JUI’s Verdict: Jinnah was Not a “Real Freedom Fighter”

Posted on February 9, 2007
Filed Under >Adil Najam, History, People, Politics
Total Views: 46899


Adil Najam

Mohamed Ali Jinnah, it seems, was not a “real freedom fighter” and he did “nothing for Islam.” (On Jinnah, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
So says the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). And by what logic does Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his party come to this conclusion? According to the party spokesman: “Jinnah was not imprisoned during the independence struggle. That is why he did nothing worth remembering.”

I am left rather speechless. So, here is the news item from Daily Times (February 9, 2007) that reports on the matter:

The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) will celebrate 2007 by paying tribute to the heroes who played an important role in the independence of Pakistan ignoring Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his companions, JUI officials told Daily Times on Thursday. They said that the party would hold conventions in Peshawar and other cities of the NWFP in March to highlight the services of “real freedom fighters”

“The decision to this effect was taken at the meeting of the JUI executive council in Lahore a couple of days ago. National Assembly Opposition Leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman presided over the meeting,” they added. JUI information secretary Maulana Amjad Khan said that Jinnah and his companions would not be commemorated because they had not done anything for Islam. “Jinnah was not imprisoned during the independence struggle. That is why he did nothing worth remembering,” Khan added.

He said the JUI would remember only those leaders who had sacrificed their lives for the creation of Pakistan or who had been imprisoned by the British Raj. JUI leader Qari Nazir Ahmed said the party would remember Hussain Maulana Ahmed Madni, Maulana Qasim Nanotri, Maulana Ubaid Ullah Sindhi, Maulana Mehmoodul Hassan, Syed Ahmed Shaheed, Shah Ismael Shaheed, Mauala Rasheed Ahmed and other leaders, who had rendered great sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan. “Maulana Qasim Nanotri established the Madrasa Darul Uloom Deoband. The institute produced a large number of freedom fighters,” Qari Nazir added. He said a schedule for conventions in the Punjab had not been decided yet. JUI Lahore chapter ameer Maulana Muhibun Nabi said the party would also arrange programmes in Lahore in this connection.

Interesting, by the way, that it seems that to be a “real freedom fighter” you have ‘Maulana’ prefixed before your name or a ‘Shaheed’ as a suffix.

Note: My thank to Watandost for alerting me to this rewriting of history.

190 Comments on “JUI’s Verdict: Jinnah was Not a “Real Freedom Fighter””

  1. Owais Mughal says:
    February 9th, 2007 7:41 am

    JUI guys seem to be deciding on who is Muslim and who is not. What a shame.

  2. Moeen Bhatti says:
    February 9th, 2007 8:56 am

    This is very shameful. These people has screwed Pakistan alot and the time has come when they should be shunted out. Now they don’t wanna recognize the guy who gave us freedom? What can I say except that its very shameful….

  3. Kazim Aizaz Alam says:
    February 9th, 2007 9:03 am

    JUI men are shameless thugs. Infact Mufti Mahmood (Fazl’s father) opposed partition. Down with JUI.

    Ney’rangi-e-Syasat-e-Doraa’n to dekhiye
    Manzil unhe’n mili jo shareek-e-safar na thay
    Mohsin Bhopali

  4. Aqeel Syed says:
    February 9th, 2007 9:58 am

    What an effort from ‘Jewish’ Ulma e Islam. These mullas were agianst Jinnah from the very first day. I’m totally disapointed by their approch. Its really a sad state :( When you know that majority of Pakistani nation, specially those live in rural areas are under their great influence.

  5. Asad says:
    February 9th, 2007 10:19 am

    Anyone who even now supports JUI is a fool. These people should be kicked into our neighbouring country which thrives on such people.

  6. Anwar says:
    February 9th, 2007 10:22 am

    Comments of Maulan Amjad are outright nonsense. However the history that we read in our curricula does not acknowledge a number of people who lost their lives and were indeed prisoned and murdered by the Raj. This is partly due to the fact that our history is more “India centric” than it should be.
    Movements in the Frontier province in particular were lethal struggles against “Farnagi” – directed towards freedom (more like the current FATA,) though not necessarily for the creation of Pakistan. Contrary to the claims by JUI, the struggle was not for Islam either as British follwed a Napoleaon model of Al Azhar and kept Mullahs very happy (Dept. of Aukaf was their focal point)… The “Khaksar Tahrik” was a reaction to the abolishment of Caliphate in Turkey – perveived as European conspiracy, and was for a long time a very potent movement… Although none of the sacrifices were directly for Pakistan – they did contribute significantly to the independence.
    In parallel, the nationalistic movements in Sindh also contributed to the overall independence efforts.
    These efforts must be acknowledged in our history books. Unfortunately, JUI’s silly approach has belittled the great people it wants to honor.

  7. MU says:
    February 9th, 2007 10:40 am

    The mistake we made was…not to hang these traitors on day 1. They now have our and Pakistan’s throats in their hands and we are now paying for it in every way. Why are we so apologetic about Quaid’s role in creation of Pakistan? If JUI are not happy with him they can get the hell out of his Pakistan back to Deoband and take JI to pethankot with them. Alternatively there is also Arabian sea.

  8. ayesha says:
    February 9th, 2007 10:56 am

    I’m glad you picked this up! I was also planning to do a blog post on this – but so much eloquently put here. I wonder though, if the government would stand up and take notice of this. Notice needs to be taken.

    On another note – I cannot wait to see the back of the Mullahs in the new assembly. For once, I hope that they are ‘engineered’ out!

  9. Anwar says:
    February 9th, 2007 11:49 am

    Wait a minute guys… before they are dumped in the ocean or hanged, have we ever wondered who fathered them and raised them?
    Ever since Ayub Khan, the goal was to strangle every progressive thought/movement in the country. Fire was fanned by Zia in a double-barrel manner – encouraging the mullahs to create strategic depth towards the western border as well as against ANP, and creating a “secular” anarchist movement in sindh to counter PPP.
    Even our current enlightened leader was in bed with the mullahs until the night he received a phone call from the State Department.
    The honeymoon is perhaps over but the hang over is going to last a bit longer. Stay put.There is more to come – glance the Urdu press!

  10. Adnan Ahmad says:
    February 9th, 2007 12:03 pm

    Mr. Anwar, This is perhaps not the place to talk about what is taught in schools. (You are mostly right on that though). Post is about the atrocious JUI take on Jinnah and that must be condemned.

    I think it is about time these illiterate asses disguised as religious god fathers are put in their place. I think Ayaz Amir wrote a while ago about the Huddood Bill saying that it should have been done 7 years ago overnight with one stroke of pen. No one would have had the courage to speak anything about it. I think the time is right to take as hard a shot as Ataturk took on these asses and then don’t answer any questions about it. General needs to take his chances here to make amends for the lost time. And people need to know from this post how clearly the lines are drawn when it comes to the future of Pakistan. I mean these people refuse to acknowledge the fact that if you took Jinnah out of the picture there would be no Pakistan. I will be disappointed if a “very strong messageâ€

  11. Kumail says:
    February 9th, 2007 12:05 pm

    Although I am opposed to several initiatives taken by Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, yet the fact that he sunk the mullahs was a commendable feat that Pakistan should take lesson from.

  12. Anwar says:
    February 9th, 2007 12:38 pm

    Thanks Adnan. The strong message will not be sent by this government because of what I outlined earlier. Consider this, this government has not been able to vacate a library taken over by religious thugs recently and could not defend itself in the national assembly either…
    Instead it is imporant that the people react to JUI strongly and voice their opinion in every possible manner. Let us not forget that English press has very limited readership and does not permeate at a level that is necessary for a strong reaction.
    Kamal was able to implement his agenda because Turks had gotten sick of the caliphate.. The Grand Mufti was former Ottoman (appointed by Kamal) and later sidelined. So, even Kamal’s action against theocracy took time and political arm twisting backed with military might… (A recent book by Tom Reis “The Orientalist” is highly recommended)
    Conditions in Pakistan are approaching that point where the public pressure will undo the evil created by our generals (and accepted by people). Unfortunately it can turn out to be another bloody mess considering the global geo-political conditions.

  13. Eidee Man says:
    February 9th, 2007 1:18 pm

    This is just another CHEAP STUNT on their part to get support from their ‘base.’ But ordinary Pakistanis who disagree with this will be playing right into the JUI’s hands if we start ridiculing the people in rural areas, etc.

  14. Akif Nizam says:
    February 9th, 2007 2:22 pm

    I think people here are confusing the issue. Maulana never said that Jinnah wasn’t responsible for Pakistan, he said he wasn’t responsible for freedom. In a way, he’s right.
    Freedom from the British didn’t come to India because of the actions of Indians, whether they be the Gandhis or the Jinnah’s (or any maulanas or shaheeds for that sake); it came because of the losses they suffered in WWII, after which the entire British Empire withered away. What Jinnah was responsible was to get a separate country for the muslims, a feat for which he and only he is responsible.

    Despite this, I’m still for throwing the maulanas into the Arabian Ocean.

  15. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 9th, 2007 3:44 pm

    Now wait a minute. Don’t we advocate freedom of speech!. So why is it that religious parties be denied their right of free speech here. And to ‘engineer’ religious parties out of the assemblies!. Is there not enough ‘engineering’ in the assemblies done already. For once let the people decide whose back they will like to see in the next elections. It is for the people to decide and chose their representatives and not for some privileged pseudo intellectuals writing black and white opinion pieces. The talk of deporting citizens to the neighboring countries and throwing them into the Arabian Sea is childish no matter how passionate. And about hanging political opposition; had not enough of that been done already. And let us not discredit Ayub totally just because he was a military dictator. He was a visionary leader and he did a lot for Pakistan of 1958. Religious leaders did not like him either. Karachites do not like Ayub for various reasons, but let us look at the country wide picture and not just from Karachi perspective. And one more thing. Do we ever think that Pashtoon perspective on independence of Pakistan may not be the same as that of those from Punjab or for that matter from the Ganges Valley. The need of the time is to take in all perspectives and create a national perspective on all thing Pakistan. Pakistan is not only where we live; where others live that is Pakistan too. We need to be inclusive and not exclusive.

  16. Hamza says:
    February 9th, 2007 3:46 pm

    That’s really big of the Mullah’s to criticize Jinnah. The last time i checked, the Jamaat-e-Islami and their cronies didn’t want Pakistan to be created. The religious parties, spearheaded by Maulana Maudoodi felt that the interests of muslims would be better served in a United India. Now they have gall to claim that the founder of Pakistan was not a ‘freedom fighter’. In a way, this statement sums up what the religous parties stand for.

  17. king_faisal says:
    February 9th, 2007 4:09 pm

    first, pakistan is a free country and jui can celebrate the freedom struggle any way it sees fit.

    second, jinnah was not a divine human being. his actions are not beyond debate or criticism. nor is there any gustakhi in his shan if jui does not sing his praises.

    third, freedom struggle against the british started much before the creation of muslim league. muslims drawing inspiration from islam played a big role in early freedom struggle and for this played the ultimate price.

    fourth and most importantly, this article is published in a newspaper whose owner has very low ethical standards and whose editors despise anything to do with islam and look down upon anything desi. for example, in the article below, the editor of this newspaper argues against selecting cricketers who cannot speak english:


    “…It would do us much good if the PCB could also get some players who can speak English beyond ‘yeah’. It makes a difference because English is not just a language, it is an attitude…”

    jui has announced recently that it was planning to hold events to mark the 150th anniversary of the 1857 war of independence which is this year.


    “PESHAWAR, Jan 15: The Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (F) has announced that it will observe the year 2007 in remembrance of the War of Independence of 1857 to pay tribute to the heroes of the subcontinent…”

    it is not beyond the realm of possibility jui’s comments were with reference to events marking the events of 1857. the story however is being presented in a manner designed to look jui in a bad light.

    when it comes to deceitfulness pakistani press is no different from other pakistani institutions.

  18. February 9th, 2007 4:10 pm

    I agree with Mr. Alvi and we don’t have right to criticize others thoughts. What we writing here is just coming from our emotions and not from brain. After reading all comments, I think all we have abandoned Islam and become communists. Quaid Azam was not a superman, he was also a human being and made lot of mistakes too. He helped to create Pakistan by sacrifying lot of Muslims who left behind in India in miserable conditions. Do we know that in India nowadays most of prostitutes are Muslim women. Majority of Muslims in India are doing jobs what chritians do in Pakistan. They are more than us but helpless.
    It is true that Quaid Azam created Pakistan but it is also true that he wasn’t true Muslim like other politicians. Realisticly Pakistan was created by Pakistan but with the help of Landlords, Industrillists and Nawabs. These people are in power since then and have nothing done for regular Pakistanis. They are thugs, corrupt and traitors.

