Picture of the Day: What Are They Thinking!

Posted on April 10, 2007
Filed Under >Adil Najam, History, People, Photo of the Day, Society
128 Comments
Total Views: 42300

Share

Adil Najam

This picture is carried today by both Dawn and Daily Times. Dawn’s title is “Still Heroes” and the caption reads: “Bronze statues of Quaid-i-Azam, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Allama Iqbal put on display at the Science and Technology Expo-2007 being held at National Memorial Museum in Shakarparian in Islamabad.”

A visit to the Museum is on the top of my ‘To Do’ list when I return to Islamabad end of the month. I hope they are still there.

My first thought on looking at the picture was to note how both Jinnah and Iqbal are wearing suits here (this penchant of ours – me included – to dress up these guys in the garbs of our desires has been has been quite a remarkable historical see-saw!). My second thought was to wonder what the folks at Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa might have to say – or do – about this. I hope there is significant security against vandalism here.

But even more than that, I wonder what these three men are sitting there thinking about what is happening today in the country they helped conceive. Late at night when the museum is closed and the statues come alive and walk about, what is it that they sit together and talk about?

128 Comments on “Picture of the Day: What Are They Thinking!”

  1. Harris says:
    April 10th, 2007 1:17 am

    They are shaking their heads in disgust of what became of their people.

    How long before the moral police of Lal Masjid becomes “bout shikans”?

  2. Jabir Khan says:
    April 10th, 2007 1:42 am

    Gandhi revolted agaisnt the economic exploitation of his countrymen at the hands of british textile. He odrederd the british made garments be burned. His resistance gave birth to the slogan ‘so deshi’. Quaid and Iqbal stopped wearing western styled cloths in later stages as well as matter of defaince against the imperial symbloism. So the picture at best is a misrepresentation of reality.

    Your hate for lal masjid et al is understandable, but do not twist the history in order to vent out your frustration. It goes agaisnt the spirit of the millions of sacrifices, offered at the time of independence.

  3. younas says:
    April 10th, 2007 2:15 am

    Good news adil, are you coming back to pakistan,only for holidays or long term??, the best would be you starting trans atlantic-pakistani media or IT venture, you know BPO is booming in Pakistan.
    may be Corporate version of ATP show casing Culture,tradition and tourism of pakistan

    God Speed, Good Luck & welcome Home

  4. Samdani says:
    April 10th, 2007 2:24 am

    I like the picture and the sculptures look good.

    I also like the notion of them statues coming alive every night to talk about what is going on in Pakistan… maybe they will also log on to ATP to check out what Pakistanis are talking about :-)

    No, really. Someone shoudl write a TV play or something on that theme… it will be quite a conversation!

  5. Daktar says:
    April 10th, 2007 3:04 am

    I think the best part of the picture are people in the background paying no attention at all to the sculptures. Just like we pay no attention to what these three men really stood for.

  6. YLH says:
    April 10th, 2007 5:35 am

    I am afraid Jabir… Neither Jinnah nor Iqbal ever stopped wearing the western dress…

    Jinnah’s approach against British economic imperialism was different… he fought for tenders to be in Indian rupees than British pounds… a move that was much more effective than Gandhi’s dhoti-only Xenophobia.

  7. Jabir Khan says:
    April 10th, 2007 6:04 am

    YLH, Iqbal used to be a western thinker in all aspects, and then one nazar of a sahib-e-kashf changed him forever. He became his mureed and that proved to be the pivotal point for him. Ishfaq Ahmad went through same transformation, in his last days he used to make fun of his ‘roshan khayal’ philosophical era, literally calling it crap. Lucky them. As Bulhay Shah said:

    ilm bass karayn o yaraa

    The level of freedom offered by this one verse should not be underestimated. Try understanding it sometime.

    In all I what I am saying is after his qalbi transformation, Iqbal ceased to be a fan of western culture.

