the Pakistanis are radicalized. It is because of such tolerance to Extremist thought. India has broken the back of Hindutva Nuts to the extent they couldn’t carry out a single act of sabotage in 2010. Compare this to the thousands who died in Pakistan, killed by fellow radicalized Muslims.Recommend

  • Anoop
    Jan 18, 2011 - 6:12PM

    @Talha,

    “Anoop just wants to get a reaction from you by offending all and one on this website.”

    –> I understand its easy to call one names and throw accusations than to debate with him based on facts for Pakistanis.

    What ever I say, I can back it up. I never talk about anything without understanding about it. You are free to point which part of what I say is based on falsehood, I’ll take it back. For instance, just tell me which part of what I write above is false?

    Knowing your reaction to sane,calm arguments from my side, I am not expecting an answer.Recommend

  • Anoop
    Jan 18, 2011 - 6:16PM

    @Talha,

    Regarding your claim that Maulana’s interview was not based on fact, I’d like to point out that the Maulana was a vocal advocate of united India. He even had predicted that Bengalis were Independent enough

    He has even talked about it in his book. Also, most of the predictions he has allegedly made were not hard to predict.Recommend

  • Farooq Khan
    Jan 18, 2011 - 7:01PM

    @Khurshid
    Dr Israr was a founder member of jamat I islami and left it in 1956 when at Machi Goth had differences over how the party was going to be run, with Moulana Moudoodi. Irashad haqqani, Moulana Kausar Niazi, Maulana Amin Islahi were the others who left the party with him.Recommend

  • SUB
    Jan 18, 2011 - 7:38PM

    @ Talha: Moulana Maududi was a lot of things wrong or right however he or Jamat e Islami has nothing to do with Deoband, Zafarullah Khan has done great services for Pakistan and he was among Mr. Jinnah’s most trusted men however Lahore resolution of 1940 was written by Sheer e Bangal Moulana Fazl e Haq

    I wonder what history book you have been reading where Mr. Moududi is claimed among the founding fathers of Pakistan? Most of Religious ‘leaders’ opposed the idea of Pakistan however they never had considerable applause in the Awam just like now in Pakistan they gather a lot of people on streets however when it comes to elections even their own followers do not vote for them or I may say disapprove their ideology

    This divide has always been here among Muslims, I think you mistook Moulana Hussain Ahmad Madni for Mr. Moududi when you mentioned Deoband. Here is another example for you, Moulana Hussain Ahmad madni and Moulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani who was one of Jinnah’s trusted guys and also lead Jinanh’s Janazah prayers. Whereas Jinnah is considered to be a Shia or Ismaili from his parents side. Both moulana Madni and Usmani were educated in Deoband, from the same teacher or Ustad who was I guess sent to indiman islands (Kala Pani) or may be hanged by the British for some reason I cannot recall. Both were qualified Sheikh al Hadees (Master of Hadith). Both thought at Dar al Uloom Deoband however both have political views that were poles apart. One believed in Pakistan as a separate country for Muslims and other was staunch opponent till Pakistan came in to existence. This is the kind of spirit we need these days where we allow other people to think and have a different opinion from what we believe it. And its needed for both extremists and liberals

    Being a citizen of Pakistan everybody has an equal right irrespective of their religion, cast and back ground. Qadianies believe Muslims as non-believers and the same is thought of Qadianies by Muslims, so why complain about it since Muslims are a majority in the country so they can make laws that are close to their ideology.

    @ Rizwan: You need a reality check from Jaswant Singh’s book on Jinnah & Partition. Better read it before commenting on Jinnah’s “cruel” intentions for a divided India.

    @Anoop: Waste of time

    @All: Remember they were all human beings who did a few good things and may be a few mistakes. Few of us qualify to be critical of them however since it’s a free world (for many of us internet is free also :)) everybody around here has right to be an analyst, master of secularism and the history of Pakistan :)

    Allah Bless U AllRecommend

  • Meera Ghani
    Jan 18, 2011 - 9:13PM

    I for one would’ve been for a secular and untied India. We’d be in a better state now, had that happened. Oh well, like Billy Wilder said “hindsight is always twenty twenty”. All these mullahs and religious parties are political animals and will swerve any which way to gain power. Now lets shift the balance to our side and let them not manipulate the masses and their emotions on the basis of religion. Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 18, 2011 - 9:48PM

    @ SUB

    Fazlul Haq presented the Lahore Resolution, not authored it. The author of the resolution was none other than Sir Zafarullah Khan and this can be confirmed by many sources, below is an excerpt from Wali Khans book.

