Rescinding the ’Concordat’

Urstruly...

Yes you are pointing out that 298 A B C are pure garbage... I thank you for that. Now tell me how many of your fellow Islamists and champions of the Islamic state accept that...


Jinnah had put to rest this controversy much earlier... `Sharia? Whose Sharia?` He asked `I don`t have time for this ... I will have a modern state` .. He had turned out Raja of Mahmudabad from the league for advocating an `islamic` state.

He had also shot down the idea of the constitution being based on `Quran and Sunnah`... the footnote on page 96 of `Sole Spokesman` reads:

`The resolution was drafted by Dr. Abdul Hameed Kazi (Bombay). It called for Pakistan`s constitution to be based on the Quran and the Hakoomat-i-illahiya. Jinnah thought this amounted to a `vote of censure` on every leaguer and his intervention ensured that the draft resolution was swept under the red carpet.` (Foundations of Pakistan Page 440 and Page 425)


All those who tried advocating the `Islamic` state idea during the Pakistan Movement was immediately reprimanded by Jinnah... Maulana Abdul Sattar Niazi`s clarion call for Islamic state in Oct. 1944 was denounced by Jinnah and the League ... and the Civil and Military Gazette went so far as to call it an `open rebellion against Jinnah and the League.`

Saigalph

There is Punjabi proverb that goes like this: ``aata gon`ndi eh te hildi eh``

The translation and background of this proverb goes like this: Once upon a time there was a woman who married his son to a girl who was obedient, loving, caring, and hardworking. She was perfect in all respects. But it was her perfection that her mother in law hated the most. All day she tried to find fault with her daughter in law but couldn`t. Once a neighborette came to visit and asked her how her daughter in law was. The daughter in law at that time was sitting on a stool kneading flour. The mother in law in her utter frustration replied ``I don’t like her because when she kneads flour, she shakes`` – and this is the translation of the proverb.

I don`t blame old mother in law because at least she said what was obvious; she did not try to make anything up. But unlike that mean spirited mother in law you go one step further and use the crutches of outright lies and slander to discredit me. You write `` Perhaps the most repulsive, intellectually speaking, part of your arguments is the matter of Ahmadi Muslims. That a person can be prosecuted for calling himself Muslim and his place of worship a mosque and for greeting his family with a salaam`` If you could produce one post from me that entails what you have shamelessly attributed to me, I promise that I will leave chowk for good. Instead I have written 10s of posts on various forum where I have designated laws like 298 A, B, & C as un-Islamic and unconstitutional. These are the laws that prevent Quadianis from saying salaam and calling their places of worship as masjid etc. If you are the embodiment of the secular democracy and this is your character then thank God I do not subscribe any of your ideals.

Correction 4th line last post:

`where there will be no distinction between Muslim and non-muslim`

One good thing that has come out of this is that a long time Islamist on chowk has been forced to accept that Pakistan was supposed to be a tolerant state, where even the Non-Muslim could become the head of the state, where religion would be treated as a private business where there will be distinction between Muslim and Non-Muslim, where women will have complete parity with men...

This kind of `Islamic` state no one would have an objection to, ... except that there is no such `Islamic` state, and certainly not Pakistan.

PS: Leave the words secular and Islamic out of this. Tell me is Pakistan the `tolerant` state it was meant to be?

What word twisting... Very common ailment amongst the Islamists...


Your claim was the 11th August speech if read completely will change the entire perception... your claim has been falsified...

Read the 11 th August speech again... Jinnah is clear on these issues :

1) Religion is a personal business which has nothing to do with the business of the state.

2) There should be no discrimination on the basis of one`s faith, of any other ethnicity

3) There will be complete impartiality of the state towards religion ..

4) There will be no distinction between a Muslim and a non-muslim (which is a direct contradiction to your claim of non-muslim autonomy)... Jinnah envisaged a pluralistic one man one vote democracy. This is clear from his other very clear quotes provided to you.

Now I call this secularism.. You might call it `Islam`... but the point is that none of this has happened in Pakistan .. Pakistan today is in violation of all these principles...