    And Quaid renounced his only beloved daughter for the sake of Pakistan. That one jest is enough to tell what he had in mind regarding the Islamic identity of Pakistan.

  8. Sulman says:
    April 10th, 2007 8:01 am

    LOL. I had no idea this blasphemy was being allowed to happen in watn e aziz. Iqbal, Jinnah, dividers of the united India, British conspirers against islam, now clad in them suits and made idols out of em? In the holy land of pakistan? (which btw shouldn’t have been founded like I just said :P) Someone please call my friendly neighborhood suicide-bombing, gun-totting, civilization-pillaging honest and true Muslim brethren squad of bearded turtles please!

  9. mediatatters says:
    April 10th, 2007 9:07 am

    why is syed ahmed standing like a bera (bearer or butler) while the sahibs mohammad iqbal and mohammad ali jinnah have sofas attached to there bottoms

    (in addition to being dressed differently as adil noted syed ahmed seems to have taken less bronze and looks quite slim).

    i think they are, to answer adils musing, at a stage in their conversation where iqbal and jinnah have stopped listening to syed ahmed,

    perhaps saying that he wants to appease his masters in the government, while they have a different politics (however much it may seem like today’s drawing room politics)

    which pits the ordinary mussalman between the compulsions of the mulla and the caverns of modernism.

  10. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    April 10th, 2007 9:54 am

    From “Mulka ka Buut” to the statues of the Fathers-of-Nation—-we have come a long way. Today in the museums, tomorrow may be in the town squares. And Iqbal a ‘mureed’? Come on Brother Jabar. You are not serious? Are you? And Sulman, you too are entitled to your opinion no matter how contrarian. Long live Pakistan.

  11. YLH says:
    April 10th, 2007 9:59 am

    Dear Jabir Khan,

    I am afraid you are mistaken… as mistaken as you are in your misplaced adoration for the half naked fakir.

    1. As proven by pictures and historical record, Jinnah and Iqbal never gave up wearing western dress.

    2. Yes Jinnah and his daughter were estranged for a short period between 1939-1941 but they were on perfectly normal terms after the assassination attempt on Jinnah’s life by Khaksar. Jinnah’s personal life has no bearing on his ideas of impartiality of the state… nor does the question of identity, Islamic or otherwise, take away from the issue at hand or the real issue i.e. nature of Pakistan as a state. Islam certainly does not favor exclusivist theocracy.

    The current issue comes down to this: Did Jinnah wear western dress at the end of his life or not?

    Here is a picture taken from the last year of his life that proves that he continued to wear western suits till the end…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/170000/images/_170165_jinnah300.jpg

  12. Anwar says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:16 am

    They all seem to have a very dejected look on their faces. Perhaps contemplating – had they known how the future leaders will plunder their hard earned treasure…

  13. Allah Vasaya says:
    April 10th, 2007 12:24 pm

    Sir Syed:
    I told you two wannabie cool dudes to come dressed in a Sherwani, you have no idea the way these Pakistanis are these days.

    Quaid-e-Azam: Oh come on Sir Syed take a chill pill, don’t these nit wits know I was educated in England, drove a Rolls Royce, smoked the finest tobacco and played golf.

    Allama Iqbal:
    Dil-e-zinda-o-bedaar agar ho to bat’adreej
    Banday ko ata kartay hain chashm-e-nigraaN or

    Alfaaz-o-ma’anee main taffavut nahiN lekin
    Mulla ki azaaN or, Mujahid ki azaaN or

    Pervaaz hai donooN ki go aik hi faza maiN
    Kargass ka jahaaN or hai ShaheeN ka jahaaN or

    Quaid-e-Azam:
    You and your philosophies Iqbal! perhaps you should accept the fact that no one here can understand what you mean.