  19. The Pakistanian says:
    February 9th, 2007 4:21 pm

    In my opinion the real reason Fazlur Rehman has uttered this garbage is that Quaid-e-Azam did not have a foot long beard and did not wear his shalwar above his ankles, the very criteria for someone worth any respect in these jackasses’ minds.

  20. Shahran Asim says:
    February 9th, 2007 4:34 pm

    Let’s talk from a historical fact which is that JUI hind which was the parent organization was itself divided into two factions on the issue of supporting the pakistan movement,one group was lead by maulana hussain madni and the other one was lead by maulana ashraf ali thanvi and which included maulana shabbir ahmed usmani who wholeheartedly supported pakistan movement. And infact that there is an incident related to maulana ashraf ali thanvi on how he started supporting Quaid-e-Azam.

    Jamat-e-Islami also opposed to some extent but then maulana maududi’s essays on masale qaumiat were used to be distributed during muslim league gatherings.

    And infact after pakistan came into being ,Quaid asked him to speak on radio pakistan on the pakistan idealogy.
    I think it is a popular slogan by most secular parties that the religious parties opposed the creation of Pakistan which I would partially agree.

    But at the same time I don’t know why they want to start a controversy on that we have more important problems to solve we still need to provide clean drinking water,our children needs education. I am not sure why we have been dragged oin from one controversy to another wasting energy on those topics.

  21. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 9th, 2007 4:49 pm

    It is often said that Jinnah was not a good Muslim. Why this debate. His greatness comes from the fact that he got a ‘home’ for us that we call Pakistan and not that he was a good Muslim or not. His personal integrity and character was higher than many of the so called good Muslims. I do not understand why we judge and discuss the religion of others. Jinnah would have been my leader even if he was not a Muslim. Pakistan of 1947 was the best our people could get at that time. Thanks God (Allah in Arabic) for Pakistan. Now if most of the prostitutes in India are Muslim women then shame on India. If Muslims in India are living in miserable conditions then shame on India. Please do not lay their misery on Jinnah or Pakistan’s door step. This in an old and tired argument and must be put to rest like the two-nation theory. It is time to build Pakistan and may be then worry about other Muslims of the world. As the good dictator said: Pakistan First.

  22. MU says:
    February 9th, 2007 4:58 pm

    [quote]I agree with Mr. Alvi and we don’t have right to criticize others thoughts.


    I think all we have abandoned Islam and become communists. [/quote]

    You must have a special communist censor. Care to elaborate why you think we have all become communists? And what happened to not criticising other’s thoughts (above)?

    [quote]“Quaid Azam was not a superman[/quote]

    And Mullahs are? If not what is your point?

    [quote]he was also a human being[/quote]

    Yes. So?

    [quote]…and made lot of mistakes too. [/quote]

    Elaborate, like what? He was not an opponent of Pakistan like your buddy Mullahs so what are you talking about? Nothing can be as bad as that.

    [quote]He helped to create Pakistan by sacrifying lot of Muslims[/quote]

    No. He did not sacrifice anyone. Unlike Mullahs, he was 100% violence free. He was the leader who Muslims followed to the creation of Pakistan. Feel free to check history. There wasn’t a single leader other than Quaid who could have lead Muslim masses to their homeland. And as for sacrifices what sacrifices are these? All the killing that happened was a “side effectâ€

  23. MU says:
    February 9th, 2007 5:10 pm

    Shahran Asim, you are trying to rewrite the history. Leaving the distant history aside for now, Maulana Mufti Mehmood has famously been quoted as saying “Hum Pakistan bananay kay guna main shareek nahain thayâ€

  24. MU says:
    February 9th, 2007 5:24 pm

    [quote comment="33508"]Now wait a minute. Don’t we advocate freedom of speech!. [/quote]

    Pervaiz Munir Alvi, when were these “religious partiesâ€

  25. Anwar says:
    February 9th, 2007 5:39 pm

    “And let us not discredit Ayub totally just because he was a military dictator. He was a visionary leader and he did a lot for Pakistan of 1958.”
    He overthrew civilian government before elections as it was evident that the nationalistic government heading for power was against SEATO and CENTO… Ayub’s masters got him to do their dirty work. Funny, this guy tells the nation that democarcy is not suitable for Pakistan as it can flourish only in cold climates such as England… and made a laughing stock of himself. Spent billions on new capital (read Ayaz Mir’s column in Dawn), created CID to allienate citizenery from each other, and made many progressives disappear. The self appointed Field Marshal did not even know that his poster boy foreign minister had arranged a war against India in 1965… So much for the visionary! Good Lord – no wonder we are ruled by the people we deserve!
    Not to distract from Mullahgate, it is important to ask other religious parties as to what is their position. If they all agree with JUI then there is a good reason to doubt their sincerity to Pakistan. That could be the starting point of unwinding these twisted…

  26. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 9th, 2007 5:55 pm

    MU: I respect your right to say what you say. At the same time religious parties, “mullah” if you prefer, are also part of Pakistani fabric and therefore must not be denied an expression of their opinion even though I personally do not agree with much what they say. In a civil society even a criminal, no matter how heinous his crime may be, have a right to defend himself. JUI is playing to its own base. Lets not get too worked up over that and use words like traitors and hang them or drown them etc. People have right to differ. I hope you agree with that and even if you say otherwise I will agree with you. I am tying to cool your passions, my brother, as best as I can.

  27. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 9th, 2007 6:17 pm

    Anwar: As I said “let us not discredit Ayub totally just because he was a military dictator”. Take it for what it is worth. And if you do not like him, that’s OK with me too. Over throwing civilian governments and suppressing democracies is what dictators do. No leader is all good or all bad. Ayub did a lot of good for the country. Karachites do not like his moving capital to Islamabad and I could understand why. In the balance he was not all bad for the country. You have right to disagree.

  28. Aqil Sajjad says:
    February 9th, 2007 6:57 pm

    “Good Lord – no wonder we are ruled by the people we deserve!”

    We deserve them because while we are very good at talking/writing about their shortcomings and misdeeds, we do nothing to produce better leaders and build institutions. Military rule is a favourite excuse, even if the military were to leave the political system alone, we would still elect a bunch of idiots, constantly complain and crib about them, but do nothing to produce better leadership, not even vote for someone new. Lets hate Ayub and the other leaders by all means, but lets also spend some time trying to create better alternatives and institutions.

  29. Samdani says:
    February 9th, 2007 8:13 pm

    I agree with everyone here that this is sheer absurdity on JUI’s part. But in principle I agree with Alvi Sahib that if we believe in freedom of speech then we have to believe that everyone has a right to say stupid things… its just that Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his cronies seem to exercise this right more often than most. When they say that Jinnah did not really fight for freedom, then it is they only expose their own agendas and ideology. In some ways I am glad their true views are shown through this, for people who have supported them this should open their eyes. But beyond that, yes, it is their right to believe whatever they want… including stupid ideas like this one!

  30. mahi says:
    February 9th, 2007 8:31 pm

    Aurangazeb won the battle over Dara. The Ulema over the Sufis. The common thread running through these is the victory of hard line or close-minded Islam over its progressive side. The result is a gradual squeezing out of the liberal space, with a desire for eventual strangulation. So the battle continues. JUI is latest regressive instinct incarnate in this battle.

    No sign yet that there is a strong enough renaissance on the progressive front. Which bodes ill, because Nature has no permanent berth for stagnation or regression. Patience, maybe, indulgence, no. Eventually, it will deal with it. If it means wiping the whole world out,it will, and start with the Dolphin.

  31. February 10th, 2007 2:10 am

    Jinnah was not abused by some “bearded man” only, several others in past have abused Jinnah or his ideology directly or indirectly like GM Syed, Rasool bakhs paleejo,bacha and wali khan and secularist leader mr.Altaf hussain who even don’t agree with two-nation theory. So if Fazl said something insane then we shouldn’t react just because he’s part of some religious group.

    It’s habbit in Pakistan to abuse jinnah directly or indirectly. Offcourse I find no difference in people who called jinnah a secular or “a person with no knowledge of Islam” and people who declared him “Kafir”. Both cabals are worthless and a blackspot on humanity.

  32. Neena says:
    February 10th, 2007 2:23 am

    I won’t pay much attention to someone who was against the creation of Pakistan in the first place. They can’t keep up their word which is becoming their culture (remember the resignation hoopla after women bill) These Besharam first opposed the creation then all of them moved to this new land of opportunity to destroy it. He is doing nothing but diverting people’s attention form library siege issue. Who are they to criticize anyone especially with damage they are doing to theses young minds in the name of religion. What kind of education they are giving to girls by handing them weapons? (“some of whom were seen carrying either Kalashnikov assault rifles or long bamboo sticksâ€

  33. February 10th, 2007 3:06 am

    Frankly speaking i take the JUI lot with a pinch of salt.
    They are an uneducated lot (madrassa education hardly qualifies as education)who will say anything or do anything to gain political mileage. They dont do anything for Islam, in fact they are Pakistan and Islam’s biggest enemies…

    I am sickened by their latest ploy, and im also quite tired of their religious mantras. These are the very same men, who have liasons with innocent young boys in Islamic schools, who vehmently oppose the west but send their children there whenever they can, load up trucks of poor “jihadis” for Afghanistan, whilst their loved ones sit in posh jeeps in Pakistan…

    I dont know why Pakistanis cant see through them, i have no shred of respect for them, but who am i to judge them, god will one day and i hope we are all on the sidelines watching what becomes of them!

  34. Neena says:
    February 10th, 2007 3:49 am

    Well said, Sharmeen

    Who knows what happens in Madras with young boys, what I hear is very heart wrenching. Only education and better job prospects for all people will change the faith of unfortunates. They are the worst enemy of the human kind. They play with the future of our nation every day with different tactics. God forbid if someone in their family becomes a victim of polio.

  35. Razia says:
    February 10th, 2007 11:47 am

    I think some people here are needlessly being abusive to all religious ideas. What the JUI is saying here is wrong and worth condemning, but it seems that most comments here have nothing to do with that, they are simply people’s own frustrations with religion coming out. Maybe we should really discuss why that is so.

  36. faizan says:
    February 10th, 2007 5:23 am

    nice buddy i like it

  37. Ahmad says:
    February 10th, 2007 6:24 am

    It is not good to treat all the religious leaders in same manner. Fazl-ur-Rehman has long tradition of changing ideologies when it favors him. Some people call him the secret weapon of Musharraf. But due to the actions of one mullah you can not treat all the religious leaders in the same way. We should not become part of campaign to side line Islamic teachings. The reason uneducated mullahs govern our decision is that we have abandoned learning Islamic principles ourselves and therefore rely on their rulings; so we need to educate ourself also in order to find who is right leader to follow.

  38. Nazir Hamdani says:
    February 10th, 2007 8:25 am

    JUI is a crowd of thugs and looting the poorest masses in the name of religion. These illiterate and intolerant mullahs are the lowest kind of breed of humanity and today responsible for bringing Islamic world to the brink of a clash of civilisations . They are the real enmies of this wonderful religion and the enimies of the great majority of all the peace loving Muslims and the humanity in general. They be gifted to Israel as they got no right to live a country that they opposed it’s very creation and deny the historical facts today after 60 years.

  39. Arsalan Ali says:
    February 10th, 2007 10:50 am

    do unto them as kamal ataturk did to his mullahs !

  40. February 10th, 2007 11:01 am

    Jinnah did not take Islam as shield to do his politic. He was a man of principles. In short, i find following characteristics in his personalities.
    He did what he said. He always fulfiled his promises. He never depict that he is a true Muslim but he followed Islamic principles e.g. He did not meet his only daughter, Dina, when she married a non-Muslim. Though he loved Dina a lot but did not even see her after marriage (In other words it was a social boycot of Dina from Jinnah). While on the other hand, Abdul Ghafar Khan’s daughter married a Hindu but Ghafar Khan did not leave his daughter.
    Once I read his statement,
    “Do your duty honestly and trust in God . No power on earth can undo Pakistan. It has come to stay.”
    Quran also teaches us of doing our duty and trusting in God.
    However, I would like to say that it was my love for Jinnah that i reported this story. Neither it was a dishonesty with my profession nor hate for any political party because I reported what I found.
    I do not praise Jinnah to that extent but the qualities he posses were great and i wish in the current time, i could see a leader of his caliber and vision.
    Long Live Pakistan
    Long Live Quaid-e-Azam

  41. Razia says:
    February 10th, 2007 4:02 pm

    Adnan, secularism is *very different* from atheism but this is not the place for that discussion. But as I said, it is wrong to blame all religious leaders for the silly statements of some. Also, like others I think the knee jerk reaction of wanting to kill everyone, religious or secular, is never the solution.