Now coming to the quote you have mentioned... Please show how speaking of Economic theory of Islam, means also the imposition of selective Islamic laws in the country? Nothing in that quote is a contradiction to the principle of secular democracy. I too believe that Islamic principles of Equity, and justice for all, along with social service and Economics with a welfare angle is a desirable outcome and should be implemented. That indeed is the true role of Islamic thought and not the regulation of peoples` personal lives and sexual behavior. Many European `Secular` states today implement these very same ideas... and that is exactly what Jinnah was talking about. The fact is that despite your pathetic little lie.... 11th August Speech is infront of you.. it gives you a model which is Modern, Democratic, progressive and secular. And what is more is that there are many other speeches where Jinnah has clearly enunciated this again and again.

The fact that now you are quoting the one speech where Jinnah has praised the Islamic ideals of `equality, fraternity and justice` and of `socio-economic` justice to prove that he wanted a `sharia based` state .... has now sealed your argument. Indeed I myself have praised these concepts on a number of occasions... but I don`t think this is in any way negation to basic issue: A person`s religious beliefs should be none of the state`s business.



-YLH

Mantolives

Calling me a liar does not add strength to your argument. It rather weakens it. Now that you have posted your most revered August 11 speech - in the following lines I will prove how you quote selectively to elaborate on your point. But first, lets analyze this speech of August 11. I find not a single line in this speech that is not consistent with the political and social message of Islam – not only in theory but also in practice. Please read my post addressed to Siagalph below. It elaborates in detail the position of minorities in an Islamic polity – how an Islamic polity bestows upon its non-Muslim citizens complete autonomy in their personal, judicial, economic, and religious affairs. Any fair minded person can safely say that in an Islamic polity there remains no Muslim, no Hindu, no Christian and so on and so forth because of said autonomy. And yes, in an Islamic polity state has no business interfering in matters of faith because of this virtue. Isn`t that what Quaid said.

Now you say that since Quaid did not use the word ``Islam`` or ``Islamic`` even once in this most important speech of this life, therefore, he wanted a secular state. Subhanallah, qurban jaaooN mere dost is saadgi par. It is utmost naiveté of a person if he thinks that a 10-minute speech of a person can encompass the whole philosophy of a person. People write books after books and thesis after thesis through out their life to explain what their philosophy is and you say this 10 minute speech explains the whole philosophy of Quaid. Any person who thinks like that lives in a fool`s paradise, deceiving none but himself.

But before we go into details let me elaborate on the difference between ``vision`` and ``direction``. We can define vision as the ultimate goal of a person whereas ``direction`` is the way or it is the plan thru which you achieve that vision or that goal. Without a vision there is no plan and there can be no direction, and without a plan and a clear direction you cannot bring a vision into reality. Now lets apply this parameter to analyze the August 11 speech of Quaid. Any fair minded person can see and then attest that thru that speech Quaid is putting forward the vision of a tolerant state based on principles of social justice. He envisions a state where personal faith of a minority has no bearing on its status in polity. But this speech falls short of giving a ``plan`` or a ``direction`` as to how Quaid intended to turn his vision into a reality. When a person is in a leadership position he cannot just tell people ``hey people establish social justice among yourself because it is my vision``. Instead he HAS to give a work plan and the direction to the people on how to get there. Therefore, in order to see what Quaid`s plan was, as to how to achieve his vision we cannot rely on just one (August 11) speech. We must also see how he directed people.

For Example, Quaid was a great proponent of economic social justice and at many places he pointed out the economic disparity among the masses. So we know that an economically just society was his vision, but what was his direction? We see that his direction to those people who were charged with establishment and implementation of his envisioned economic policy was as follows. In an address on the occasion of opening of State Bank of Pakistan on July 1, 1948 he addressed state bank personnel as:


I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organisation in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideals of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is now facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century, The Western world, in spite of its advantages of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. 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.

By any stretch of imagination, this cannot be a message and direction of a leader who espoused ideals of a secular democracy. Now read my #390 again and see how Quaid gave direction to establish social justice among minorities and then how his vision was embodied in Objective Resolution.

Urstruly, here’s one more for you …

- You accept that rights of Ahmadis should be protected. Sounds good …

- You also insist that a Muslim becoming Ahmadi commits apostasy … and should therefore be killed.

In short … while your ``Islamic State`` grants Ahmadis their due rights ... it may also kill Ahmadis for merely being Ahmadis.

Hello ... is anyone home?

Re Urstruly 393

I do appreciate your taking the time to write at length in answering the questions posed. I also thank you for being serious and deliberative this time. Certainly, I`ll be pondering over the responses.