    Writes the Viceroy: “I may do what I like it, including sending a copy to you; thirdly, the copies have been passed to Jinnah and I think to Hydari (Sir Akbar Hydari, then Prime Minister of the Nizam of Hyderabad), and, fourthly, while he, Zafrullah, cannot of course admit its authorship, his document has been prepared for adoption by the Muslim League with a view to be given the fullest publicity.” The Viceroy explains that although the scheme had been drawn up at his instance, since Zafrullah was Qadiani, the Muslims’ knowing that it was his handiwork would make it suspect in their eyes from the very start. Consider the dates. This letter was written on April 12, 1940. The plan had been sent earlier. A copy of it had also gone to Mr. Jinnah, and also to Sir Hydari (for the financing of it). Obviously it was much the same scheme that was adopted as the Pakistan Resolution just at that time, on March 23, 1940.

    So you can see that the authorship was not properly equated to Sir Zafarullah Khan because of his religious background.

    Similarly, Maulana Madani of Deoband was against the creation of Pakistan, he was the leader of the Deobani’s and his opposition to Muslim League is well known.

    Muslim scholar Maulana Azad opposed partition and Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani did not support Mr Jinnah’s ‘two-nation’ theory along religious lines.
    How Indians see Jinnah

    Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani was the only cleric to lend support to Pakistan but he was a minor figure in the Muslim League and had a very small role in the creation of Pakistan.

    Here is a picture of the Muslim League during the round table conference and you can clearly see Sir Zafarullah Khan and Sahabzada Abdul Qayyum (both Ahmadis) sitting side by side with all the other heavyweights of Pakistan.
    Muslim League – London

    At the Round Table Conference held in London, 1930 (from left to right): Sardar Aurangzeb, A. K. Fazl-ul-Haq, Nawab Chhatari, Mian Muhammad Shafi, Sir Aga Khan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum and Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah.

    As for the issue of considering others Non-Muslim, Ahmadis consider all the reciters of the Kalima to be Muslims. I am an Ahmadi and I know but this lie is propagated to keep the populace in a negative light about Ahmadi’s.Recommend

  • Jan 18, 2011 - 11:57PM

    Jinnah was an Ismaili by birth…the vast majority of Pakistanis are Sunni Muslims.
    Jinnah was an irreligious ‘Englishman’ by adopted culture…the vast majority of Pakistanis do not want to adopt that culture.
    The only reasons the Muslims of India supported Jinnah was because he promised to represent THEIR interests. In case of getting the British to recognize the Shari’ah with respect to the Muslim endowments (Awqaf) he DID represent Muslim interests. He promised the Muslims of India that they would be able to order the Pakistani governament according to their beliefs. If he had promised that the Pakistani government would represent his own beliefs (secularism or perhaps Ismailism) no one would have supported him. Perhaps after gaining power he went back on his word and attempted to dictate his beliefs on the Pakistani people, lots of politicians do that, that does not make his actions legitimate.

    And yeah the Ahrar and Jami’at Ulama-e-Hind et al. did not support him because:
    1- He was the head of the British bootlicker party, the Muslim League, a conglomeration of Aligarhis, Chaudharies, Nawabs and other ‘Loyal Mohemmadans of India’
    2- They believed, that he would go back on his word and that he never intended to give the people what he promised.Recommend

  • Ajaz Hussain
    Jan 19, 2011 - 2:55PM

    @Muhibullah

    You are right to say that he was an ismaili muslim. In fact their was no any other leader in the subcontinent to represent the muslims in proper way practically except Aga Khan-III Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, 48th Sipritual leader of the Ismaili Muslims who is direct decendent of our holy prophet Muhammad(PBUH).

    Without Aga Khan-III establishment of Muslim League was impossible, without Muslim League Shimla Delegation was imposible, and Without Shimla delegation Creation of pakistan was impossible. Ofcouce QUIED-E-AZAM being a follower of Aga Khan-III was working on the true islamic guidance of Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah. No one can deny the contribution of Aga Khan-III made on the educational, economcial and social development of the muslims of subcontinet, Ali Garh university is the one such example. The Ismaili’s are contributing in the same way for the well being of worldwide muslims including pakistan. you people dont have knowdge obout thier contributions because they dont want any kind of publicity of their contributions becasue they are not doing politics. they are contributing because they beleave on the practicalty of islam but not varbal and non_practical islam.Recommend