  14. jinni says:
    April 10th, 2007 12:43 pm

    This is a very interesting picture. Wow, the founding fathers cast in Bronze! To me these statues bring back similar memories I had when I saw statues of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. If we were to Juxtapose these great men against Pakistan’s founding fathers, how will our leaders stack up? For all our nation’s faults, we are still a young country. Almost 80 years after its founding, America was still wrestling with Civil wars in 1865! They did not give voting rights to woman and minorities long after. 100 years from now, we will all be celebrating these men of vision, courage, discipline and sacrifice.

    This is the first time I am even hearing that something like this actually exists in Islamabad. Hi Adil, please do share your experiences with us when you visit the Museum.

  15. mahi says:
    April 10th, 2007 12:56 pm

    Going by the few Pakistanis – vocal ones – I hear /read, Pakistanis seem not to not like the half naked fakir. I’m curious as to why? Is it just the History textbooks, or do the better read have an opinion? (Please dont come back with ‘for the same reason that Quaid is not liked on the Indian side’). This is no baiting … i just dont know many Pakistanis, and I’d much rather take a chance on this reasonable forum than elsewhere.

  16. Jabir Khan says:
    April 10th, 2007 1:04 pm

    And Iqbal a ‘mureed’? Come on Brother Jabar. You are not serious?

    He indeed was mureed of Hazrat Sher Mohammed Sharaqpuri. Little know historical fact.

  17. Jabir Khan says:
    April 10th, 2007 1:26 pm

    Suleman, The tiangle of Mountbatten, Pandit Nehru and Mrs Batten is proof enough what english and indians wanted in the first place. So how Jinnah was ‘conspiring’ against subcontinent successfuly in regard to this united opposition is beyond comprehension.

    But his vision proved right. Today indian muslims are far less achieving than even dalits according to their govt statisitics. Remember dalitism is psychological warfare and done very delicately. Muslims around the world are reduced to this mentality slowly but surely. First step of dalitism is an attack on the heros of the target nation.

    After independence, certain elements in our society bagan work on this project of dalitism as well. Most of misconceptions about Jinnah and Iqbal result from this.

    You want respect in the world? Learn to respect yourself and don’t be an apologist. Make the right decisoin today. Trust me you will be respected tomorrow. Otherwise a whole game of reducing you to dalit is already in place and in a very advance stage, whether you like it or not.

  18. Ismail Hussein says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:02 pm

    Mahi, in general Paksitanis are not ecstatic about Gandhi for the same reasons that most (read all) Indians I have met are not ecstatic about Jinnah. On both sides is understandable. My own guess however is that more Pakistanis do have some respect for Gandhi and very few Indians have any respect for Jinnah. Am I right?

    I cannot find it now but long ago I saw a very nice post on the site by Prof. Najam on the Gandhi-Jinnah relationship, maybe ATP shoudl highlight that on the sidebars.

  19. Altamash says:
    April 10th, 2007 11:07 pm

    Oh no. This thread is going the way of earlier ones… a few people stuffing the blog with message after message and making the conversation into something totally different from what the post was about.

    I suspect soon people will be hurling abuse at each other and next step will be for moderator to close the comments as has happened on a number of earlier posts.

    Can’t people just make their point and leave it at that.. you really think that repeating things again and again and again and again and again and again and again is what will convince others of your point! Those of us who were going to be convinced, already are. And those who refuse to be convinced will remain unconvinced!

  20. Sulman says:
    April 10th, 2007 3:24 pm

    Doctor Sahib and Mr. Khan,

    I dont know where you guys watch your comedy at, but my comments were supposed to be funny, sarcastic in the lieu of the recent sabotage of everything civil in the name of religious values that is going on in Pakistan. Mr. Khan, Congress only wanted a free india, not a divided india, and so did the muslim members of it and the All India Ehrar League. Therefore, both held Jinnah as a divider of what was otherwise known as the greated India where all faiths were supposedly united and were divided only by the British colonists.

    Jinni, if you ever visit chicago, on the intersection of Wacker and Wabash, in front of the Old Vietnam War memorial, stands a 15 foot statue of Washington, Jefferson, and Robert Morris. This pic did remind me of that statue, and yeah, our nation is on the rise, I hope and I beleive. Call me a dreamer all u want, but I really do.

