Rescinding the ’Concordat’

mantolives # 326

In order to pass a bill in legislative assembly a simple majority of 51% is required; in order to pass a constitutional level motion 2/3rd of the majority is required. The OR qualified both of these conditions. Majority rules in a democracy; however, it is the responsibility of majority to address the concerns of minority in an assembly. A minority will never be satisfied 100% with majority consensus; if minority agrees 100% with majority then minority does not exist. That is how democracy works. This principle was neither invented by the constituent assembly nor it was sinisterly used in the assembly. Everything was open to the public - nothing happened behind the closed doors.

You can use rhetoric to portray the consensus of majority as tyrranny of majority or you can call it the triumph of human spirit; it will not change the facts on the ground. This is the best system that humanity across the planet has so far figured out. And there is a huge difference between the concepts of Democracy and that of Secularism - two are not interchangeable.

None of the members of the legislative assembly including Liaqat Ali Khan were Islamist ideologues by any stretch of imagination. However, they were answerable to the people of their respective constituencies.

I did not answer some of other issues raised in your posts because I think they are irrelevant. For example, the issue like whether Quadianis are Muslims or not because of their interpretation of Qura`n is irrelevant to discussion on OR. In this discussion we are only discussing the circumstances under which OR was passed. You are trying to imply in several of your posts that only Jinnah was a true secularist and was keeping the members of legislative assembly, who infact were actually clandestine Islamists, passed the OR as soon as Quaid died. You do not care to support your claims by evidence. You could not even show why those memebers passed OR. What was their compulsion. They were khotay sikke -may be they were. But then who isn`t who does not agree with you.

For those of you who are interested in the truth and not twisted versions of History :

Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly debates are available in many different books and documents... The PCA debates are also published in Hamid Khan`s `Constitutional History of Pakistan`.... One can also go through the `Jinnah Papers`... the last volume has a detailed collection of the PCA proceedings...

The PCA proceedings will give a holistic view of what went on... and it is shameless the way the Objectives Resolution was passed... utterly and totally shameless. The only other example we find is how the 15th Amendment was carried through the National Assembly in 1999...

I can say for sure that as long as absolutely bogus arguments like the one Urstruly seems to be putting up is not exposed for what it is... the legal system in Pakistan will continue to witness such momentous decisions:

```` “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ch. Muhammad Saleem, District Magistrate, Jhang ... do hereby prohibit the Qadianis in District Jhang from the following activities: ... Distribution of sweets and service of food ... any other activity ... that may incite and injure the religious feelings of Muslims..”

District Magistrate of Jhang````

#324
Instead of answering my question you are manifesting it!
You can`t think beyond the Quran and my thoughts in #321 manifest the `beyond` Quran part.


#325
You dont expect me to convert ,do you?
As an aside I didnt mention hinduism at all.

PS: Check your facts... was the Objectives Resolution `unanimously passed` ? Or is the tyranny of the Majority equal to Unanimity these days? But I suppose that is just my personal opinion... and your opinions are the gospel of the truth after all.

BTW when I said I agree to disagree it was with respect to your irrational thesis about the Objectives Resolution...

Urstruly

It is sad to that not only are you are now desperately trying to save face by lying about me but you are only proving what I have known about Islamists all along... all this mumbo jumbo about democracy, and free speech and freedom of religion is only when it suits you... The fact is that nothing you have said so far has been able to negate my basic arguments.. you have ignored simple questions.. and you keep repeating a question that I have answered in detail. Go back in read the answer... there wasn`t a shift in the thinking of the members of the constituent assembly... they were always the same. It was Jinnah who had kept them in line. After Jinnah`s death, those who had any honor did stand up and condemn the objectives resolution...

BTW Still no answer on why that 3 paragraph document you call Objectives Resolution didn`t see the light of day as long as Jinnah was alive, and why he had shot a very similar document down much earlier at the Dehli League session in 1943...

Still no answer as to why Jinnah would select a Hindu as the law minister who would eventually disagree with the objectives Resolution...

Still no answer to any of my questions in #319...