  • UJ
    Jan 19, 2011 - 3:30PM

    WE NEED TO TRANSLATE THIS INTO URDU AND SPREAD THE WORD! I wish my Urdu skills were good enough but unfortunately they aren’t. Can anyone translate and upload the article in Urdu and paste a link here so we can all start spreading the word?

    thanks Recommend

  • Farooq Khan
    Jan 19, 2011 - 6:00PM

    A nice column has been turned into anti-pro ahmadi debate.Recommend

  • Disco Molvi
    Jan 19, 2011 - 6:50PM

    @Alap Khan
    “Pakistan is a fool’s paradise and an infidel state of Muslims.”-Maulana Maudoodi
    Pakistan jannat ul huqama aur musalmanon ki kaafir hakoomat hai.”-Maulana Maudoodi
    (reference Tarjuman ul Quran 1946, page 154)
    Hope this answers you query now kindly you chew your own words.
    Oh, and here is a gift for you. Enjoy.
    http://pakteahouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/image0012.pngRecommend

  • Talha
    Jan 19, 2011 - 7:03PM

    Yes, Sir Aga Khan-III had a big role in the creation of Pakistan.

    Agha Khani’s are a business focused community which can be utilised to an excellent extent for the economic prosperity of Pakistan, much like the way they helped form it in its early years.

    Pakistan has a plethora of highly intelluctual hard workking communities which for some odd reason have been shunned because of the ire of religious clerics.

    Lets hope sense prevails and the rightful leaders of Pakistan get to turn this nation into the kind envisioned by Jinnah.

    Currently we are living in Maududi’s Pakistan.Recommend

  • jahangir khan
    Jan 19, 2011 - 9:47PM

    @Talha Jan 17, 2011 – 5:19AM

    “Abul Kalam Azad was of the view that with the creation of Pakistan, the islamisation of India will be hindered and it did.”

    maulana azad was a true humanist, more secular than pakistan’s jinnah yet more islamic than iqbal or the entire muslim league put together. i dont get what you really mean by your comments on azad. if you mean he was the leader of muslims alone like jinnah or iqbal, it means you havent understood azad. he was a leader of ALL indians, irrespective of their cast or creed. history has proved that azad was absolutely right and jinnah was utterly wrong. the muslims of india made the greatest blunder of their history by ignoring azad’s vision and by accepting jinnah’s politics of communalism and separatism.study with an unbiased heart and mind the writings and speeches of both the leaders and you will come to know that azad was a statesman far far wiser than jinnah. we pakistanis are taught to worship jinnah from day one of our schooling. but let’s be justful to our heroes in our mature age.Recommend

  • R S JOHAR
    Jan 20, 2011 - 12:07AM

    Well, a very thought provoking article by the author which is equally well responded with a healthy and meaningful discussion which according to my assessment is amongst the best so far on current topics published by Express Tribune, who needs to be congratulated for the same. I am a bit amused but also pleased to read the comments that undivided India and secularism would have been a better preposition and two nation theory proved to be disastrous for most Pakistanis. However, my view point is that it makes no sense to blame Mr Jinnah who favoured a separate state for Muslims and some Muslim leaders opposing this doctorine with apprehensions which turned out to be true after a period of sixty years. My dear friends this is destiny, which happened with the Will of God or Allah and as of now it looks to be irreversible. If one analyses the present scenario of the whole world, all cultures and religions have undergone tremendous changes. Moral values are on the decline and there is rise in extremism in all fields of life namingly accumulating of wealth through dubious means, intolerance, hatred, religious extremism and violence. Though all these ills are present but with variance in different countries. Unfortunately, Pakistan has been the victim of all these five extremes more than any country in the world. My advice to my Pakistanis friends is that they should recite their daily prayers, shun hatred and intolerance and help the poor or needy, they will be blessed with peace. Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 20, 2011 - 3:13AM

    @ Jahangir

    If Maulana Azad was such great leader, why couldn’t he stop the eventual partition of India.

    Wasn’t the task assigned to him by the congress was to utilise the Muslim vote and keep India united.

    After all the congress used Ahrar first, the Deobandis and finally Azad to no success.

    Jinnah was the greatest statesman, that is a fact, that is why there is a nation called Pakistan and that is why his name is echoed when one hears of the modern Muslim values and secular credentials That elude the Muslim world.

    Partition was an unavoidable event, No Maulana could stop it to Continue their intoxication of the masses.

    I find it insulting that you deman Jinnah like that.

    Pakistan was a very respected great nation but it has been hijacked by the Mullahs.