  42. February 10th, 2007 12:28 pm

    Sharmeen i could consider your lunatic statment a bit credible and had paidt attention if I had experienced Musharraf ,Nawaz,Bibi,ALtaf as a Madrassah student but then I know that people studies in English students don’t sound less ignorant than those who are labelled as Madrassah student. If Fazl said something insane then you don’t sound less ignorant than that Madrassah student. If speaking and understand English could declare someone educated and learned than a british janitor would be more respected in your eyes than urdu poet Iftikhar Arif or Ahmad Faraz.

    Ignorance is bliss but too much ignorant is a curse.

  43. Samdani says:
    February 10th, 2007 12:28 pm

    I myself choose to ignore JUI and Fazlur Rehman in general. But re-reading these comments I am VERY DISTURBED by all these referecnes to Ataturk and to killing Mullahs. If that is your solution, then I am sorry you are no better than extremists of all ilk, Mullah or not. And you are certainly no friend fo Jinnah!

  44. February 10th, 2007 12:35 pm

    @Razia: I already cleared in very first post that right wing religious extreemist are not more harmful than left wing secular and liberal extreemist and both cabals should be eliminated from the face of earth ASAP so that world become a better place for living. Religion asks to follow rules and regulation to lead a sane life and seculars prefer to “reject” a religion in the name of freedom or liberty which is not different than “atheism” that is to reject any law given by God in the name of equal rights.

  45. mahi says:
    February 10th, 2007 1:31 pm

    I dont know anything about Jinnah, beyond the fact that he championed the cause for Pakistan. What I do notice is that he is beyond criticism in Pakistan – the gold standard. Uneducated or opportunistic rants from regressive mullahs aside, I’ve never seen an intelligent critique, or a painting of him in gray. Only visible is a unquestioned celebration of his greatness, perhaps understandable given he’s the founding father.

    This lack of any healthy criticism is also what makes me skeptical of the nature of this adulation. (As a comparable figure, Gandhi, across the border, takes enough beating, and many paint him in gray.)

    Against this backdrop, can any of you point me to a Pakistani public space or Pakistani literature that throws a critical eye on Jinnah? Are there sane dissenting voices out there?
    (If its in Urdu, can someone oblige with a summary?)

  46. Deeda-i-Beena says:
    February 10th, 2007 2:18 pm

    Initially I had wished to contribute my two bits to the substantive message of this Post.
    Following the trend of the discussion and upon reflection, I have decided to hold my piece.
    To quote Ghalib:

  47. Aqil Sajjad says:
    February 10th, 2007 3:21 pm

    Yeh thread bhee kissi mad house say kum nahin, perhaps more so than the one at ‘Daak-khana Chowk’
    I must say that if ppl are so bent on fighting, then they should arrange a boxing or wrestling match. At least that would really give full opportunity to hit each other.
    poora maza to aaey larnay ka.

  48. February 10th, 2007 3:31 pm

    Maybe Fazal doesn’t consider him a freedom fighter because Jinnah’s politics was not based on MMA’s “Dharna politics”. Jinnah was not an armed person like Bakht Khan ,Bhagat Singh or Mangal Panday who were early freedom fighters of anti-British raj movement but it doesn’t mean he wasn’t a freedom fighter. He used his brain and skills as WMD[weaopons of Mass destruction] to destroy dirty political plans of Hindus and British.

  49. Rana Asim Wajid says:
    February 10th, 2007 3:54 pm

    These people use Islam as a political tool…plain and simple….its because of these ignorant “leaders” that Pakistan cant progress

  50. AZEEM says:
    February 10th, 2007 5:57 pm





  51. Adnan Ahmad says:
    February 10th, 2007 10:19 pm

    I am amazed that people talk for freedom of speech for people who would not, over a long track record, allow any freedom to others. Question is how much more destruction and absurdity can be allowed in the name of freedom?

    About Jinnah tolerating all this nonsense for so long.. let me mention that a couple of days after August 14 1947 there were riots in karachi and rioters burned hindu properties and temples and caused unrest in the city. That evening commissioner karachi was personally given orders by Quaid-e-Azam to restore order and to produce a body for every bullet fired on the rioters. Next day riots started like normal and police fired about six bullets (researchers may correct the number here but not by much); five people died and one was injured. Later commissioner had to give an explanation to the Governor General about that sixth bullet and it was accepted. After that day there was no unrest in the city. I would leave the analysis to others.

  52. famalik says:
    February 11th, 2007 1:14 am

    Why is this that we make ‘fun’ of maulanas all day long, but we ask a moulana:
    - To pray Adhan for to us, when a child is born
    - To perform our wedding
    - To do namaaz-jinazah

    So the ‘Mullah’ is required on all major occasions in our life. But still we taunt him?

    Isn’t this our own failure that we as the ‘educated’ class in our society has failed to study religion and has to rely on the ‘Mullah’ to perform these tasks.

  53. February 11th, 2007 1:46 am

    razia, secularism asks to prefer man-made laws over God’s laws, if this is not all about secularism then i am still waiting that some secularist come up and give a sane reason to distinguish himself from an aethist. An aethist reject a God so is a secularist. No difference.

  54. MU says:
    February 11th, 2007 1:50 am

    [quote comment="33662"]Why is this that we make ‘fun’ of maulanas all day long, but we ask a moulana:
    - To pray Adhan for to us, when a child is born
    - To perform our wedding
    - To do namaaz-jinazah

    So the ‘Mullah’ is required on all major occasions in our life. But still we taunt him?

    Isn’t this our own failure that we as the ‘educated’ class in our society has failed to study religion and has to rely on the ‘Mullah’ to perform these tasks.[/quote]

    Do not blame the ‘educated class’. I am educated but I also know azan and namaz since my childhood. Being educated is not mutually exclusive with knowledge of Islamic rituals. In fact all three things that you have mentioned are easy enough and really take a few hours in total (out of your whole life) to learn. Azan is said at least five times in Muslim countries and all you have to do is to focus every time it is said for a few days and you will learn it without much trouble. So is wedding sermon and janaza prayers as most of us go through these rituals from time to time.

    Mullah is not required for any of the three or any major occasion. All three of your points can be done by any body! Just you and your parent’s lack of interest in your religion has made the Mullah unduly important. But this does not exonerate Mullah of its crimes/faults.

  55. February 11th, 2007 2:03 am

    [quote post="566"]- To pray Adhan for to us, when a child is born
    - To perform our wedding
    - To do namaaz-jinazah[/quote]

    Most of them are secularist and hadith rejectors and they don’t believe in basic of Islam like Namaz,Fasting etc so it doesn’t irk them if they abuse a mullah *grin*

  56. February 11th, 2007 2:38 am

    [quote post="566"]Mullah is not required for any of the three or any major occasion. All three of your points can be done by any body[/quote]


    According to MU’s general theory of stupidity, there is no role of a mentor in our lives that is students don’t need a professor like Adil of Tufts institute or Eric Schmidt[Google fame] of Stanford are worthless because people can all required things at home on their own then why the hell people has to pay lots of dollars to attend lectures of these guys and waste time while books are available? Did you ever argue your parents why did they send you school,college and then university for education? If Your point is valid[which is offcrouse no doubt] then we don’t need teachers like Adil,Eric,Dr.Ata etc because these guys are not more educated than us.

    you didn’t disclose something new that mentioned things can’t be performed by any other muslim. I myself has done imamat of salat several times in my office but it doesn’t declare me an Imam because I don’t meet certain criteria ,offcourse i dont know everything related with Islamic teaching. I could be a temporary imam but its stupidity to declare myself an authority.

    [quote post="566"]I am educated[/quote]

    Now this is funny! it reminds me a latifa[joke] that a pagal was kept screaming on roads that “Mey pagal nahi houn”

  57. famalik says:
    February 11th, 2007 3:52 am

    Thanks for your response “MU”
    I actually agree with you, I did the same thing. I learned how to do all this myself but as soon as I learned to lead prayers, memorize Quran and educate myself in asool-e-fiqh; I had a realization. I became the very “Mullah” that is the butt of all the jokes.

    In the end the whole exercise is very futile. The only difference was that I had to start keeping a beard and wear my shalwar a little higher and I’d be your contemporary ‘Mullah’.

    Is praying 5 times a day in congregation an extremist activity?

  58. famalik says:
    February 11th, 2007 3:58 am

    “Secularism and Islam”
    I have been thinking about this topic for a while now and have yet to find a satisfactory answer to my question. The proponents of Secularism, of which there are many on this forum (from the look of things), what do they truly propose:

    - Acceptance of Secularism regardless of what Islam says about Secularism?


    - after study of Quran and Sunnah they have intrepreted that Islam and Secularism do not conflict

    My point is, do you care what Islam has to say about Secularism or should we accept it (as the West has done so) regardless of what Quran and Sunnah have to say about this.

    Thanks for your time, I really appreciate.

  59. MU says:
    February 11th, 2007 9:16 am

    famalik, you have not defined Secularism so its difficult for me to answer these questions. I know that quran says ‘there is no compulsion in religion’. That should give us some basis for tolerating differences of beliefs/ideas and for most part stay out of each others way.

  60. Raza Rumi says:
    February 11th, 2007 9:41 am

    Adil Bhai
    thanks for the post as it alerted us yet again to the mullah-speak and also engendered a lively debate here. Judging by the majority of the comments, it seems that Jinnah’s vision for a democratic and tolerant Pakistan is alive – at least in the web-browsing citizens. Yes there have been what someone called “fights’ on this space – this is all a part of a healthy culture where people should have the liberty to air their views.

    Let us not forget that this very “freedom fighting” forces that called Quaide Azam KAFIRE AZAM and Pakistan, NA-PAKISTAN (these are historically documented facts)are today the biggest beneficiaries of the Pakistani state!! Ironic that those who opposed Pakistan and Jinnah, enjoy hold over two provincial governments but also retain the coveted leader of the opposition post (without the requisite majority in the House of course). Above all these elements have also arrogated upon themselves the ideological positioning of Pakistan.
    Amazing indeed!

  61. February 11th, 2007 12:55 pm

    Ironically those who opposed Pakistan’e creation are not different than those who favored its establishment. Can any secularist tell me what was irking them in India when they didn’t want a new religous state?

    Both parties rejected and supported for their own intrest rather for the people of Pakistan. Only an ignorant and retard would reject the fact that Pakistan was ruled mostly by non-religious people than religious parties and these non-religious[or I say enlightened class] didn’t even get ashamed after splitting Pakistan into two factions. As I already mentioned that people like Altaf Hussain and Rasool Bakhs Paleejo publicly refused the existance of Pakistan and curse the ideology and two nation theory of Pakistan but since these guys have no relation with Islam or “beard” therefore so called “educated” class prefer to ignore them and pick an instance where they even find a slightest element of Islam so that they get another chance to offtend religion. After all this is all about secularism.

    It’s better for all of us and for our future generations that we don’t play with history anymore. In past our aged generation of Pakistan played an important role to destroy Pakistani youth by giving their own pathetic interpetition of Pakistan’s existance. We shouldn’t repeat same mistake otherwise future generations who would be infinite times smarter than us would curse us heavily.

    [quote post="566"]I know that quran says ‘there is no compulsion in religion’.[/quote]

    that particular Surah was sent to condemn the idea of forced converstion that is a Muslim can’t force a non-muslim to accept Islam and this surah has no relation with the fictitious western definition of secularism.

    The Quranic surah which talks about religious tolerence is last verse of Surah Kafiroon, You have your path and I have mine.

  62. DB9 says:
    February 11th, 2007 3:57 pm

    This is great! This is a great opportunity. If the government failed to leverage the opportunity at the time when the Mullah’s opposed the Women Rights Bill, the government should leverage this one and kick the extreme Mullahs out. And clean up the country.

  63. Neena says:
    February 11th, 2007 4:04 pm

    No pun intended, but I believe we all criticize likes of Jammati Mullahas, gen. Zia and mostly hypocrites and moral less. They gave Islam bad name by using religion for their ill activities.

    [quote post="566"]curse the ideology and two nation theory of Pakistan[/quote]

    Two nation theory got buffed after the creation of Bangladesh.

  64. YLH says:
    February 11th, 2007 11:52 pm

    Let us make some elementary points that need to be made:

    1. Jamiat-e-Ulema-Islam Fazlurrahman group is the ideological successor of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind’s NWFP faction led by Mufti Mahmood. Mufti Mahmood, like Ghaffar Khan and others, opposed the creation of Pakistan. Therefore, it is not surprising that they have chosen this move and levelled the accusation that since Jinnah was not imprisoned he did nothing- this is an old Indian accusation.