  21. yasser latif hamdani says:
    April 10th, 2007 3:24 pm

    Mahi,

    Read H m seervai’s “partition of india legend and reality”

    H M seervai was a great Indian jurist … Fyi…

    When you’ve read you’ll know why not just Pakistanis but all reasonable people ought to question Gandhi’s actions.

  22. yasser latif hamdani says:
    April 10th, 2007 3:42 pm

    Dear sulman,

    That’s an old theory discredited after the declassification of transfer documents … I hope you are aware that Jinnah tried to keep India united for 30 odd years before he supposedly resorted to separatism …

    Jinnah had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 and it was Jawaharlal Nehru and Gandhi who rejected that plan making partition of India inevitable …

    Dr ambedkar, Indian constitution’s principal author called Jinnah incorruptible and unpurchaseable … As for what caused partition you might want to consider books by Seervai, ayesha jalal and Patrick French and you will see that you are completely out of line with your accusations …

    Even Azad admits that in the end it was Nehru twisting Mountbatten’s arm for partition and Jinnah was made into a scapegoat …

    Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was an autonomous unit within a United India till the very end … The rest was simply a bargaining counter …

    Btw ironic isn’t it that the so called “divider” was till age 63 atleast known as the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity ? How then he suddenly change … The conventional explanations are too shallow and without logic and you need to broaden your horizon …

  23. Sulman says:
    April 10th, 2007 3:58 pm

    Hamdani Sahib,
    My grandfather, dictator of ehrar party under Syed AtaUllah Shah Bukhari wrote extensively about how Jinnah’s efforts to form pakistan by dividing india were disliked by him and others in ehrar as well as khaksar party. I disagree with him, strongly, and I do think Jinnah did a noble job, one that was much needed and one for which we can never be greatful enough to jinnah. Still, the reality remains, Jinnah was considered by many, a divider, a separatist not after forming Pakistan but as soon as he left congress and began to root for the cause of a separate nation for muslims.

    My very first comment was a sattire, if you missed it and I think I have said it enough here. I’ll recommend that before guessing what the limitations are on my horizons, please reinstate to yourself the fact that I was making fun of what a fundamentalist (who are getting more popular everyday in my beloved land, thanks to the undying support from the perverted public who for hiding its corrogated inner sides takes the crutches of rooting for sharia enforcement without even knowing what sharia is) would say. I meant no harm.

  24. yasser latif hamdani says:
    April 10th, 2007 3:58 pm

    Fyi: there was no such thing as the Ehrar League …

    There was Majlis-e-ahrar … Which was a fanatical Islamist party …

    And yes … All Islamist parties opposed Jinnah and Pakistan primarily because Jinnah refused to let them hijack the Pakistan movement …

    In the end the Muslim masses … A whopping 87 percent of the electorate … Voted for Jinnah in 1946 elections and rejected Ahrar and other assorted Islamist freaks who hated Jinnah …

    Isn’t this what democracy is …?

  25. Sulman says:
    April 10th, 2007 3:59 pm

    Oh, and by the way, its Sulman, not Sulaiman. Just a friendly reminder.

  26. tina says:
    April 10th, 2007 5:32 pm

    Jabir, you cannot make me believe that Indian Muslims are lower than Dalits now in India or achieving less than Dalits or whatever it is you are trying to say. India has the second biggest population of Muslims in the world after Indonesia and they are generally understood to be an affluent minority.

    Pakistan is a fait accompli since the last sixty years so this argument is no longer really necessary.

  27. Sulman says:
    April 10th, 2007 5:46 pm

    Dear Hamdani, you just dont get it do you?

    Ehrar League, or Majlis e Ehrar, how big a difference it is that you are demonstrating your scholarly knowledge in my ignorant brain? lol.

