Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Re: # 270
This is partially true. In West Bengal, moslems are basically descendents of lower caste people and are looked down upon due to the economic /social class. This is not particular to moslems. With time, due to good governence, the social disparity has almost disappeared and thus, large section of OBC and significant number of SC/ST has joined the so called mainstream middle class. Furthermore, those who has migrated from East Bengal, were the cream of the society there. To compete, in any field with them is not mean task.They are who's who of the world ( Pandit Ravisankar, Satyajit Ray , Amartya Sen, Dr. Satyen Bose etc...) . Anywhere in the world, moslems are not that advanced to compete with these people educationally/culturally.So, without any specific discrimination, for pure academic reason, moslems are the most backward people after the tribals in western bengal.

Re: # 360

jameel

You say:

"It’s a fashion these days to pass sweeping statements concerning Islam by looking at the muslims. The gap is very wide."

There is no gap dear. Can you define the 'Muslim' in term of Quran. Munir had failed to do that. 'Muslim' simply means one who surrenders, not necessarily to God alone.

It’s a fashion these days to pass sweeping statements concerning Islam by looking at the muslims. The gap is very wide. Writer would have known this if he ever read Quran with an intention to understand it.
Be it Zia Ahmed’s Linguistic Imperialism or what ever Khalid Suhail writes and even from Beena Sarwar, they are all meant to divide the people as us and you. Us the intelligent and you the stupid. If God is an illusion for them there is no point in talking about illusions. Islam has always been a soft target. It is often ridiculed by those born in muslim homes. These and many more writers try to philosophy simple issues and present it as a revolutionary thought and most essential to the world. Editors should not allow Chowk to become instrumental in spreading their delusions.

Re: # 358

Woh to Lal Qille pih Jhanda lehrana chahte the magar hua kia. Bengali aksariat ne Musalmani aksariat ke khilaf vote de dia(vote hi nahein dia balkih lakhon jaanoon ki qurbaani di) aur yoon Quide Azam ke Pakistan ko hi torh ke rakh dia. Aur aaj jisko Pakistan kaha jata he wahaan musalmanon ka kia hashar ho raha he.

What a homeland for muslims it has come out to be that they are trying every mean to run away from lt.

Why Pakistan was created? I don't understand what was the need by the professor to waste so much of his time and energy in finding the answer rather than paying more attention to his own filed of study ?


The simple answer is:

The unarguable fact is that the Muslims of India wanted a separate homeland of theirs and they struggled for it until they succeeded in creating such a homeland in the shape of Pakistan!

Twisting and distorting the Quaids speeches such as follows is just to appease the mentally upset people who unfortunately call them as 'liberal muslims'' instead of hypocrites, that what they are. They often refer to Quaid's foll apeeches:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” [Aug 11, 1947, Jinnah’s address to the First Constituent Assembly]



Similarly, Jinnah had indeed come out forcefully against theocracy:

"Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic 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." [Feb. 1948, Jinnah’s broadcast address to the people of the United States of America]


It is clear from these speeches that:
1. A land of the Muslims has to be governed by the laws of Islam otherwise, as a matter of common sense, one can ask as to why did the Muslim's aspire for a separate homeland of theirs??

The writer and many of his like conceal the fact that minorities have complete rights in a Muslim or Islamic state except that which is not permitted by the injunctions of faith. It's nonsense to say that minorities are not enjoying equal social rights in Pakistan. On the contrary they are better off than many Muslims! If observing Namaz,roza, zakat, zakat,jihad, hajj are mechanisms of Talibansm then let us stop calling us Muslims. The writer is just trying to confuse and confound Islamic teachings with some of the wrong interpretations made by the Taliban or so called fundamentals. Let us join hands to bring those people in line with our faith rather than demean it through unscrupulous propagands , especially that relating to the rights of minorities and influencing governance.

Re: # 354

More little knowledge. The GOI did not declare Jinnah's house enemy property and it was not confiscated.

The legal status is quite clear.

Re: # 346

Again Harimau... little knowledge is very dangerous and you never cease to amaze me with how little you actually know.

Gandhi agreed and put his john hancock to an agreement:


The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress.

Gandhi agreed to it and signed it. So did Jinnah. This meant that both parties moved fundamentally from their extreme positions? Gandhi accepted that Jinnah had the right to speak for Muslims alone and Jinnah accepted that Congress could nominate Muslim members from their own party to the government.