Still no answer about the definition of a theocracy...


You call what happened in 1949 a constitutional development? All of the minority members of the Assembly in 1949 walked out plus one Muslim member... Mian Iftikharuddin.... these were the people you say were supposed to have safeguards... shouldn`t the esteemed house then have considered an amendment to the objectives resolution to satisfy those who had staged a walk out? Isn`t that Democracy? Democracy and tyranny of the Majority are two different concepts... and what happened in 1949 was just the tyranny of the Majority and had nothing to do with democracy. The fact remains... with Jinnah`s death... there was no one to bring moral pressure to bear on the Majority which was bigoted and arrogant after winning its own country. Jinnah alone could have stopped them from this blatant abuse... but he was dead. As long as he lived, these `stalwarts` couldn`t dare bring the objectives resolution to the floor.

-YLH

Another Islamic belief is that God has sent a teacher to every nation. The Quran uses the terms ``Rasul`` and ``Nabi`` to denote this special teacher. Islamic belief is that a total of 124,000 Rasuls and Nabis were appointed by God for each nation and era starting with Adam and ending with Muhammad.

Since God has sent a prophet to every nation, is it possible that Shri Ramchandar, Tao and Confucius were also prophets sent by God to ancient India and China? Perhaps their message was also a precursor of the Abrahamic message.

Recently I came across a book titled ``Kalki Avatar`` by Prof. Pundit Vaid Prakash in which the learned professor claimed that the Kalki Avatar is actually Hazrat Muhammad. He supported his claim with the following arguments:

http://www.therevival.co.uk/articles/hindu_scripturehtm.htm

Pundit Vedaprakash Upadhyay, a Hindu professor, in his stunning book claims that the description of the ``Avatar`` found in the holy books of the Hindu religion, matches the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PUBH). Recently in India, a fact-revealing book has been published. The book has been the topic of discussion and gossip all over the country. If the author of this book were a Muslim, he probably would have been arrested or murdered. Perhaps all copies of this book would have been confiscated. Maybe, even a ban would have been extended. A riot and violence would have broken out against innocent Muslims and their blood would have been shed.

Amazingly the author of this book, Pundit Vedaprakash Upadhyay, is a learned and famous Hindu professor. The book is Kalki Avatar. Pundit Vedaprakash Upadhyay is a Hindu Brahmin of Bengali origin. He is a research scholar at Allahabad University.

After years of research, he published this book, and no less than eight pundits have endorsed and certified his points of argument as authentic. According to Hindu belief, the Hindu world awaits ``the guide and leader``, named Kalki Avatar. However, the description as given in the holy scriptures of the Hindu points only to the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) of Arabia. Therefore, the Hindus of the whole world should not wait any longer for the arrival of Kalki Avatar (the spirit) and should readily accept Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) as Kalki Avatar.

These are the FACTS verified and supported by eight other eminent pundits.

What the author says is that Hindus, who are still anxiously awaiting the arrival of Kalki Avatar, are simply subjecting themselves to never ending pain. Because, such a great messenger has already arrived and departed from this world fourteen centuries ago. The author produces the following sound evidences from the Vedas and other holy books of the Hindu religion in support of his claim:

1. In the Puranas (Hindu scriptures), it is stated that Kalki Avatar would be the last messenger of God in this world. He would be for guidance of the whole world and all human beings.

2. According to a Hindu religion prediction the birth of Kalki Avatar would take place in an isle, which again according to Hindu religion is Arab Region.

3. In books of Hindus, the names of the father and the mother of Kalki Avatar are given as VISHNUBHAGAT and SUMAANI respectively. If we examine the meaning of these names we shall come to some very interesting conclusion.
VISHNU (meaning God) + BHAGAT (meaning Slave). Slave of God = ABDULLAH (in Arabic) is the name of Prophet`s (PBUH) Father. SUMAANI (meaning peace or calmness). Aamenah (in Arabic means peace) is the name of Prophet`s (PBUH) Mother.