    2. Jinnah’s approach against the British was constitutional through out. He did not rabble rouse and he did not break the law. He was a parliamentarian and as a parliamentarian he sought to gain self rule for India through constitutional non-violent means. This is the essence of Jinnah… he was constitutional before he was anything else – while we- his nation- are thoroughly unconstitutional. But my point is that his getting arrested was hardly the issue. He was a critic not a rebel… even though the British tried twice to deport Jinnah to Burma but failed because he always did everyting legally.

    3. Neena’s comment that the two nation theory got buffed with the creation of Bangladesh is an invalid one. The two nation theory was not a theory in exclusion to all else. It was one of the many imagined identities that were brought into play against the concept of one centralised Indian republic. However, Jinnah was very willing to accept a Bangladesh in 1947… which was proposed by Suhrawardy, Sarat Bose and Kiran Shankar Roy… this idea was vetoed by Nehru. Read Stanley Wolpert’s Shameful flight. How then can the same thing that Jinnah had agreed to in 1947, mean an end to his ideas in 1971.

    4. Pakistan’s future lies legitimately in becoming a secular democracy as envisaged by Jinnah … where religion and identity would no longer be an issue. At the very least, Jinnah’s struggle was to end all identity/religious conflict. Therefore, all Pakistanis should unite against the Mullah Menace Alliance and reclaim Pakistan … Jinnah’s Pakistan that is.

  65. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 12th, 2007 9:47 am

    YLH: Very well articulated. Arguments made with logic and not with raw emotions or false pretences. We need more men and women of clear thinking and less of emotional rants; men and women from all thoughts, backgrounds and ideologies and not just what we think. I personally do not like a mix of religion and politics; any religion. But I do believe that all citizens of Pakistan must be allowed to express their opinion freely. And to call some one ‘Mullah’ in a derogatory fashion is not nice. A civilized behavior is to call a person in a manor he or she wishes to be called. What do we achieve by name calling. Nothing. If you want to be respected, respect others. What happened sixty years ago must be relegated to the history. We Pakistanis have to ask our self one big question. What have we done for the country lately. “Ask not what the country……”

  66. Zubair Ch. says:
    February 12th, 2007 2:13 pm

    I agree that calling names and asking for death to Mullahs is inappropriate. It puts us at the same level of rhetoric as them. And, yes, the educated classes have partly themselves to blame. But the real shame is that we have allowed history to be so distorted that for most ordinary Pakistanis the real custodians of Pakistani ideology are now the exact same people who opposed the country in the first place. People like JUI and JI. Poor Jinnah sahab must be turning in his grave.

  67. SAADULLAH says:
    February 12th, 2007 6:12 pm

    Adnan Siddiqui is right, there were religious as well as secular people who opposed Pakistan. And looking at the masthead picture right now I am reminded that many religious people as well as secular people also supported it. So such general assertions are wrong. However, it is true that the forefathers of both teh current JUI and the JI opposed Pakistan in teh beginning and even in the years soon after its creation. Not sure, however, if they still do.

  68. February 12th, 2007 9:00 pm

    @PMA: What sounds “logical” for you might be fictitious for others so don’t make useless attempt to change history while everything is documented.

  69. February 12th, 2007 9:04 pm

    And before you attack on me, let me clarify what sound ‘fictitious’ to me[ref:jinnah's speeches for Islamic Pakistan] which was logical for you. Mentioned below:

    [quote post="566"]Pakistan’s future lies legitimately in becoming a secular democracy as envisaged by Jinnah [/quote]

  70. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:25 pm

    Adnan Siddiqui mian,

    What fail to realise is that by secular Pakistan we simply mean a Pakistan inclusive of all its children regardless of religion caste or creed…

    Now this is not fictitious no matter how you wish to spin it.

  71. February 12th, 2007 11:54 pm

    [quote post="566"]secular Pakistan we simply mean a Pakistan inclusive of all its children regardless of religion caste or creed[/quote]

    When Jinnah didn’t even use this word then why are you kept blaming resting soul to promote your own theory? I quoted jinnah’s speeches on same forum about his dream about Pakistan that is, ‘establish govt according to Islamic Principals’ , you can keep rejecting it but can’t change it, that is the truth of the day.

  72. Pareshaan Pakistani says:
    February 13th, 2007 3:26 am

    Why do people have to repeat their points again and again and again. Do you really think someone who was not convinced teh first time will be convinced if you just repeat you point again and again!

  73. Pareshaan Pakistani says:
    February 13th, 2007 1:42 am

    These discussions (this and others here) prove one thing. The question is no longer what the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan was. The real question now is WHAT IS OUR VISION OF PAKISTAN. It is clear that we are a divided nation. These comments prove it. Is Pakistan only for ONE TYPE OF PAKISTANIS or a home for all Pakistanis? Can we think of a Pakistan where those who call themselves mullahs and those who call themselves secular can both coexist without calling each other names and where someone can publish an article of Sir Zafarullah’s service to Pakistan without being labelled a non-Muslim? It seems that from these comments, that Pakistan does not exist yet. Today is Faiz Ahmad Faiz’s birthday, as he would have said:

    “challey challo, keh woh manzil abhi nahin aaye”

  74. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:53 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui,

    The US constitution does not use the word “secular”… does it mean that it is not secular? You are arguing about terms when you ought to be looking at the terms.

    Jinnah spoke of Islamic ideals of Equality, Fraternity, justice and fair play for all regardless of religion caste or creed.

    Lets see then what Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan (according to you an Islamic visiion) was…

    1. Equality of all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.

    2. Impartiality of the state towards all faiths and groups.

    3. Faith the personal matter between man and god.

    4. Sovereignty resting unconditionally with the people of Pakistan.

    Now I believe these are Islamic values and in modern parlance this is what a secular state is. Thus I don’t have a problem with an “Islamic” state based on the four principles Jinnah expressed again and again …

  75. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:55 am

    PS: It goes without saying that what Pakistan is today negates those “Islamic principles” of “justice fairplay and equality”.

    As people here know, I have researched Jinnah for a long time and much more than a few google searches and quotes out of context… I can safely say that Jinnah would be mortified by the Islamic theocracy that Pakistan has become constitutionally.

  76. February 13th, 2007 1:41 am

    [quote post="566"]Thus I don’t have a problem with an “Islamicâ€

  77. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 1:55 am

    Husain Haqqani on reasons for Jamaat e Islami and Deobandi militancy;

    [quote]The fact that Pakistan’s foreign minister at the time, Sir Chaudhry Zafrullah Khan, was an Ahmadi led the anti-Ahmadi protests to become part of a campaign against the fragile government of conservative Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin. The prime minister’s rivals covertly helped the violent agitators, and martial law was imposed in parts of Pakistan in 1953.

    Vali Nasr attributes the rise of the Ahmadi issue so soon after Pakistan’s independence to the internal dynamics of the two major Islamist groups, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Deobandis. Neither Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami nor most Deobandi leaders had supported the creation of Pakistan, though they eventually accepted the new country and even migrated to Pakistan. Secular elements within the Muslim League, the dominant Pakistani political party of the era, stigmatized the Islamists as anti-Pakistan for opposing the campaign for a state separate from India. The Deobandis, in particular, needed to deal with the stigma of their pre-independence position, and a sectarian campaign against the Ahmadis helped them carve out a positive political roleâ€

  78. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 2:15 am

    Dear Adnan,

    You assume so much without verifying things for yourself.
    I am afraid the words “Islam” and “Islamic ideals” don’t bother me at all… which is why despite Jinnah’s references to Islamic ideals, I, the secularist, am not bothered by him but actually continue to see him as a fine secularist in the John Locke mould. The concept of a Modern secular state is not anti-religion.. and all secular states in the world have ethics based in morals derived from religion.

    Hence I think Islamic ideals of equality fraternity and justice for all regardless of religion caste or creed, the ideals mentioned by Jinnah, are in complete conformity with the modern idea of a democratic nation state which can also be described as a secular state.

    As for your accusation about twisting Jinnah’s words … it is sad that you accuse me of all people of this, when it is people like you who have been twisting Jinnah, without much success may I add because history is preserved for everyone to read. Jinnah’s words and ideals … as well as Islam itself.. are twisted by people who use Islam to exclude people… these are the same people who had- when Jinnah was alive- called him kafir-e-azam and called Pakistan Kafiristan. Jinnah’s idea of state and conception of Islam was against theocracy and against exclusion. His understanding of Islam was humanist and progressive… which real Islam truly is.

    Mind you this real Islam… Jinnah’s Islam … nay the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)’s Islam … does not stand for exploitation of women unlike Mullah Islam … does not persecute minorities and other faiths unlike the Mullah Islam… does not continually isolate minority sects within Islam unlike the Mullah Islam.

    So Islam I have no problem with…I have a problem with this fake Abu-Juhlism that masquerades as Islam… this fake religion that creates Hudood Ordinance, that denies Ahmadis their right to worship and follow their faith, that forces women into Burqahs and that sanctions rigidity and intolerance … that I have a problem with. It is this Abu-Juhlism, that you refer to quite unjustifiably as Islam, is what I have a problem with.

    Secular Pakistan Zindabad
    Quaid-e-Azam Paindabad
    Long Live TRUE Islam
    Down with Abu Juhlism

  79. Paglot says:
    February 13th, 2007 4:42 am

    I think Maulna Fazalur Rehman and his friends are right.

    We should make him the baba-i-quom and banish the Quaid – who was afterall a Kafir like Salam and Zafarullah and Liaquat and others – from our history.

    India forgets the teachings of Gandhi, we forget Jinnah. They go to Shiv Sena and Pakistan to JUI and JI. At the end of the day both are the same. Neither can tolerate anyone who is different.

  80. Ibrahim says:
    February 13th, 2007 4:57 am

    For the sanity of everyone, I propose that we just all agree that JUI, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, and Adnan Siddiqui are right. Yeh sab janati log hain, in ki baat sunno, aray gunahgaro.

  81. Musalmaan says:
    February 13th, 2007 6:50 pm

    Assalamu Alaikum. Adnan Siddiqui Bhai aur Rai Khan Bhai, aap kiyoun yahan ana waqt zaya kartay hain. Yeh website tou Faiz Ahmad Faiz jaisay commonistoun aur ghaddarou ko hero manti hai, aur Abdul Salam aur Zafarullah Khan jaisay logou ki pazeerai karti hai, aur shia aur qadiani mazhab aur girja gharoun and mandirou kay geet gaati hai. Aur uss kay baad Maula Fazlur Rahman jaisay ulema i karam ke mazaq urati hai. Yahan say dour he rehiyay tou aacha hai.

  82. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 6:26 am

    The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.” (M A. Jinnah, Founder of Pakistan, to Doon Campbell 21st May 1947)”

    Now this following is Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan… I have quoted more than 15 speeches… it shows clearly that Jinnah believed in an inclusivist liberal secular democracy and believed that Islam was in no way in conflict with the concept of a Modern democracy based on true Islamic ideals of Justice, fairplay and complete Impartiality….


    Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan

    14 th July 1947:

    Minorities to which ever community they might belong will be safeguarded. They will be in all respects the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed.

    (New Dehli Press Conference)

    25th October 1947:

    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?’

    (Quaid e Azam’s interview with Reuters’ Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters’ Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where).

    30th October 1947:

    The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.

    (To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore)

    Same Day (On Radio Pakistan):

    Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.

    17th December 1947:

    I cannot in good conscience continue to be the president of a self avowedly communal organization and the Governor General of Pakistan at the same time.

    ( Last meeting of the All India Muslim league before it split into PML and IML)


    9th January 1948:

    Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques. Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.

    (Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi)

    25th January 1948:

    I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear

    Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.

    (Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi)

    3rd February 1948:

    I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.

    (Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh)

    21st March 1948:

    Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said : We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.

    (Mass Rally at Dacca)

    22nd March 1948:

    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.

    (Meeting with Hindu Legislators)

    23rd March 1948:

    We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.

    (Meeting with the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’

    13 June 1948:

    Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.

    (Speaking Quetta Parsis)


    In any case 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.(Jinnah’s address to the people of the US in Feb 1948)

    Pakistan will not be a theocracy or any thing like that (Jinnah March 1948)

    17th July 1947 Press Conference:

    Question: “Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?”

    Mr. M.A. Jinnah: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.”

    A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and Non-Muslims would not be full citizens.

    Mr. M.A. Jinnah: “Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck’s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.”

    Raja of Mahmoodabad says in his memoirs: My advocacy of an Islamic state brought me into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah share my view and that he was asking me to convey such ideas to public. As I was convinced that I was right and did not want to compromise Jinnah’s position, I decided to cut myself away and for nearly two years kept my distance from him, apart from seeing him during the working committee meetings and other formal occasions.