Now coming to your comment about Mandal... even if we accept your notion about the interim government... one wonders why Jinnah agreed to make him the Law Minister though... your claim falls flat on its face as usual.

Re: # 345

Isn't it ironic that you claim that Jinnah - the middle class hero - was a facilitator but the greatest benefactor of feudals - archetypal feudal ZAB- was a hero...Wow. Amazing logic

Ref mohar11 #138

[But then J-man was already dead... too bad, the guy didn't live to see the cr@p unfold - it would have been quite a spectacle - both J-man and his "law minister" high-tailing together out of pakiland via wagah border :) ]

Jinnah-bhai was already planning to leave the Land of the Pure and retire in his palatial home in Bombay... except that India declared his house to be Enemy Property and confiscated it. So, Jinnah-bhai had no choice but to live and die in the Land of the Pure.

When Altaf Hussain of the MQM says that the partition of India was the biggest blunder, many Pakistanis scoff at him even calling him a traitor. But the fact is he is dead right.
Even the renowned and respected Islamic scholar Dr Rafiq Zakaria, father of Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria, Minister in the state of Bombay and then Maharashtra, till the end of his life maintained that the partition of India was the biggest tragedy for it baecame the source of untold misery for Muslims of India.
MAJ in his speeches trying to justify his folly often referred to Muslims in India as a minority who faced a bleak future in undivided India. This is proving to be quite a misleading statement. If India were undivided today, of the population of 135 crore, Muslims would be approximately 50 Crore and Hindus would be 85 crore. That makes a ratio of 5:8. The ratio would have been ideal to ensure that Hindus would not been a overwhelming majority while the Muslims would not be a pushoverable minority. Just the right balance to ensure a happy secular state.
Surely crores of people would not have had to leave their hearths, the only expenditure on defence would have been in facing Chinese monster , the old Hindustani culture would have been preserved, in short, there would have been a lot of harmony and much less misery in the subcontinent.
But as fate would have it, a whisky guzzling, pork eating Muslim grandson of a Hindu parent managed to sway an undecided part of the population to separate, and there we are, two poor countries ready to go at each other's throats at the slightest excuse.
Wah re Quaid!

Ref Mullah32 #156

[Urstruly #153.... have you edited the Quran to take out inconvenient references to being honest in order to make room for maudoodism?]

How about editing the Koran to take out all references to killing the kaffirs put in by the Prophet to End All Prophets, viz. Mohammad bin Camel?

Ref anil #189

[What I have not been able to find is once the decline of the Mughals had set in, why Hindus could not come in to fill it?]

Read the history books again.

The Mahrattas were knocking at the doors of Delhi. Look at a 1855 map of India.

Who ruled Gwalior? Here is a clue: it was not a Muslim.

Ref diarrhea-i-dil #203

[By seeing the reports which borivilli_express..sent ...i wonder ..how cheap ..a human ..can fall to...by rapping innocent girls..and women..andsd then burning them alive...LANAT on all those..and all who support them even in heart...]

Ask that of Indonesian Muslims who, when they rioted against Suharto, raped Chinese women.

Exactly what was the complicity of Chinese women in the misrule of Suharto?

Ref borivili_express #205

I notice you have nothing to say about the burning of 60+ Hindu pilgrims at Godhra which PRECEDED this retaliation by Hindus.

Understand one thing: the Moguls are not in power in India for Muslim atrocities against Hindus to go unpunished.

Notice how the Muslims of Gujarat haven't attacked any Hindu pilgrims again. At least you people are fast learners.

Ref harish_hyd # 225

[Sure..the ML which campaigned for a separate nation on the basis of religious differences was non-communal and the Congress which called for a united India was communal. So what else is new?]

Isn't that the view in India too today? That the Muslim League is a non-communal party fit to be included in the UPA but the BJP is a communal party?

Don't blame rozaiba or any other Pakistani when Jwahirullah Nehru and his followers hold the identical opinion.

Ref zeemax #232

[I don't subscribe to this common ancestry theory. Hamidm2 does. We are a different people altogether, genetically.]

Most humanity is 98% chimpanzee in that that is the amount of DNA common to both species.

Maybe you are claiming Muslims have the additional 2% chimp DNA.