4. In the religious books of Hindus, it is mentioned that the staple food of Kalki Avatar would be dates and olives and he would be the most honest and truthful person in the region. Without any doubt the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is acclaimed to possess these qualities.

5. It is stated in Vedas (holy book of Hindu Religion) that the birth of Kalki Avatar would take place in an honourable clan. This perfectly fits the Quraysh where Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) belonged to.

6. God would teach Kalki Avatar through His messenger (angel) in a cave. Allah taught Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) through His messenger Jibraeel (Gabriel) in a cave known as Ghaar-e-Hira.

7. God would provide Kalki Avatar with a very speedy horse to ride and travel the whole world and the seven skies. Indication of burraq (horse) and Me`raaj (the night when Prophet [PBUH] travelled the seven skies).

8. God would provide Kalki Avatar with divine help. This was particularly proved in the Battle of Uhud.

9. Another dazzling account given about Kalki Avatar was that he would be born on the 12th of a month. Whereas the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was born on the 12th of Rabbi ul Awwal (Hijra Calendar).

10. Kalki Avatar would be an excellent horse rider and a swordsman. The author here draws the attention of Hindus that the real days of horses and swords have gone and the present time of guns and missiles. So it would be foolish on the part of those who still expect Kalki Avatar, who should be an excellent rider and swordsman to come. In fact, the divine book, the Holy Qur`an, contains qualities and signs attributed to Kalki Avatar reflecting on the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

The author has given numerous arguments in favour of his claim that Kalki Avatar is in fact Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and those who still await the arrival of Kalki Avatar should not waste time.

#321 by puyu

You have raised an interesting point. However, Islam does not prevent people from interpreting (i.e. extrapolating) holy scriptures. The Muslim belief is that these interpretations are time-bound and are distinct from holy scriptures themselves. This is a fundamental difference from Hinduism in which interpretations and analyses of Hindu scholars become part of the Hindu scriptures.

In contrast, Islam considers interpretations (i.e. Tafseer) a human interpretation of God`s message. Muslims believe that Quran is the revealed word of God, not an ``inspired`` word of God. Jews and Christians believe that the Bible was written by Moses, Jesus, their disciples (John, Matthew, Job, St.Paul, etc). Their belief is that the Bible represents the message of God in essence, though not necessarily in letter. Christian scholars have frequently revised the text of Bible in accordance with their understanding of the world.

But Muslims believe that Quran is the ``exact`` word of God. It was not authored by Muhammad or any of his Scribes.

It therefore follows from Islamic beliefs that since Quran is the exact word of God, and God is Omniscient and Omnipresent.. no human interpretation can be equated with God`s own words. Moreover, since God is Omniscient, His message is universal and flawless (regardless of time).

OTOH, human interpretations are subject to errors of understanding, racial/political prejudices, lack of scientific knowledge or personal preferences. Tafseer written 8 centuries ago can only apply to that era when there were no electricity, air travel, birth control and other aspects of modern science.

Unlike Hindu scholars, Muslims scholars cannot base their analysis on the analysis of other Muslim scholars. They may consult those texts, but ultimately they must provide direct references from the Quran itself.

(FYI, this is belief is not shared by all the 72 sects of Islam. Sects like Ahl-e-Sunnah and Ahl-e-Hadith believe that the Quranic injunctions are too vague, so Muslims must supplement them with the sayings (Hadith) and actions (Sunnah) of Hazrat Muhammad.

However, Wahhabis reject this approach because they believe that even Hazrat Muhammad`s actions were subject to the cultural norms of 6th century Arabia. Thus, not every thing that Muhammad said is applicable to the 21st century. Therefore, Muslims may follow Muhammad`s sunnah and hadith, but will not be penalized for not doing so. OTOH, Muslims must follow the Quran, because that is God`s word ... and God`s word overrules that of humans (including Muhammad).

The Sufi sect of Islam believes that Quran and Sunnah represent God`s guidance in 6th century Arabia. But Man can always seek fresh guidance through communion wit God. Essentially, this means that any man can get closer to God through a painful/frustrating process of nirvana/wajad.. until God reveals His message through dreams and visions.