    And you said it yourself, Jinnah was indeed opposed, by none other than groups of muslims, (I’ll forgive you for labeling my grandfather’s party as fanatic, long debate, not here not now) and isn’t that what I was referring to in my first post? Jinnah was opposed by conservative muslims not as much for his western manners but because of the way he came in and created the first nation in the world’s history solely in the name of Islam. In the presence of all those other religious leaders, a non-religious person comes and does something to serve so many followers, (whatever percentage you said) while all the bearded mullah’s watched. There are still factions in pakistan who criticize Jinnah for that, and most of them happen to be your right wing hard liner Molana’s, who are, I am sure, covertly appraising the whole Hafsa crap. And thats what I was pointing to, that since there’s a statue of Jinnah, (statues are prohibited by sharia law) the self-proclaimed sharia enforcement bandits should be pissed off at this.
    Sigh…Moen Akhtar, I dont know how you make these people laugh…its tough man.

  28. Jabir Khan says:
    April 10th, 2007 7:15 pm

    Jabir, you cannot make me believe that Indian Muslims are lower than Dalits now in India or achieving less than Dalits or whatever it is you are trying to say.

    tina I don’t know what it will take to make you believe ‘anything’ at all. But kindly pay attention to the following. And if you have a counter argument, I will gladly give you an ear.

    Muslims in India are even more disadvantaged than low-caste Hindus, a report commissioned by the government in Delhi suggests.

    Rest here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6159178.stm

  29. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 7:27 pm

    Are Muslim in India put in prison *legally* for professing their faith? If not then Indians still lag behind us is in religious persecution. In Pakistan it is allowed in by law to persecute on religious grounds;

    Excerpts from Pakistani law (ORDINANCE XX OF 1984);

    [quote]Any person of the Quadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible presentation, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as ‘Azan’, or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 298C. Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith.

    Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name) who directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine….[/quote]

    Ref: http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/ordxx.html

  30. Jabir Khan says:
    April 10th, 2007 7:28 pm

    Thanks Suleman, yaar sorry I failed to note the sarcasm in your post. But kindly note more than one person ‘managed’ to misunderstand it.
    These days of relentless negative media bombardment on muslims turns one brain into spaghetti :)

  31. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 7:35 pm

    When we were young we used to read stories that x thousand years ago if a dalit ever heard a word of Hindu religious book he was treated by pouring molten metal in his ears. Somehow, the above reminds me of that, except it’s not thousands of years ago but in 21st century Pakistan.

  32. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 7:54 pm

    [quote]…in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims,…[/quote]

    Wow, can the definition go any broader? So at any time a “Muslim” claims that his “religious feelings” are “outraged” the person concerned goes to jail for 3 years. Seems to me an open season on persecution.

    Perhaps Indians can put in their constitution…[quote]…in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Hindus,…[/quote]

    I wonder if Muslims would accept it as wholeheartedly for India as they do it for Pakistan? Hmmm…

  33. Kabir says:
    April 10th, 2007 8:03 pm

    Where are our Artists? The scultures look horrible. They look like some cheap manicans in some beauty parlor. Especially Jinnah’s sculpture, look how stiff the body is. Is that a natural posture? No flow no movement. Plus the seat is also out of proportion. Pethetic. More disturbing is that people like it. Oh God. We need to expose this nation to arts.

  34. Sulman says:
    April 10th, 2007 9:33 pm

    You’re wecome Jabir, no problem!

    Nazir: The law is to prohibit the merging of islam with something thats not islam. The legislation is clearly written against labelling as Islam of a beleif that the Majlis e Shura of Pakistan declared non-islamic. This law does not, prohibit practice of Qadiani faith, it prohibits calling the qadiani faith islam and its followers muslims. The reasoning was not national sovereignty, but religious integrity of islam itself.