    “Democracy is in the blood of Muslamans who look upon complete equality of man. I give you an example. Very often when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur stands side by side with me. Muslamans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty.” (Speech at Kingsway Hall, London. 14.12.1946)

  83. Asim Irfan says:
    February 14th, 2007 12:33 am

    inspired by your post on Faiz, I am dua-go:

    himat-i-kufr milay, jazba-i-tehqeeq milay…
    aa-e-aye haath uthaye hum bhi

  84. February 13th, 2007 4:14 am

    Dear Ylh,
    yet again i have to quote these speeches,prolly last time.

    The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and he was a great sovereign who ruled. The life of the Prophet (PBUH) was simple according to those times. He was successful in everything that he put his hand to from as a businessman to as a ruler. The Prophet (PBUH) was the greatest man that the world had ever seen. Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundations of democracy(Prophet’s birthday at the Karachi Bar Association on 25th January 1948)

    It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles
    (Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947 )

    [quote post="566"]without much success may I add because history is preserved for everyone to read. Jinnah’s words and ideals … as well as Islam itself.[/quote]

    How come mullah came into middle?you don’t miss chance to vomit out your frustration against mullah while your knowledge about mullah is as limited as your knowledge about Jinnah.

    you are right, words of Jinnah can’t be changed, neither by me nor by You. Go and refute above speeches by every mean and I will even appreciate that you or anyone even write a book to associate above two speeches with Secularism[which I already defined above and universally preached by seculars themselves]. Now that’s other thing if you give fatwa that God and all His messengers seculars. *grin*.

  85. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 4:57 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui,

    Did you bother to even read what I said? My knowledge of Jinnah is for others to judge. Please produce a single sentence from what you’ve quoted that contradicts this following:

    I quote from own post:

    Lets see then what Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan (according to you an Islamic visiion) was…

    1. Equality of all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.

    2. Impartiality of the state towards all faiths and groups.

    3. Faith the personal matter between man and god.

    4. Sovereignty resting unconditionally with the people of Pakistan.

    Now I believe these are Islamic values and in modern parlance this is what a secular state is. Thus I don’t have a problem with an “Islamicâ€

  86. Akif Nizam says:
    February 13th, 2007 1:24 pm

    YLH, I’m impressed ! Very nice job putting together the case for Quaid’s vision of Pakistan. It’s important to consider his conduct in conjunction with his words when debating his ideological bent. It’s not about finding convenient passages from his speeches but his stance on actual issues that he confronted.

  87. famalik says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:00 pm

    Jinnah ditched her daughter (rather than respecting her decision) when she decided to leave the fold of Islam. Says a lot about Quaid’s secularism.

  88. Baber says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:05 pm

    There are still people alive who have seen Jinnah otherwise the same mullahs would have stated that he had a long beard. And on the back of the school books would be a picture of Qaid with beard.

  89. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 7:34 pm

    Musalmaan Bhai, hium bhee Adnan Siddiqui Bhai aur Rai Khan to yayhee kehtay rehtay hain kay wo yahaN say door he rahaiN ;) but yey phir aajatay haiN. :)

  90. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 1:30 am


    Thank you for the encouragement.

    In addition to the speeches that I quoted on the JUI Verdict board, I also investigated the quote by Adnan Siddiqui. He is quoting Quaid-e-Azam’s speech to Baloch Jirga of tribal elders at Sibi Darbar on February 14, 1948 … exactly 59 years ago today. This can be found on Page 206 of the Jinnah Papers Volume VII

    The Quaid is invoking the ideals of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to convince the Baloch tribals that Modern democracy was not in any way a contradiction to Islam…

    But if at all, we were to humor Adnan Siddiqui and accept that by referring to Islamic principles (of Equality, Fraternity, Justice and government by people’s participation), he was contradicting his own earlier words promising an inclusive and pluralistic, I daresay, secular democracy … which should be more authentic… the speeches he made to the constituent assembly and from his governor house or those he made to Baloch tribal jirga convincing them of democracy ?

    People come up with some inane arguments… but the argument that by praising the Holy prophet and speaking of Islamic Principles of Equality Fraternity Justice and democracy … Jinnah contradicted his firm stance on secular democracy … takes the cake.

  91. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 1:50 am

    YLH, you will find that the person you have mentioned lives in blissful ignorance. Let’s leave him there without being dragged into that well of ignorance, not to mention of 8igotry.

  92. February 14th, 2007 1:55 am

    dear ylh,

    are you claiming that mentioned speeches are unauthentic?

    Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947

    I didn’t know that khaliqdina hall was part of some baloch tribe. Thanks for updating me.

    [quote post="566"]The Quaid is invoking the ideals of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to convince the Baloch tribals that Modern democracy was not in any way a contradiction to Islam…[/quote]

    and what is modern democracy? is it secularism? if yes then what’s secularism for you? you said secularism is subset of religion,can you elaborate “your” point? if secularism is part of religion then WHICH religion?

    [quote post="566"]he was contradicting his own earlier words[/quote]


  93. February 14th, 2007 2:24 am

    sad,another controversy after Jinnah’s secular status.


  94. zahid says:
    February 14th, 2007 3:24 am

    This fazlul rehman should thank jinnah because the reason today he can bad mouth him is because he is free to say what he wants and that’s because jinnah decided not to say Allah Akber and jump in battle ground with sword and big beard, his path was more frutiful and sensible.

    When moronic views such as that of this guy exist, Pakistan can never recognize its full potential.

  95. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 8:10 am

    Adnan Siddiqui

    Now where did I say the speeches were not authentic? I have written in plain English Language…

    Read above. As I told you, the speeches you quoted, whether at Khaliqdina Hall or at Baloch Tribal Jirga, simply show that Jinnah is saying that the concept of democracy is perfectly Islamic. Believe it or not this was a debate then… with Fakir of Ipi raising the banner of revolt against Pakistan for being unislamic…

    In any event, read the speeches quoted above… those and the ones you quoted prove this conclusively:

    Jinnah’s ideology was…

    1. Equality of all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.

    2. Impartiality of the state towards all faiths and groups.

    3. Faith the personal matter between man and god.

    4. Sovereignty resting unconditionally with the people of Pakistan.

    And there wasn’t a more important speech than the 11th August speech, because it was made before the Constituent Assembly:

    Jinnah said:

    Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

    I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or 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. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

    Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and 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.

    Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

    This speech quite clearly puts into perspective all that Jinnah said… he stood for an impartial and neutral state where everyone would have equal rights and where the state would not interfere in the religious beliefs of individuals nor would the state legislate on it. There is no other interpretation you can give it.

    Jinnah is saying: (see the bold parts above)

    1. Complete freedom of religion.

    2. Complete equality of citizenship (hence a Non-muslim should be allowed to hold the highest office even)

    3. Religion playing no part in identity making in Pakistan.

    4. Complete separation of Church and State

    5. Religion as the PERSONAL faith of the individual.

    This is what is known as a SECULAR STATE in modern parlance. Jinnah believed that this secular state was the closest model to true Islamic principles as well. He had fought for Muslim minority in India … but as he said (look at the 15 speeches I quoted in the earlier post) Muslims should not discriminate against non-Muslims in Pakistan.

    Meanwhile the speeches you quote simply prove that Jinnah thought- to an extent justifiably- that this secular state had no contradiction with Islam and Islamic principles… but your inference that he wanted an exclusivist Islamic state cannot be drawn no matter how hard you try.

    I challenge you to produce a single speech by Jinnah that challenges the concept of the state I have mentioned above.
    On the otherhand, we know Jinnah appointed a Hindu Law minister to make it abundantly clear that Pakistan would not be an exclusivist sharia based state.

  96. Farrukh says:
    February 14th, 2007 11:37 pm

    Dear FAMALIK, can you please explain what atheism has to do with JUI and Fazlur Rehman saying that Jinnah is not a real freedom fighter?
    Did you even bother to read what the post is about!

  97. Aqil Sajjad says:
    February 14th, 2007 9:01 am

    For those debating secularism and claiming that they know the meaning and connotation of the term better than others, the following wikipedia link might be interesting:

    There are several interesting things in this wikipedia article, and the above ‘hot’ debaters should probably read the whole thing.

    But for now, let me just give one interesting quote:
    “Holyoake’ s 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as follows:
    = Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.

    “Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.”

  98. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 11:11 am

    Dear Aqil,

    Thank you for the link

    From the link you posted:

    Secularism… asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of beliefand gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state; see also Laïcité.)

    This is a definition that I am arguing for. I have made it clear repeatedly. Unfortunately some here wish to use Holyoke’s version of secularism even though he is just one person and one does not necessarily share his view of secularism per se. I am a believing Muslim and not anti-religion from any angle…

  99. iFaqeer says:
    February 14th, 2007 1:18 pm

    Havent’ been able to read the whole thread, but I agree with Anwar early on that we don’t acknowledge enough people.

    However, on the JUI, I am actually relieved that they are being honest, finally, about what they think of the Quaid. It’s better than them trying to coopt them for their Islamist (as opposed to Muslim Ummah-focused) aims. Now if they and the JI will just tell us what they really think of Iqbal, we’d be much better off, I say. [On Faiz, I wouldn't even bother to ask ;)]

    Also, for all our faults, I salute Pakistan as a country where a major political party can say something like that and not be in legal jeopardy or lynched. In that regard, I think we are better off than a lot of places.

  100. famalik says:
    February 14th, 2007 11:13 pm
  101. February 15th, 2007 1:11 am

    Intresting,very Intresting!

    Few lines above our vetran expert Ylh said:

    The concept of a Modern secular state is not anti-religion.. and all secular states in the world have ethics based in morals derived from religion.

    and I had asked him,Which religion?

    and now he’s saying:

    Secularism… asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of beliefand gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state; see also Laïcité.)
    This is a definition that I am arguing for

    Self contradicting eheh but not surprising :-)

    Yasser,it would be good for your own sake that you decide first that whether a reliigon plays any role in secularism ideology or not,once you decide, let me know so that I learn things from you accordingly.

  102. YLH says:
    February 15th, 2007 2:15 am

    Adnan mian,

    I am afraid there is no contradiction in what I said.

    I meant that states that are constitutionally secular have some sort of religion in them… for example the oath on Bible in the US and the christian traditions quite common there. Your issue is that you don’t even try and understand what the other person is saying.

    Is the US not based on Christian ethics, even though it has a completely secular constitution. Is India not based on Hindu values, even though it has a secular constitution?

  103. Farrukh says:
    February 15th, 2007 9:36 am

    Dear ATP, I am disgusted at how these two trolls have highjacked this site. How many time do they have to keep repeating teh same point, same point, same point, same point, same point (get the point!) before they realize that no one is getting convinced! CAN YOU PLEASE STOP THEM!

    From what I can tell, both Adnan Siddiqui and YLH have their own websites, can they PLEEEEEASE take this sophmoric debate there  and spare us the bother.

  104. February 15th, 2007 4:12 am

    [quote post="566"]Is the US not based on Christian ethics, even though it has a completely secular constitution. Is India not based on Hindu values, even though it has a secular constitution?[/quote]

    that is my point which actually supports my point that secularism is a fictitious ideology or I say only in papers which you mentioned as constitution. It means secularism is brainchild of a religious authority[any XYZ religion] of a state that means there would be certain inclination towards particular religion. FOr instance secular india has Hindu influence and this is why anti-Muslim riots are common over there. If I agree your ‘glorious’ definition of secularism then world wouldnt have experienced incident like Babri Masjid Destruction. It means secularism exist only in papers not in reality and state affairs would certainly have religious factor.

    [quote post="566"]Your issue is that you don’t even try and understand what the other person is saying.[/quote]

    no the issue is that you are keep changing your definitions. You are confused but since you always prefer to be a last man standing that’s why you make every attempt to prove your points by rejecting your own previous statment.

    You better decide one thing, Is secularism promoted by every religion or it’s parallel to a religion. If its promoted by every religion then which religion is credible here? if you say that all religion promotes equal teachings then you are certainly going to conflict Surah 5:3 of Quran in which Allah declared Islam its favorite religion. Read Old and New Testament,they also reject other religions.

    If it’s parallel then your first statement is wrong,if not then you refute your own previous statment by agreeing upon:

    [quote post="566"]Secularism… asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people [/quote]

    I am not sure but is it not true that everyone who is in states enjoy XMas vacations regardless of belief? do Muslim holidays have similar status like Xmas in USA? if Yes then i would consider secularism credible but what I often here that muslims do even work on festival days. If yes then it’s not freedom of religion.

    Since we re talking about vacations etc, May I ask why US residents enjoy week holidays on saturday and sunday? Everyone knows that Saturday is the holyday for Jews ,also called Shabbath and Sunday for Christians. If secularism gives equal rights to ALL religions then they should have set holidays to some other days otherwise this secularism is baised towards christianity and judaism so that they can offer their prayers. Even in Pakistan such baised secularism was imposed by forcing us to stay at home on Sunday and Saturday. Unlike Bible,Quran never forced to stay at home for whole day and just asked to take a break for Jumma prayers, its sign of moderation which is entirely different from christianity and Judaism who asks to pray for the whole day and do nothing else which is the sign of extreemism and fundamentalism.