Incidentally, the Sufi sect of Islam is closest to Hinduism in its practises. Both schools of thought are heavily influenced with pantheism.

Ballukhan #302

``The inference is unwarranted.`` ....but you seem to have drawn this precisely
unwarranted inference. Please clarify.

``...Paki jehadis hate him because he can recite Gita slokas also and empathesizes
with Advaita vedanta...`` I doubt they hate him - more likely they consider him politically
in-consequential. As for Kalam`s scientific accomplishments, I think ironman`s post
#279 touches on it adequately. He is essentially a good manager/motivator/technocrat
but definitely not a scientist of any serious repute, which is why the Indian Institute of
Science seemingly did not want him as a faculty member.

A final note...honorary degrees are not used to attach prefixes. Kalam does not have
a PhD.

Mantolives:

That `s the problem arguing with you, you start crying in the middle, decalre others un-reasonable, and vow that you would never argue with that person again and in the next minute you write another post. Can`t you just make up your mind once?

So in short now your answer to my question is that after Jinnah`s death all 58 elected memebers of the legislative assembly got corrupted; they turned into religious fiends and unanimously passed OR.

Shabash barkhordaar shabaash. And you said you are studying law; is there a wonder why the Paksitani judges turn into the way they are?

HisExcellency!!

++
Hinduism is a collection of traditions and guidance acquired from different sources and different scriptures. As a result, followers of this faith do not believe that any particular scripture is sufficient for salvation. As a result, alternate sources of spiritual guidance are not rejected outright. Given the myriad races and languages in India, this doctrine has political advantages as well. On the downside, this means that Hindu theology has no definite starting point and end points. Any body can add to the previous body of knowledge, or subtract from it.
++

Please answer this genuine doubt of mine.
Is knowledge finite?
How do you expect scriptures which contain finite number of words express the complete truth?
I feel that it doesn`t.Thats why you have different intepretation of scriptures.
Intepretations are extrapolations.
Why limit your inquisitive spirit by tying yourself to a central scripture?
The truth seeker should queston everything and you wont ask uncomfortable questions if you root yourself to the comfort of any central axiom (be it mathematical or religious)
You know how Godel proved the incompleteness of all formal systems.
His proof required a metanarrative .
The analogy is valid as the scripturess are also formal systems.
To see it for what it is you need a `meta` perspective which is denied to the religious.

PS: Moving on... I am willing to accept that against Jinnah`s wishes, against common sense, and against all norms of Modern democratic state, the constituent assembly did adopt the objectives resolution... and so now we are bound by the decision of invalids.

Now tell me how is defining Ahmadis as Non-Muslim constitutional, when constitution and the objectives resolution allows for the freedom of religion? Isn`t it freedom of religion then to call oneself a muslim... The ahmadis justify their beliefs by a linguistic interpretation of the Khatim-un-nabiyeen verse... so you can`t even argue that they are in denial of the Quran... so how can you define them as non-muslims, when they call themselves Muslims?

And if that is the case ... who is next?

Pervaizis? Ismailis? Ithna Asharis? Khojas? Nusairis?

and then when Islam has become exclusive to sunnis... who would be muslim then?

1) Barelvies? 2) Wahabis? 3) Jamat-e-Islami? 4) Salafis? 5) Deobandis?

Your logic will turn muslim against muslim...

Read Jinnah`s speeches in the constituent assembly... its not just idealism... his secularism was pragmatic.


-YLH

Urstruly,

To claim that I haven`t answered the question is very sad....

The constituent Assembly was made up of a bunch of people with their own agendas, and they were checked and held in line by Jinnah, who was the only embodiment of the general will. Jinnah was the one who defined the mindset before 11th September 1948... My question is that why wasn`t this 3 or 4 paragraph long document produced in Jinnah`s own lifetime? Are you suggesting the constituent assembly of Pakistan required over 2 years to come up with this `objectives resolution` Jinnah`s death allowed the legislators to get away with this murder. What had transpired in those 7 months was that Jinnah was no longer alive to stop them. This is what the opposition members mentioned in their speeches and no Government official had a rebuttal.