    There is no legislation against practicing one’s religion, not atleast he one that you quoted. If you could not grasp the legal reasoning behind the terminology or are simply fond of twisting words for the heck of it, please do not preah that to others. The legislation was to put a clear definition of a muslim and islam, not to prohibit the practice or preaching of qadiani or ahmadi religion.

    Visit Chiniot sometime, you might know what I am talking about.

    And to the person who criticized the beauty factor of the statues, comon yar! atleast we have them there, beautiful or not. Besides, they’ve had enough glamor and beautification in all their pics in textbooks etc. :D So, cheer up, and visit the monument!

  35. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:02 pm

    [Quote]Nazir: The law is to prohibit the merging of islam with something thats not islam. The legislation is clearly written against labelling as Islam of a beleif that the Majlis e Shura of Pakistan declared non-islamic. This law does not, prohibit practice of Qadiani faith, it prohibits calling the qadiani faith islam and its followers muslims. The reasoning was not national sovereignty, but religious integrity of islam itself. [/quote]

    Sulman: All humans have equal rights! And you can not punish others for *your* beliefs. I am a little intrigued as to what sort of values you personally possess? Any idea what humanity is?

    This term you mentioned “religious integrity”, does this have any basis in Islam? I ask this as I know of “No compulsion in religion” but no mention of forcing anyone to believe anything in the name of “religious integrity”. Would you care to explain where you took this term from? As for the majlis e shura that you mentioned, it had a lot of sharabi, zaani and dishonest people in it ie people involved in all sorts of un-Islamic activities. The details are in the white paper (qartas e ubyyas) published during zia ul haques period. So an un-Islamic act perpetrated by people of doubtful moral standing (saying politely) seems quite holy to you? Once again I am intrigued as to your own personal values.

  36. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:06 pm

    PS: Doesn’t god say in Quran that “if we wanted to make all people follow the same faith we would surely have made them to do so”? Seems like “religious integrity” is the last thing on God’s mind. Shouldn’t you be following God instead of just any Molvi?

  37. USMAN says:
    April 11th, 2007 7:41 am

    jabir Khan, is everything you like a conspiracy of the West…. they must really dislike you that they are always and only thinking about you and your destruction!  Freemasons, yeah sure… where is the proof (and, please, PROOF… not some propaganda drivel claiming it is so because they say so!)…. the amount of slander and baseless rumor mongering here is just phenomenal

  38. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:17 pm

    This law is in serious violation of international convention on human rights. If similarly other countries such as India or western countries adopt laws that are anti-Muslim what grounds Muslins have to oppose them?…as the only universal ground i.e. ICHR is being violated by Muslims themselves. Think carefully before replying to this.

  39. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:21 pm

    [quote]There is no legislation against practicing one’s religion, not atleast he one that you quoted.[/quote]

    Oh really? What this law says is that they are *not* free to practise their faith (as they understand and believe) but rather they are “freeâ€

  40. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:44 pm

    [quote]If you could not grasp the legal reasoning behind the terminology [/quote]
    Perhaps because it’s not law as we understand but is Molvi-law. Can you give another example of any such law in this whole wide world?
    [quote]The legislation was to put a clear definition of a muslim and islam, not to prohibit the practice or preaching of qadiani or ahmadi religion. [/quote]

    Nowhere does this law try to define Islam and Muslim…(all sects have at one time or another declared others non-Muslim or kafir so a universal definition of Muslim is not possible anyway). This law certainly tries to prohibit qadianis or ahmadis from practicing their faith as they understand it and beleive…as I have explained above. I have a feeling you are just repeating like parrot what you have heard from Mullahs and have not really thought this through as you are not making any sense.

    Lastly what is the qadiani or ahmadi religion? Is it what they understand and believe? In which case you would allow them to practice it as they wish and there is no need for the ordinance. If however there is this ordinance then they are *not* free to practice as they believe but rather you are trying to define their religion for them and via this ordinance forcing them to act in accordance to your demand. So where is the freedom in it if they are “freeâ€

  41. Nazir says:
    April 10th, 2007 10:48 pm

    [quote]Visit Chiniot sometime, you might know what I am talking about. [/quote]

    What is in chiniot that I need to see to know anything? We are talking about a law at national level here and not of a far flung place. You are not making any sense.