It`d appear, however, that Manto and Sattar sahib have argued successfully againt two major themes in your answers (the fulness of the Quaid`s text and the accusation against Ahmadi Muslims). I do also notice that you`ve made liberal use of the lawyerly tactic of not answering the questions in a precise yes/no manner. While understandably sometimes it is necessary to expound further, in this case it seemed to be a matter of your trying to put a gloss of respectability on answers that go against the grain of accepted norms of human rights. What bothers me perhaps more than anything else is a recurring theme in all your answers where you seem to imply that Muslims do a `favor` to non-Muslims by giving them positions, their own laws, protection etc etc. Also, you`re inherently contradictory and inaccurate when you say ``So throuout the history of Muslims, Islamic law has never been applied to non-Muslims. `` The very idea of dhimmitude and second-class citizenship, albeit with separate communal family laws within it, is a concept of Islamic law.

Perhaps the most repulsive, intellectually speaking, part of your arguments is the matter of Ahmadi Muslims. That a person can be prosecuted for calling himself Muslim and his place of worship a mosque and for greeting his family with a salaam-I cannot think of a more depraved form of tyranny over the souls of men. The only parallel in modern history is post 1933 Germany where the Jews were declared as second class citizens and then outside the fold of German nationhood and then...well you know the history. The only comic thing in this tragedy is the depth of insecurity felt by the ulema (and earlier by the Nazis) about a small minority whose very existence within the fold apparently threatened the belief system of the priestly class. By their thus marked insecurity about the firmness of the foundations of Islam, the ulema in Pakistan have shown their unwillingness to accept in their hearts the eternal durability of Islam without human intervention. If this is not blasphemy, what is?

Ooops the two previous posts are ... 394 and 115

Last post should read:

no mention of it (Islam) in the most important curtain raiser to the constitutional history of Pakistan?

Urstruly

In case you miss it ... or try and lie some more... I have quoted the entire 11th August speech in full.... It is a very clear enunciation of secular democracy... and not just in three lines, as you lie with a forked tongue, but some 20 odd lines he has repeated the same thing...

See Post 394 where you will find the complete text... I will enumerate the points made in the speech:


1) No distinction on the basis of faith

2) Complete and Equal citizenship for all

3) Religion is a personal matter.

4) Complete impartiality of the state towards religion

5) Warning against dividing Pakistan on religious lines

6) Warning against use of religion in politics or governance

7) Mentions of `Islam` in the most important speech of Jinnah`s life? Zero, Zilch nothing... not even one... Amazing isn`t it that if Pakistan was supposed to be an Islamic state.. no mention of it in the most important curtain raiser to Pakistan`s constitutional history of Pakistan?


This is not the first time I have quoted this speech in full... I quoted it in 315... and only a liar would say that I based everything on 3 lines.

-YLH

so much for being fairminded.... i didn`t know the new definition of `fairminded` was a `liar`.

Urstruly,

You are incorrect in stating that Ahmadis declare others non-Muslim over disagreements on prophethood issue. We believe in continuation of prophethood … but accept others as Muslims who believe otherwise.

Check facts before posting. This strikes out the basis of your argument … where you attempt to justify declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims.

Moving on …

Your argument is further negated by long-standing inter-sectarian fatwa wars between all Islamic sects … where every sect has been declared non-Muslim by various other sects.

Ignorance of your ullema becomes obvious in “Munir Report” … which reported that there is no agreement between any two divines on what defines a Muslim … but they agree that all those who disagree should be killed. The report cites long lists of inter-sectarian edicts of disbelieve between some of the leading sects of Islam. Present day inter-sectarian violence attests to this fact.

Let’s face hard facts and stop pretending.

PS: I have supported continuation of prophethood from Quran and ahadith. I have shown the verdict of some of the most prominent Islamic scholars on this issue ... which undoubtedly shocked you. Differences in opinion is one thing … but declaring others non-Muslim is beneath dignity.

dost-mittar,

Ahmadis are closer to sunnis than shias … since we accept as valid the Caliphate of the first four khalifaas of Islam.

PM,

Your kind comments are appreciated. I am very much humbled. Salam, Sahib.

Read the speech quoted in full below... is `our claim` really around three lines... Can Urstruly please show us where the `whole address` means something else ?