``There is a difference between speculation and the evidence. And what Mr. Mandal did is common in democratic societies - when you are in government and you do not agree with some government policy, you resign. ``

And that policy was the objectives resolution. So Mr. Mandal who was appointed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah as the Law Minister was against the adoption of this `policy` right? And he resigned... So are you suggesting Jinnah would have appointed someone like Mandal as the law minister who disagreed with a government policy you unjustifiably claim to be the agenda of Jinnah himself? The fact is that by claiming that Objectives resolution was passed only 7 months after Jinnah`s death doesn`t prove anything and you know it... You just want to waste my time on this one and thats about it.

It is futile arguing with you... you declare everything you don`t agree with as personal opinion... so let us agree to disagree... I am personally forced to reconsider my position that you are a man of reason.

-YLH

#306 by RationalFaith

[The more I read, the more I am impressed with the ability of `faith` to shape a person`s intellectual horizons..... ]

I don`t think `faith` colors a person`s intellectual horizons. Depth of horizon depends on breadth of knowledge. People of any religion can broaden their horizons through study.

However, faith does play an integral part in intellectual ``foundation``. Religion provides the individual with a personal experience or frame of reference for defining the world. The reason Indian religions are more inclusive than the Semitic religions is because the latter (and especially Hinduism) are not based on any particular scripture or philosophy.

Hinduism is a collection of traditions and guidance acquired from different sources and different scriptures. As a result, followers of this faith do not believe that any particular scripture is sufficient for salvation. As a result, alternate sources of spiritual guidance are not rejected outright. Given the myriad races and languages in India, this doctrine has political advantages as well. On the downside, this means that Hindu theology has no definite starting point and end points. Any body can add to the previous body of knowledge, or subtract from it.

Semitic religions on the other hand are a continuation of the Abrahamic tradition. In this tradition, there is a definite starting point (Adam). And there are definite intermediate points (i.e. prophets) that seek to expand on the previous message. The message is represented as holy scriptures which are clearly distinguished from other scriptures. This essentially means that salvation only results from following the prescribed holy scriptures.. and rejecting all other scriptures or religions. In this manner, semitic religions (especially Judaism and Islam) are exclusive in their nature. Once the message from God is complete, later generations can only interpret that message. They cannot add or subtract from it. This prevents corruption and distortions in the message itself. But on the downside, this means that all other scriptures that do not conform to this message... are rejected.

Once you understand this distinction between Indian and Semitic religions, it will not be hard to discern a Semitic influence in the writings of most Western and Muslim intellectuals. Similarly, Indian writers express Hindu beliefs in their political and literary master pieces.

For example, every U.S. President since Lincoln has sought to define regional/political conflicts as a ``crusade between Good and Evil``. Moreover, the entire doctrine of liberalism (articulated by Locke, Hegel and Hobbes) is founded on the Christian belief that the ``weak shall inherit the Earth``.

Both schools of though are erudite and possess deep intellectual horizons. Yet their different belief systems lead them to understand the world differently.

Mantolives

You still havn`t answered my question. The question is: what happened between September 11, 1948 and March 1949 that ``changed`` the mindset of constituent assembly. My position from the very first post is that nothing changed in that period; the objective resolution was not only the collective vision of a representative assembly but also that of Quaid and also the voice of people. You disagree with that, however, you do not substatiate your disagreement by providing and evidence to show that something did change during the said period.

Who Justice Munir is, or what he was at the time is immaterial to this discusion. Even if Justice Munir has said what he said, he must support his claims by evidence. Since he provides no evidence to support his claims therefore what he says is his personal unqualified opinion - no more no less. Being a judge has no bearing on it.

Jinnah`s death is a well known fact and so is the date when Objective Resolution was passed. So no one in his right mind can imply that OR was passed when Jinnah was alive. It shows the cloudiness in your head. In my opinion there is no connection between two events. It is you who disagreed and said that there is a connection. So my question was: where is that connection?