  42. Sulman says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:23 am

    Well said, mr. last post.
    Mr. Nazir, please consult a lawyer some day. I am an L1 constitutional and corporate law major at Loyola, and let me state my reasoning again for you. There is no issue of humanity and human rights when it comes to faith-based plagiarism. Muslims in other countries wouldn’t practice islam and claim to be practicing Christianity, would they? and if they would, and this action of them would therefore alter the definition of Christianity or whatever the state religion is, then yes, I would agree for a ban on anyone who claims to amalgamate the two different religions.

    For the last time, Law was written to PREVENT PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM, the religion in the name of which Pakistan was created. What part of Islamic Republic of Pakistan do you not get? Qadianis can practice qadianiat all they want, just dont call it islam. It’s not islam. So did we declare, the group that you called zani and sharabi, were the most noted ulema of their time, and your parents perhaps (if you’re my age) voted for the Bhutto government which passed these laws. By the way, if you call pakistani majlis e shura of bhutto era zani and sharabi and deviant, I’ll be interested to know what you think of the men who drafted the Islamic Sharia during the Ummayad Dynasty.

    Chiniot, my naive friend, is the main stronghold of Qadianis in Pakistan and perhaps the world. Hence my recommendation. :D

    About this law’s being a definition of muslim and non muslim: There’s something we call precedence in law. Rulings and laws such as this become a reference guide in deriving the definition or building through negation a description of something. This law clearly defines the Qadiani religion as different from islam, consequentially Qadianis different from muslims.

  43. USMAN says:
    April 11th, 2007 8:00 am

    Jabir. No, I don’t and don’t care for why the Washington Monument is the way it is. Please stick to the topic. We are talking about Pakistan.

    And, pleeeeeese don’t offer sophmoric ‘Twilight Zone’ drivel about next asking why there is a pyramid on the US currency notes… the type of people who dream up these conspiracy theories are the same retards who see Muslims behind everything that goes wrong with the world… the mullahs of the west are no better than the mullahs of the east.. that is not evidence that is rumors and fear-mongering…. just because someone says it in a silly TV show does not make it evidence….

    Now for real evidence… maybe official documents, copies for letters, photographs, taped conversations…. since you were so quick to demean and condemn someone, I assuem as a good Muslim you have REAL evidence … otherwise, what is the punishment for false accusations…. stoning, no?

  44. Sulman says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:24 am

    For the last time, Law was written to PREVENT PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM, the religion in the name of which Pakistan was created. What part of Islamic Republic of Pakistan do you not get? Qadianis can practice qadianiat all they want, just dont call it islam. It’s not islam. So did we declare, the group that you called zani and sharabi, were the most noted ulema of their time, and your parents perhaps (if you’re my age) voted for the Bhutto government which passed these laws. By the way, if you call pakistani majlis e shura of bhutto era zani and sharabi and deviant, I’ll be interested to know what you think of the men who drafted the Islamic Sharia during the Ummayad Dynasty.

    Chiniot, my naive friend, is the main stronghold of Qadianis in Pakistan and perhaps the world. Hence my recommendation. :D

    About this law’s being a definition of muslim and non muslim: There’s something we call precedence in law. Rulings and laws such as this become a reference guide in deriving the definition or building through negation a description of something. This law clearly defines the Qadiani religion as different from islam, consequentially Qadianis different from muslims.

  45. Nabeel says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:06 am

    What a pitty!!!

    I opened this link to read about the bronzed-sculptures of our leaders and I ended up reading the clashes in readers… I thought our politicians are best in doing it but, “Yahan tu away ka awaa hi bigra hoa hai”

    :(

  46. YLH says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:20 am

    Sulman mian some facts:

    1. Pakistan was not created in the name of Islam. That is simply a myth. Pakistan was the result of a political issue…. had the religion of the minority that got Pakistan been Buddhism or Christianity, things would have still been the same.