    However we will regain Jinnahs Pakistan the way we made it even with paramount opposition.Recommend

  • Talha
    Jan 20, 2011 - 3:14AM

    Btw, I am willing to pay for your one way ticket to India.Recommend

  • Alm757
    Jan 20, 2011 - 9:16AM

    The current sitiuation in Pakistan very well reflects, how the religeous group who were agaimst establishment of Pakistan now gained Power in the name of Islam and now making innocent people fool in the name of Namoose-i-Risalat. Recommend

  • Alm757
    Jan 20, 2011 - 9:28AM

    Be righteous in your heart, have faith on your religion, follow the teaching of your religion as God Almighty will ask on the day of judgement how far you bonded with your Faith. Do something good for your neighbor and for yourself and for your family, and be Loyal to the country you live in. Increase your knowledge of faith and or religion by asking question at http://www.askislam.org /www.alislam.orgRecommend

  • Anoop
    Jan 20, 2011 - 5:47PM

    @Talha,

    Sorry to barge in.

    “If Maulana Azad was such great leader, why couldn’t he stop the eventual partition of India.”

    –> The same reason Gandhi couldn’t stop the Partition. If he had tried there would be a Civil war as Jinnah so famously had threatened.

    Maulana and Gandhi and the likes couldn’t let that happen.

    “one hears of the modern Muslim values and secular credentials ”

    –> This depends largely on which side of the political direction you reside. Just because he drank Alcohol you cannot call him a Secular person.

    M.J.Akbar, a renowned Historian/Journalist in India, puts it well when he says,”Jinnah was a Secularist alright, but not his whole life”.

    We tend to look at people in black and white. Jinnah, a lawyer by profession, tried to adapt to the situation and tried to justify the creation of Pakistan depending on the type of Audience he was addressing. Jinnah, like all mortals around him had more shades of Grey then black or white.Recommend

  • jahangir khan
    Jan 21, 2011 - 11:51PM

    @ Talha

    don’t be cross and feel humiliated. i mean no insult to jinnah .let me have my opinion in my way, yours in your way. one thing is for sure. those who prefer jinnah over azad also prefer partitioned india to a united one.but let’s be humans first and then pakistanis. what did partition utimately lead to? nothing but communal hatred, obscurantism, bigotry, killings, war and all those evils people of the subcontinent have been experiencing bitterly since the divide. azad had already predicted and declared openly that the partrition of india would create more problems than it would solve. he had also said that the issue in india was that of class not religion. in contrast to azad, jinnah was myopic or selfish– he couldn’t see or didn’t want to see that the partition of india would bring suffering and misery to the poor man of the entire subcontinent. more than a million died during partition, a result of jinnah’s politics which in turn had been engineered by the british imperialism. let’s not twist history if it doesnt match the “history” lessons you and i have been given by “history books” taught at schools in pakistan. perhaps the greatest lesson from the history of the 20th century is that azad was right, jinnah was wrong. i am a pakistani but proudly consider azad my hero.Recommend

  • jahangir khan
    Jan 21, 2011 - 11:53PM

    @ Anoop
    could i contact you through email? i would love to share viewsRecommend

  • Anoop
    Jan 22, 2011 - 1:49AM

    @Jahangir Khan,

    I applaud your views. I agree with you. Lets not make a demon out of any leader from that era. Lets us proceed with the understanding that like all people no leader of that era was perfect, same goes to Jinnah.

    But, even though I disagree with the notion of splitting up a country based on faith, I have to concede that I think that Partition was inevitable. I am of the Opinion that Nehru and Patel new that and knew it well. It explains the creation of Pakistan in such short time. Nehru and Patel, knew that the call for Pakistan might not end there, as Muslims formed 25% of the population, and their rejection of it would be seen as a rejection of Muslim Right. Like any secessionist movement it would only gather strength. There was a chance that if that sentiment grew it could lead to massive instability that could consume the newly born Nation of India, a Civil War with no clear end you might say.

    As the example of India, post-Independence shows, stability and principled leadership was the only difference between India and Pakistan, which led them to take different paths.

    Although I would love to share views with any, I’d not think it’d be appropriate to give my Email Id over this forum. Recommend

  • G.Khan
    Jan 22, 2011 - 9:35PM

    LEADERSHIP IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA. LOL.. See the difference when size Matches? LOL…Ahhh What a Pity!!!

    @ Talha..
    Thanks for the advice. I Know it and I am Just making his records correcedt… because I think it’s my devine duty to do that.LOL. I don’t care what he believes and what not. More important is what I believe. You can not argue with such people/ Theya re the lost cause anyway. LOL.. I am just having fun!!!Recommend

More in Opinion