The only evidence you provide that the legislative assembly went astray was that Mandal resigned. Mandal resigned because he disagreed with the principles established in OR. But then you speculate ``Surely the Non-muslims had been promised something by Jinnah which was being reneged by his `followers```. There is a difference between speculation and the evidence. And what Mr. Mandal did is common in democratic societies - when you are in government and you do not agree with some government policy, you resign. This disagreement do not necessarily prove that certain policy wrong. If you want to prove the policy wrong, different parameters must be employed.

As far as injustices done to Ahmadis are concerned, I agree with you. I have actaully voiced my opinion at various forums; even in my last post. let me say that again: The ahmadi specifc laws in Paksitani Penal Code namely 298 A, B, & C are not only unconstitutional but are also un-Islamic and must be abolished. However, identifying ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority and thus protecting their rights as such under constitution of 1973 is correct and valid. Just as defining other minorities such as hindus, christians, sikhs, schedule castes is correct and valid.

Your question that you referred to as ``bulk of my post`` is valid. We will get to it as soon as we reach an agreement on OR first. I did not understand your second question; please rephrase it.

Urstruly

First of all, let us not forget who Justice Munir was... He was one of the judges agreed upon by the league to preside over the boundary commission, and he was a close associate of Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

Your rebuttal to point 1 doesn`t make sense. Jinnah`s statements are clear on the issue. You can twist Jinnah`s speeches and statements ... that is your prerogative, but where ever those `democratic principles of Islam` are mentioned (and they are few and far between) Jinnah has elaborated by saying `equality, fraternity and justice for all mankind`. I doubt that anyone would have a problem with those `democratic principles` except that those democratic principles are not followed. Are those `democratic principles of Islam` i.e `equality fraternity and justice for all` followed in Pakistan? Jinnah`s statement about the `sovereignty resting in the people` is from his interview with Doon Campbell... however he had used that exact statement to shoot down a constitution based on Quran and Sunnah as per Dr A H Qazi of Bombay. How can objectives resolution in which sovereignty rests with God be in line with that statement...

Jinnah`s death is important because in 150 you seem to give the impression that Objectives resolution was passed when Jinnah was alive. Jinnah died saying `I have counterfeit coins`.... Read the statements and the speeches of those who opposed the `Objectives Resolution`... all of them pointed to Jinnah`s very clear pronouncements on the issue ... whereas none of the Government members had any answer to them... except saying that `we will have an Islamic state`...

If the `Constituent` Assembly (not legislative as you assert) didn`t go astray can you please explain why Jogindranath Mandal, Pakistan`s first Law Minister, an appointee of Jinnah, and the first acting president of the constituent assembly quit in protest? Surely the Non-muslims had been promised something by Jinnah which was being reneged by his `followers`... and I have read the objectives resolution many times... it is a small document ... a few paragraphs long... why hadn`t it been passed in Jinnah`s life?


Your entire argument seems to be in defence of the objectives resolution... which was only the start... how can you explain the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan, especially the penal code mentioned above... You being a champion of the freedom of speech should easily see the injustice done to the Ahmadis... no matter how much you disagree with their ideas. That piece of `legislation` is not only violative of any principles of secularism, but is in direct contradiction to the letter and spirit of even that horrible document called Objectives Resolution which guarantees complete freedom of speech and religion.


You still haven`t responded to the substance of my post.. but thats ok.. I`ll ask you the question again : please explain how a state which actively discriminates against its citizens on the basis of faith, which has created a constitutional body called Council of Islamic ideology which is consists of leading religious divines, a state which hinders and obstructs its citizens` right of speech based on the laws of one religion, and a state where the highest offices are exclusive to the followers of one faith ... not a theocracy? This is the contradiction...

Second Question: What kind of an Islamic state has a Hindu as its law (remember Law? Law being the greatest preoccupation of the Islamic faith) minister and an Ahmadi as its foreign minister?


-YLH

Going by the explanations given at #294 by HisExcellency on October 6, 2003 4:09pm PT, I can now say without any hesitatin that I am an Atheist and would be willing to burn all the mumbo jumbo that goes with the religions.