    [quote post="566"]Stop your personal attacks and try and stick to the content of the debate[/quote]

    Look who’s talking here. I am not making any personal attacks but certainly I am attacking your hollow knowledge. :-). Let’s see what our inhouse ‘Last man standing gonna say now. *grin*.

  105. Love2all says:
    February 15th, 2007 4:57 am


    [quote post="566"]“You better decide one thing, Is secularism promoted by every religion or it’s parallel to a religion. If its promoted by every religion then which religion is credible here? if you say that all religion promotes equal teachings then you are certainly going to conflict Surah 5:3 of Quran in which Allah declared Islam its favorite religion. Read Old and New Testament,they also reject other religions”[/quote]

    Boss ! U r absolutely 100% correct

  106. Baber says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:40 am

    Okay secularism is ficitious, so is religion. Santa Clause does not exist.[quote comment="34264"]
    May I ask why US residents enjoy week holidays on saturday and sunday? Everyone knows that Saturday is the holyday for Jews ,also called Shabbath and Sunday for Christians. [/quote]
    Saturday & Sunday is holiday in India, china, russia, nepal also, not christian states though.

  107. Baber says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:46 am

    India has 20% muslims may be less, but both eids (baree and chotee) are holidays there.

  108. Akif Nizam says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:57 am

    soooo…….. was Jinnah a real freedom fighter or not ?

  109. Akif Nizam says:
    February 15th, 2007 12:38 pm

    an appropriate article from The News today:


  110. truefacts says:
    February 15th, 2007 3:11 pm

    Well dear! What does u understand that “Holidays” are the true example of ‘Secularism’?

    The agenda of so called Secularism, is some thing else. They want to separate the religion from the souls of Muslim.
    They can accept the sound of Azan, but can’t tolerate that Islam should be practice as ‘System of state’.

    Now days, in the presence of current military regime they understand that they can achieve their targets.

    They condemn the Zia ul Haq as dictator, but they don’t consider Ayub, Yahaya & now Musharraf as dictator who is trying to erode our cultural, social & family values & norms from our society on the name of modernism.

    In Zia tenure our families was save from vulgarity at least, but these secularist are not worried about imposing of Western values & vulgar media now a days. Any daughter of poor man doesn’t wear t-shirt & jeans or sleeve less shirts or skirt or mini skirt. But our media increasing this gap of poor & rich person by showing glamour & vulgarity, in the result crimes against women has increased; they are not worried about so many scenes of high standard life, wine, smoking, nudity, bad language, prostitution, sexual sentiments because it is their ‘Enlightened Pakistan

  111. Samdani says:
    February 15th, 2007 3:33 pm

    Dear truefacts bhai, was Quaid-i-Azam a “Real Freedom Fighter” or not?

    Can you please tell us the true facts on that since that is what this post is about?

    Thank you.

  112. February 16th, 2007 12:03 am

    Do they seek for other than the Religion of God?-while all creatures in the heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will (Accepted Islam), and to Him shall they all be brought back.(Quran 3:83)

  113. Abdullah says:
    February 16th, 2007 12:56 am


    You pointed out very correctly to ‘Truefact’. I think he become sentimental. Although I am agreed with him but Quaid-e-Azam was a real ‘freedom fighter’. His ideology was based on two nation theory in which he was very clear unlike Maulana Madni,

    [quote post="566"]It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state (Lahore, on March 22-23, 1940)[/quote]

  114. famalik says:
    February 18th, 2007 11:46 pm

    Qaum majhab say hai, mazhab jo nahi tum bhi nahi
    Jazbe baham jo nahi, mehfile-e-anjum bhi nahi
    (Iqbal, Jawab-e-shikwa)

  115. MU says:
    February 19th, 2007 12:13 am

    One thing is clear, God chose Quaid e Azam, over Mullahs, to lead the nation into creation of homeland for Muslims. I don’t understand how a Mullah or its supporters can claim to have “faham” of deen if God does not guide them to make the correct decision. Take Maudoodi for instance, every major decision that he had to make, he made the wrong one; opposition to creation of Pakistan, calling founder of Pakistan kafir e azam and then come to the same country that he founded, opposition of Kashmir jihad, killing of innocent Bengalis Muslims via al-badr and al-shams (a very serious offence from Islamic point of view) and so on. How can such a person and his jamaaat be considered rightly guided or divinely guided? Other Mullah’s are no better.

  116. MQ says:
    February 19th, 2007 12:31 am

    famalik sahib,

    Iqbal nay yeh bhi tau kaha tha:

    [quote]Ehkaam teray haq haiN, magar apnay mufasser
    Taaveel say quaraN ko bana saktay haiN paazand[/quote]

    O Lord, we accept your commandments, but our mullahs
    By their interpretations, can make anything out of Quran

    P.S: Paazand is a relgious book of another religion

  117. MQ says:
    February 19th, 2007 12:39 am


    I am not a great admirer of Mullahs but allow me to point out a factual error in your statement. It was not Maudoodi who called Jinnah “kafir-e-Azam”. It was another mullah (I don’t recall his name), probably from Ihrar party, who wrote in an Urdu paper:

    [quote] Ik kafirah kay waastay Islam ko chorra
    Yeh Quad-e-Azam hai keh hai Kafir-e-Azam [/quote]

  118. MU says:
    February 19th, 2007 12:39 am

    BTW, did Maudoodi read the funeral prayer of “Kafir e Azam”? Perhaps one of the knowledgeable people from his party can tell?

  119. MU says:
    February 19th, 2007 12:41 am

    MQ, I stand corrected thanks, other points I raised remain however.

  120. MU says:
    February 19th, 2007 1:13 am

    [quote]calling founder of Pakistan kafir e azam[/quote]

    As MQ has pointed out Maudoodi did not call Quaid e Azam, Kafir e Azam instead Maudoodi called Pakistan, Na-Pakistan. Please correct in my above statement. Thanks.

    PS: Did Maudoodi read funeral prayer of the founder of Na-Pakistan?

  121. YLH says:
    February 19th, 2007 5:39 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui,

    I don’t about the strawmen you wish to bring down. When I talk of secularism, I mean state’s impartiality towards an individual’s religious beliefs and complete equality of all citizens regardless of those beliefs. That is it… and that is the definition I quoted above.

  122. YLH says:
    February 19th, 2007 5:41 am

    PS: My posts are there and so are yours. People can see who is resorting to personal attacks and who has hollow knowledge.

  123. MU says:
    February 19th, 2007 9:31 am

    YLH, you are better off ignoring certain people. Don’t let them drag you to their standard.

  124. famalik says:
    February 19th, 2007 8:03 pm

    Re: MQ

    Thanks for your response. Your response is the core of the argument. As long as the argument is about various interpretations of the text (Quran)then all is good; diversity of opinion is welcome in Islam.

    But the discourse of contemporary secular extremists is indifferent to ANY interpretation of Quran and Sunnah – religion has nothing to do with the state.

    To an extend that State and Religion compete for power, hence you see Human rights abuses such as:
    - Not allowing army officers to keep a beard
    - Not allowing women to wear a Hijab in public spaces
    …and u know the rest. I would like to share this 8-min documentary for those interested.


  125. MU says:
    February 19th, 2007 8:47 pm

    famalik, have you ever considered why it was a big deal that a Sikh was recently commissioned in Army? Because for the last sixty years no Sikh was allowed in the Army even though they are equal citizens (in principal) of this country and have the same rights (in principal) as the rest. This in my opinion is certainly worst than the beard issue you have mentioned. Also are you aware that in Pakistan people can go to jail just for greeting someone or for their peaceful religious rituals? Again more severe than the hijab issue that you mentioned even though I am not sure hijab is a problem in Pakistan official yet.

    So the two things you have mentioned are perhaps a dose of their own medicine to the “religious” elements?

  126. February 20th, 2007 12:11 am

    famalik,thanks for sharing this video. Surely secularist extreemism uses different dictionary while defining terms like freedom and equal rights.

  127. YLH says:
    February 20th, 2007 1:19 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui and F A Malik,

    Does every secular state do this? Is United States of America or Canada or Great Britain not examples of dejure and defacto Secular states… last time I went to any of these places, I saw many bearded men and hijabi women. So what is your point? Even Turkey and France – the two states which might fall in the purview of your example i.e. secular extremism- have not banned these things in toto.
    To use your logic- Taliban forced women into veil, persecuted non-Muslims and forced men to grow beards… Islam also does the same, when it clearly does not.

    So far you chaps have been unable to prove a single claim that you’ve made. I have quoted your own definitions to show that you are deliberately misleading people here.

    This is from the page you referred to:

    Secularism, in one sense, asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state; see also Laïcité.)

    Now don’t be a spoil sport and accept that there are several meanings of the word.

    On another note (to adnan siddiqui): Inculcate some of that Islam that you talk of and stop the personal attacks. Unless it is not Islam you are referring to but Abu Juhlism.

  128. YLH says:
    February 20th, 2007 1:22 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui,

    No point resorting to personal attacks when I used the same page that you produced for evidence:

    From your own source:

    Secularism, in one sense, asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state; see also Laïcité.)

    As for your repeated attempts to equate secularism to anti-religion activity. Lets assume that there are “Secular Extremists” out there who do the things listed by Famalik. Would you also say that Islam is bad, because there are some extremists i.e. Taliban, you etc, who force women to wear the Burqah and persecute Non-muslims? US, Canada etc are examples of secular states in the western sense and yet you find an abundance of beards and hijabs there. So your point is?

    Oh I forgot… your rage is pointless.

  129. Abdullah says:
    February 20th, 2007 5:21 am

    MU Wrote,

    [quote post="566"]Take Maudoodi for instance, every major decision that he had to make, he made the wrong one; opposition to creation of Pakistan, calling founder of Pakistan kafir e azam and then come to the same country that he founded, opposition of Kashmir jihad, killing of innocent Bengalis Muslims via al-badr and al-shams (a very serious offence from Islamic point of view) and so on. How can such a person and his Jamaat be considered rightly guided or divinely guided? Other Mullah’s are no better. [/quote]

    MU, What ever u wrote is not the first time & not last time, it is conventional stereo type repeat telecast of old baseless arguments by socialists, secularist, liberals , leftists & Ahmadies. Here, there is high need to correct the record,

    1) Maulana Mauudoodi was nor in favor of Pakistan movement & niether he opposed . Infect he supported Pakistan movement by writhing very comprehensive books in favor of two nation theory, which was widely used by Muslim League workers in independence movement.

    2) MQ has corrected ur information about Kafir-e-Azam. In the presence of Quaid-e-Azam, Maulana Maududi gave the lectures on Radio Pakistan.

    3) In 1947, Pakistan Govt. ( Zafar ullah Khan statement in UN) had stand that Pak army is not involved in Kashmir, then how any Pakistani can declare that we are in state of war (Jihad) In Kashmir. Maududi did not mean to dissuade holy warriors from entering Kashmir, for he decreed that “volunteers could fight on the basis of an individual commitment for jihad”, while the Pakistani government held true to the ceasefire.

    4) MU! U know nothing about the spirit & sacrifices of the Albader & even u can’t imagine because u r Quadyanee supporter. These were those Bangalies, who believed that Pakistan is just like a Masjid, as it is compulsory for every Muslim to defend the Masjid, every Muslim of East Pakistan should struggle to safe Pakistan against armed aggregation of Mukti Bahani(The militant group). 10’000 Albader Bangali Mujahadeen were shaheed on the name of Pakistan. It is our cruelty & limited thinking that we never honor & respect those who died for Pakistan & Islam.

    5) Maluna maududi said ‘The state (Pakistan) which is created in the name of Islam &(which means every thing should be clean & clear)will be ‘Na-Pakistan’ if Islam will not apply as a supreme law in that piece of land.

    We are still waiting for application of true Islam in Pakistan.


    Freedom of religion also has limitations. e.g u can practice Ahmadi relegion at ur home, but don’t try to present u as a Muslim or try to spread & preach ur believes.

    YLH, why not u ever admire & discuss the Taliban peaceful tenure, where a women can go from one side of country to another with just a one fear of Allah ST. When drugs trafficking was completely ban. When Taliban 100% completely destroyed all crops of opium.

    ‘Secular Extremists’ are those who are against Islamic values in country, who wants to shift the social culture & dynamics of society from Islamic perspective to western based living model.

    These are those persons, who wants to celebrate Basant with wine, dances, vulgarity on the price of dead bodies of innocent motorcyclist. Who particpate in mix gender race to promote ‘Soft Image’, who understand that Pakistan will become prosperous after commissioning of women guards at Mazar-e Quaid. Who loves Ataturk & want to practice his wicked policies in Pakistan.

  130. Raheem says:
    February 23rd, 2007 12:54 am

    You are right. We are making these JUI maulvis more important than they are.

    Everyone else has even forgotten about this but we keep their discussion and their agenda alive.

  131. YLH says:
    February 20th, 2007 8:57 am

    Dear Abdullah,

    1. Maulana Maududi described the idea of Pakistan Movement as an oxymoron akin to “chaste prostitute”. His opposition to the Pakistan movement is well known, so need to spin things. Enough information is out there to put to rest your claims.

    2. If Maududi spoke about religion on Radio Pakistan in 1948 once, doesn’t wash away his crimes. This is a ridiculous argument as is.

    3. Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah promised complete equality for all citizens of Pakistan and his greatest supporters were the Qadianis, as you call them.

    4. It is well known that Jinnah himself was an ardent Kemal Ataturk admirer. Muslim League under Jinnah celebrated Kemal Day

    Here are two of the statements Jinnah made about Ataturk:

    Jinnah described Ataturk as a ‘a great hero of the Muslim world’ and asked the delegates, ‘with the example of this great Musslaman in front of them as an inspiration, will the Muslims of India still remain in a quagmire?’â€

  132. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 20th, 2007 9:55 am

    This was the cry(pukaar)of the muslims when they demanded pakistan.
    Whether you tell them or tell them not,they will never believe.(AL-BAQRA:6)
    ALLAH likes not the uttering of evil words except one who is being oppressed and ALLAH is hearing and knowing. (AL-NISA:148)
    Lay the curs of ALLAH upon the “LIARS”.(AL-IMRAN:61)
    and most importantly,
    And the bondmen of the most affectionate are those who walk on the earth modestly and when the ignorant(Jaahil)talk(Argue)with them,they dont talk(argue)with them,just say salaam(peace) and walk away.(AL-FURQAN:63)
    may ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you.

  133. YLH says:
    February 20th, 2007 10:43 am

    Yes indeed may Allah’s curse be upon liars. Indeed the sources and quotes I have produced above prove that I am not one.

    Since Jinnah considered Kemal Ataturk the ideal Muslim leader and Turkey the ideal Islamic country (please refer to the quotes above in my last post), one can imagine what Quaid-e-Azam’s vision of Pakistan would have been. Either that or according to the exponents of Maududi’s Pakistan believe that South Asia’s greatest Muslim leader was unaware of global and current events of his time.

  134. YLH says:
    February 20th, 2007 10:49 am

    Jinnah and the Women National Guard

    Jinnah and Women’s emancipation:


  135. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 20th, 2007 11:47 am

    Muslims are brothers,therefore make peace between the two brothers and fear ALLAH,that the mercy may be shown to you.

  136. yasser latif hamdani says:
    February 20th, 2007 12:52 pm

    Nauman tasleem,

    I’d like some evidence of Ghaffar khan’s daughter. Furthermore Jinnah’s opposition to his daughter’s wedding had familial issues primarily that Jinnah’s mother in law Mrs Petit had arranged the whole thing to get back at Jinnah. Furthermore personal familial decisions have no bearing on issue of ideology … Nehru had a similar problem with his daughter and gandhi was perturbed about his son’s conversion to Islam. In any event Jinnah did go back to talking terms with his daughter soon after and used to play with his grandson a lot… He used to carry Nusli’s picture with him according to Begum Shahnawaz … So much for boycott.

  137. Abdullah says:
    February 21st, 2007 7:31 am

    Conversion, is always a dynamic phenomenon. Perceptions can change on the basis of ‘learning’ & ‘exposure to knowledge” or ‘truth’.

    e.g. at one point majority of the Muslims couldn’t understand the Ahamdies wicked face, but as soon as knowledge & truth spread, now 100% of the Muslims realized that Ahmadies are non Muslims.

    At one point QA was hard believer of Hindu Muslim unity, but as the time passes, he realized that it is just dream then a time come when was the advocate of Muslim nationalism.

    Similarly, QA was a Western educated secular Muslim but when QA interact with Ulema like Mufti Shafi & etc. in Pakistan movement then he get the opportunity to understand the real Islam & its teaching, that’s why he offered Namaz-e-Eid after independence in Sunni maslak & also he namaz-e-janaza was also offered in sunni way.

    So may be at one point time he praised Ataturk , but keep in mind at that time the actual picture of Ataturk & Turkey was also not so clear in subcontinent.

    Mr. YLH,

    Here u portrait urself as a very knowledgeable intellectual, but in fact ur knowledge is biased & very limited.

    No one can prove that Maulana Maududi wrote, did any struggle, delivered any speech, took out any procession, met or become allied with Congress, give any press release against the Pakistan movement. Even he didn’t forced his workers to do any activity either in favor nor in against. Due to his impartiality, MSF & ML workers used his books in favor of two nation theory

    Boss ! u r committing the crime by misguiding the people, It is on the record that QA encouraged him to delivered speeches in favor of Islam to develop mindset of people. He also told to a representative of JI that ML & JI targets are same.

    [quote post="566"]Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah promised complete equality for all citizens of Pakistan and his greatest supporters were the Qadianis[/quote]

    Pls, Pls wait a minute, what a joke, no no YLH, r u serious? No boss u r kidding? Can u realize what u r saying? I think u need to consult with any Psychiatrist.

    Was Liaquat Ali Khan, Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar, Khawaja Nazim uddin are Quadyanies?

    Do u know the population ratio of Quadyanees in Muslim India? not more than 0.2%.

    Where thy belongs, just in few districts of Punjab in scattered groups.

    Can u share me any single good name of that ‘GREAT’ leader.

  138. YLH says:
    February 21st, 2007 8:23 am


    I am not portraying myself as anything. Everyone can read your post and mine and decide for themselves as to who is biased and who is not.

    1. Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah at Srinagar in 1944 said very clearly that those who are spreading propaganda against Ahmadis are conspiring against Islam. As for Ahmadis’ role, I have quoted links to original pieces of work that show the role of Ahmadis in the Pakistan movement. Your claim that they constituted a small number is laughable, when we consider that Jinnah was just one man… and yet he did so much.

    2. Your claim that Jinnah supported Ataturk because his views were not clear in the subcontinent is a laughable claim which I have dealt with above. Needless to say, according to you, Jinnah, who was in touch with all major politicians and leaders of his time, was some how ignorant of global politics? This is just too funny a claim to be taken seriously.

    3. Khawaja Nazimuddin – like Jinnah- fought hard against Jamaat-e-Islami’s riots against Ahmadis. This is also on the record. His government fell but he continued to fight for their rights.

    4. Most MSF people recall that Jamaat-e-Islami and MSF used to clash during British rule over the question of Pakistan.

    5. Maududi’s role against Jinnah, his abuse against Muslim League and Pakistan and his opposition to Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan is well known. No amount of lying will change that. To say that he did not take out a rally in support of Congress does not mean anything… when you consider that nobody took Maududi seriously when Jinnah was still alive.

    So you can say whatever you want but truth will remain the truth. Now you can go on praising Maududi and fighting for your Islamist utopia… but must you lie about Quaid-e-Azam?

  139. Muslim bin Muslim says:
    February 22nd, 2007 2:56 am

    I’m just here to do dawa’h with the best of my ability.

    Can you please take you dawa’h baazi somewhere else. Why impose your perverted beliefs on others.

    Aap khud musalman howeaye janab, ameen.

  140. Muneer says:
    February 22nd, 2007 2:52 am

    Ali, ther is no surprise at al that these JUI maulanas are saying what they are saying.

    The surprise is that so many people seem to believe them. Have you noticed how many people here are defending the JUI leaders and how many are refusing to just simply say that the JUI view is wrong. So they twist and turn things into being about religious or non religoous or whatever. But never condemn what the JUI is saying. So they are really agreeing with JUI.

    That is real surprise.

  141. PAKISTANI says:
    February 21st, 2007 1:16 pm

    I really hate to do teh mullahs work for them, but since you insist on making a ridiculous point, let me respond.

    Has any “liberalâ€

  142. Ali says:
    February 22nd, 2007 2:24 am

    why should it matter to anyone if these JUI jokers think Jinnah is a real freedom fighter or not. Is there word really so important to us that we worry about it so much.

    Let them say whatever they want and let them make fools of themselves!

  143. Juwahir says:
    February 21st, 2007 1:27 pm

    PS: Ataturk punished the criminals. We should do the same. You are not suggesting we should let loose all criminals in the name of liberalism? Although this is what we have done so far. In fact many of them are in our National Assembly under the banner MMA.

  144. Juwahir says:
    February 21st, 2007 2:31 pm

    Pakistani, you are the only person I have heard claiming Soviets and Nazis to be liberals.

  145. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    February 21st, 2007 4:02 pm

    [quote post="566"] Ataturk punished the criminals. We should do the same[/quote]

    what are “crimnals” for ataturk would be friend for others or vice versa. Both liberals and rights consult their own dictionary to impose their rules. Therefore, its pretty nonsense to claim ataturk a saint while he was not.

  146. Akif Nizam says:
    February 21st, 2007 4:51 pm

    Juwahir, actually it’s the American conservative media which draws this parallel (liberals = soviets/communists). Their logic is that since liberals believe in a welfare state, they are socialists in their outlook. Since communism is an extreme form of socialism, the right-wing pundits regularly refer to left-wingers as communists.

  147. famalik says:
    February 21st, 2007 5:19 pm

    Secularim at its heart is inherrently opposed to religion.

    If you are interested, please view this 10-min documentary regarding how the secular elite of Pakistan view the religious masses.


    Time and time again these secular extremist elements in Pakistani society would argue that secularism is not opposed to any religion. But I would suggest you view the video and come to your own conclusion.

    I’m not here to make a ‘point’ or argue with you, I’m just here to do dawa’h with the best of my ability.

  148. Juwahir says:
    February 21st, 2007 5:40 pm

    famalik, what or who are these ‘secular extremist elements in Pakistani society’? Could you please enlighten us? How many of these have burnt or bombed mosques, churches etc or committed suicide bombing against anyone like extremist Mullahs do?

  149. Baber says:
    February 21st, 2007 7:40 pm

    At least liberals don’t promote the culture of hate in society. Nobody should be hated based on religion/sect or caste differences.

  150. Bundagi says:
    February 21st, 2007 7:49 pm

    I must say i find this rather amusing…i mean these mullahs lauding only the mullahs…we should perhaps teach them what tolerance is all about by tolerating such antics…after all no matter what they may say they cannot change history…they can wear their glasses to look back at history and we can stick to the facts;)

  151. Bushra says:
    February 23rd, 2007 8:55 am

    All of this chest beating is fine. But could someone please give an update on what has happened to this Maulvi Sarwar guy. Is he in jail. Where is teh case. What is happening. Or has he also been let go like that Nirala guy. Frankly after that situation with the Nirala guy I have lost all respect for the legal system and also teh educated elites, so many of whom had the audacity to actually defend that guy, who is now galavanting in Dubai. So, will anything happen to this Maulvi Sarwar, or will he also ind his way as a ‘religious refugee’ to Saudi Arabia.

  152. Khawaja Habib says:
    February 24th, 2007 12:28 am

    I am reading all this and trying to imagine how the Quaid might have reacted to any of this?

    I think he would have totally ignored the JUI maulanas but would have been very deeply sad at the comments here. What was it he said: FAITH UNITY DISCIPLINE. Obviously there is neither Unity nor Discipline in this nation and these comments demonstrate that. And as for Faith, no one is sure which faith or faith in what he really wanted. So, all three are gone with the wind!

  153. Amjad says:
    February 23rd, 2007 9:38 am

    I think you got it wrong. There are more JUI type people out there than those who share Jinnah’s vision. Jinnah’s vision was highjacked within years of Pakistan by those who opposed his idea of Pakistan in the first place.

  154. Mubarak says:
    February 23rd, 2007 12:39 am

    [quote comment="35056"]why should it matter to anyone if these JUI jokers think Jinnah is a real freedom fighter or not. Is there word really so important to us that we worry about it so much.

    Let them say whatever they want and let them make fools of themselves![/quote]

    Correct, Nobody gives a damn whether or not they think of Jinnah as a Freedom Fighter. Quaid-e-Azam was the only person in the political history of this country who had the real knowledge of Governing by Islam i.e. by “Justice, Fairplay, Impartiality”.

    No wonder what these mullahs say because as per Bukhari’s Hadith ” There will be a time when the religious leaders would be the most worst beings in the world and all fitna would begin by them and would ultimately return to them” so it is a prophecy which is bound to happen.

  155. Mubarak says:
    February 23rd, 2007 1:26 am

    Thank you JUI. You have exposed yourselves. Now do something more stupid so that the masses reject you once and for all.

  156. Mubarak says:
    February 23rd, 2007 1:41 am

    [quote comment="33918"]
    Thus I don’t have a problem with an “Islamicâ€

  157. Mubarak says:
    February 23rd, 2007 1:56 am

    [quote comment="33517"][quote]
    If you must bring religion into this, how come God preferred Quaid over these Mullahs who I presume you consider “trueâ€

  158. layla says:
    February 23rd, 2007 12:21 pm

    [quote comment="33513"]In my opinion the real reason Fazlur Rehman has uttered this garbage is that Quaid-e-Azam did not have a foot long beard and did not wear his shalwar above his ankles, the very criteria for someone worth any respect in these jackasses’ minds.[/quote]
    lol i agree with you, its a shame these sort of ppl are in power, they should be setting examples for us and our coming generations instead they are not even recognising the fact the individual who played the BIGEST Role to gain FREEDOM FOR PAKISTANI PPL,im not a pakistani but i have read alot about this person as my parents come from pakistan, and its a shame to see these kind of ppl get away with so much and PAKISTANI PPL are doing nothig about this.

  159. Abdullah says:
    February 24th, 2007 1:28 am

    [quote post="566"]Can you please take you dawa’h baazi somewhere else. Why impose your perverted beliefs on others.

    Aap khud musalman howeaye janab, ameen.[/quote]

    Politeness, manners & tolerance are the inherited attributes in most of the time. This is a forum, where every one should tolerate each other. U r not supposed to be capable direct or dictate others. Learn to respect, other’s point of view. Others also have equal rights to express their understanding as much u has.

  160. Pakpics says:
    February 25th, 2007 9:13 am

    They should be hanged till death. Suppose if he has not done anything, what the hell are they doing? shameless maulvi

  161. Lahori says:
    February 25th, 2007 9:53 pm

    [quote comment="35564"]They should be hanged till death. [/quote]

    Wah bahi wah. THat must be the right solution. Isnt this exactly what Maulvi Sarwar did to the lady MNA recently.

  162. Majid Husain says:
    March 15th, 2007 3:00 am

    JUI is ignorant. All the Maulanas may have played varying roles in the struggle of independence from the British but none of them supported the creation of Pakistan.

  163. Disciple says:
    March 15th, 2007 5:30 am

    Interesting article about Maulana Diesel (as MQ would say) on BBC; http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2007/02/070206_fazal_heart_rs.shtml

  164. M.Saeed says:
    March 15th, 2007 6:03 am

    Road-map to the homeland of Indian Muslims, i.e., Pakistan was conceived by our great Philosopher Poet and thinker, Allama Iqbal. It was meticulously followed and transformed into reality by Quaid e Azam. The greatest obstacles he faced enroute were not from Hindus or Indian Nationalists, but from the Jamiat e Ullema e Hind. But Quaid surmounted the hurdles because his road-map contained clear warnings from its architect. Allama and the Quaid are ruefully retested by the so called Ullema because of their comprehensive exposure by Allama in so many specific ways, which allowed the Quaid to avoid the pitfalls on his road. Ironically, we unlearn the hard earned lesson without remorse.

  165. Disciple says:
    March 15th, 2007 6:19 am

    [quote][quote comment=â€

  166. Diljala says:
    March 15th, 2007 1:35 pm

    maulana ka dil jalanay ki baat kartay ho

  167. Disciple says:
    March 15th, 2007 7:36 am

    Here is an interesting news on Fazlul Rehman;

    مولانا Ù

  168. Riaz says:
    March 15th, 2007 10:42 pm

    Despite everything, the fact remains that the MMA maulanas are the only ones taking a big and prominent role in criticising the government on the CJP issue. Everyone else is silent.

  169. Disciple says:
    March 15th, 2007 7:43 am

    مولانا Ù

  170. Disciple says:
    March 16th, 2007 6:54 pm

    Because they are the only official opposition approved by the army.

  171. Disciple says:
    March 17th, 2007 3:03 pm

    Now Ch Shuajat had his angioplasty from the same Dr Mubashar. Not only that, Ch Shujaat is also libving at Dr Mubashar’s place these days and Mulsim league guys had dinner at the sam place. Aren’t these Mullah’s and politicians being hypocritical? On one hand not allowing Ahmadis on any Qaleede (key) positions and on the other hand trusting them with their own lives?


  172. Osama Hasan says:
    March 19th, 2007 6:00 am

    I think that since these people dont have a proper education so they dont have any knowledge wortmentioning that’s why the react like this.

  173. Ashraf says:
    March 20th, 2007 1:11 pm

    In maullana ka Pakistan bhi hum say farq hai aur in ki Pakistaniat bhi hum say juda hai. Yeh loug hamaisha dou eent ki masjid banatay hain janab.

  174. manz says:
    March 19th, 2007 5:47 pm

    Allama Mashriqui and the Khaksars were true freedom fighters. Pakistan history is distorted. It must be re-written. Read the following article in “The Frontier Post” dated March 19, 2007:

    “The Khaksar martyrs of March 1940″

    More info on Allama Mashriqi is on the following web sites:

  175. April 11th, 2007 2:21 am

    This is the height of ignorance on the part of the respectable Maulana Amjad Khan.I feel sorry for him and his companions who participated in the meeting in which such remarks are made. If they believe our great Quaid did not do anything for Islam then it is true for them ‘geese are swans and swans are geese’. May Allah bless and guide them to the right path.(Ameen) Please do not hurt other people by such kind of remarks.

  176. Kaleem Afzal says:
    April 22nd, 2007 1:48 pm

    Interesting discourse
    But lets not forget that even Jinnah (the great man that he was) is not beyond scrutiny or criticism. Lets not forget when he made the wrong assertion by claiming Urdu to be the only national language. Some seeds for bangladesh were sown that day.

  177. Expat says:
    April 22nd, 2007 2:09 pm

    This mullah diesel only knows th elanguage of money and nothing else.

  178. July 4th, 2007 8:50 am

    sSubject: A proposal to build a South Asian Union (SAU) like European Union by expanding SAARC states.
    His Excellencies,
    Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Head of Governments & States, Political & Religious Leaders, Intellectuals, Educationists, Economists, Welfare Organizations, Mass People of South Asian region.
    Peace be upon all of you, history is repeating from the creation of human life till now and will be repeated until the last final judgment of Creator. Actually, Creator created us as his best creation of life but we divided it into different nations, religions, cultures, languages, ideologies, etc in several thousands of years since the appearance of 1st human Adam (PBUH). We don’t know when the human life on earth will be finished for ever on dooms day, but some think that human life never stop repeating it’s wrongs. Now we have seen that the days of the human being are becoming more critical, insecure, divided among our selves in different ideas, increasing of poverty, and destruction of economy of some nations in comparison with the economy of some rich countries of the west. So the time for South Asian nations to unite as a strong body which is most caring for the inhabitants of this region has come, and in this way, we can develop ourselves. I have no right to waste your valuable time, but my heart is pressing me to place this proposal or advice to the holy hearts of our great rulers of the people of SAARC countries.

    Proposal for future South Asian Union (SAU)

    1. The mass people of this region want to abolish visa system for them selves in order to enjoy traveling facility freely and free trade among the regional countries like EU states. We can include Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan & Philippine. The Afghan president his Excellency Mr. Hamid Karzai and his Government also shows interest for entering into SAARC.

    2. If we can include thirty seven more countries (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan & Philippine) with the seven countries of SAARC (Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives), then this organization or union will be one of the strongest unions. Then we can establish a powerful single currency like EURO as, for example SACU (South Asian Currency), dollar, or any other selected by the forum. And currency value can be fixed by averaging the currency values of the nations concerned.

    3. All states will keep there own national flags as state flag and one common union flag, like that of EU.

    4. We can establish joint military command council for the defense of the whole region like EU. That means we can unite in a union to ensure human life security along with a strong economy like European Union.
    I do not know when the people of this region of South Asia will start to feel love and affection for each other, and will be united. But we should try to establish a golden future for ourselves. If successful, then generation after generation of this region will remember you for your kindness. God bless us with eternal & external peace.

    Saulat Kamran
    E-Mail Address: saulat@dhaka.net
    Website: http://www.southasianunion.net
    House No -28, Road No-4, Dhanmandi R/A.
    Dhaka, Bangladesh.

  179. July 27th, 2007 10:20 am

    Dear Sir ,
    Assalamu Alaikum.
    can i get a picture of moulana ashraf ali hanvi ?
    Saulat Kamran

  180. mazhar butt says:
    July 27th, 2007 11:55 am

    Quaid-e-Azam got bent over to Islam in his later-most years as did Ziaul Haq quit smoking after criticized by some religious entities. Was this a political shift towards Islam or not could be judged from the background of both these leaders. However, as far as the Quaid is concerned he pleaded the case of Pakistan in an exceptional manner and ultimately won due to accidentally due to mistake of his opponents. So, we can say he won the case on technical grounds.

    I don’t see the Quaid serving the cause of Islam in any way except for the benefit of his legal pleadings, as every lawyer is wont to do, in his fight for the case of Pakistan

    As for Maulana’s statement I can only say that he’s out of his mind. He doesnt know that it is not necessary for a person to go to jail or to die to come out successful !

    Murda Parasti shoo-aar ho jis qaum ka
    oos per parey na khuda ka qahr na-mumkin !

  181. MZ Khan says:
    July 27th, 2007 12:37 pm

    Recent news on JUI is that wanted terrorist Abdullah Mahsood, who was responsible for killing of citizen’s of our best friend China, was found at the local JUI official’s home in Zob. JUI have been traitors to Pakistan’s interests all along; before Pakistan’s creation, after and even now. Its time this organisation be officially declared anti-Pakistan outfit, which it is.

  182. baber says:
    July 27th, 2007 4:11 pm

    “Quaid-e-Azam got bent over to Islam in his later-most years ”
    Good story…..
    There are people who have seen quaid-e-azam and there are videos and pictures in libraries. Other wise people like you would have told us that he also had long beared.

  183. mazhar butt says:
    July 27th, 2007 8:04 pm

    My friend’s comments about JUI are like a pot calling a sauceman black ! It’s not right to be judgmental about others on the basis of an oddity or past(or present ) opinions, or incomplete and sketchy information about something or anything.. Let the government take care of who’s who as this is none of a ‘surfacers’ business.

    Quaid-e-Azam switched over to Sherwani Pajama and Quraqali Topi in his last years clearly go to prove he got ‘transformed’ from a free and luxury loving man to an ostensibly good Muslim (better late than never) . He was surely a man of high ideals, a statesman, a brilliant lawyer and lastly a good Muslim as well and i confirm he didn’t raise a beard until his sad demise.

  184. January 12th, 2008 5:14 am

    da whOle cOmments given by differnt peOple..wz tOtALLY misUnderstandinG.
    MOLANA FAZL-UR-REHMAN is di great leader of di muslim Omma, specially 4 pakistan.
    saying tht key molana Fazlur Rehman nd his party wz against pakistan nd quaid-e-azam..is totaly wrOng..we all must knOw tht when PAKISTAN came into being ..di first one wz da same molana jis ne pakistan ka flag leh raya.. isi pakistan ki khatir 700 olma-e-karam ne jaam-e-shadat nosh kya…nd MOLANA FAZLUR REHMAN is in di true sense a great leader of PAKISTAN.nd wt ever he iz doing 4 pakistan nd muslim Omma…..thts totaly in di favour of our country , nation nd islam..

  185. Aik Aur Dewana says:
    January 12th, 2008 5:15 am

    inAYAT-deshAni, what is the proof of your baseless claims?

    September 18th, 2008 10:20 pm

    i am really grieved to hear such a statement from the office of JUI.SO CALLED PAKISTANI POLITICAL PARTY.Molana and his party members should be exiled from pakistan.
    molana sahab does not believe in two nation theory …..and he has been appointed as CHAIRMAN KASHMIR COMMITIE ….

  187. Rehman says:
    November 2nd, 2008 11:00 am

    Maulana accepts…ahem..nazrana from Military dictator government..

    Hundreds of acres of Army land given as bribe to JUI

    ISLAMABAD: The mystery behind General Pervez Musharraf

  188. Rehman says:
    November 2nd, 2008 11:13 am

    Some background on freedom fighters…


  189. Qausain says:
    March 20th, 2009 11:40 am

    Interview: Sufi Mohammad of TNSM:-
    Daily Times:
    You have termed democracy

  190. wasim says:
    January 6th, 2010 2:29 pm

    pata nahin humain kis gunah kii saza mein yeh mulla milay …..I think all mullas in Pakistan should be immediately thrown into the border of india… apna bojh jitni jaldi india transfer ho jai utna acha hay .. hamari bhi jaan chootay gii

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)