    2. Ahmadis were in the frontrank of the Pakistan movement. Sir Zafrullah Khan – you maybe aware – was the principal author of the Lahore resolution. People who have gotten them declared non-Muslim are actually the same people who were the enemies of Pakistan only 60 years ago.

    3. Majlis-e-Ahrar was a horribly fanatical right wing party. If someone’s grandfather was part of it, doesn’t mean I should lie about it. Majlis-e-Ahrar took every opportunity to stab the greater Muslim cause in the back… as is their wont. They are also the people agitating against Ahmadis in Pakistan.

    4. Regardless of what assorted variety of beards opposed Pakistan, 87% of the Muslim electorate voted for the Muslim League… so your point that some Muslims were against Pakistan is meaningless. Infact we need to defeat the same people again today… at the polls to save Jinnah’s Pakistan.

    Pakistan Zindabad.

  47. YLH says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:43 am

    Tina,

    Excellent post.

    Infact, people here don’t understand that by making this argument about the plight of the Indian Muslims, they are in essence saying “look Pakistan was made but the Indian Muslims are still in the pits”…

    60 years down the road… it is not even an issue really. Indian Muslims are Indians… just like Pakistanis are Pakistanis. As co-religionists we should wish our Indian Muslim brethren well… but nothing more.

  48. Sulman says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:58 am

    Had pakistan been created in the name of budhism or sikhism, then those religions, would you think, have allowed another religion’s followers to practice and lable their religion which contradicted buddhism or sikhism as buddhism or sikhism?

    Ahmadis were in the forefronts of creation of pakistan, great! They are no less pakistani than any muslim pakistani. But does that give them the right to practice something other than islam and call it islam?

    Zulfiqar ali bhutto and the father of Mr. Qasoori administered the legislation about Ahmadies, are you implying that they were pakistan’s enemies too(to me bhutto sure was close to that, but thats another topic).

    My point that wasn’t that some muslims opposed pakistan’s creation. Read it again: I said Muslims who were against the creation of pakistan and jinnah were no different than those that are desecrating your social peace in the name of religion today in pakistan, i.e. ur hafsa imbeciles.

    My grandfather was in Ehrar, and no offense but I never asked anyone to lie about ehrar’s character, its not the topic here. So, I’ll recommend reading after wiping the foam from our mouths, and it sure is a sunny day:D

  49. mahi says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:00 am

    Ismail H – thanks for the response. However, its on expected lines. I was looking for greater insight along the lines of why Pakistanis dislike Gandhi specifically.

    Indian dislike of Jinnah cannot be an accurate answer because Gandhi and Jinnah attempted two different things: and hence the motivating factors of the dislike could be different (and I think are).

    Yasser Latif,
    Thaks for the book recommendation. I will try and get my hands on it. I am nearing the end of Wolpert’s Jinnah book and so far I must say, nothing to suggest a ‘dislike’ of Gandhi is actually warranted. Maybe an appraisal of him thats less laudatory than systemic and simple India is prone to, but certainly not dislike.

  50. Sulman says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:01 am

    Oh, and by the way, Mr/Ms YLH, your position of calling my argument meaningless about muslims opposing pakistan’s creation is negated by your own good self when u say that infact we need to defeat those people again today. So, they do/did exist, rite? :P

  51. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:37 am

    @Sulman/Jabir: You guys can never convince our psuedo jinnah expert mr.Hamadani. I have experienced him a lot so do remember what Imam Sha’fi[RA] said once:


    I debated a scholar and beat him. Then I debated a layman and that layman beat me- he had no knowledge of the principles and texts. I had nothing to say.

    Cheers :-)

  52. Sulman says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:44 am

    Haha!
    Well said Adnan.

  53. USMAN says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:46 pm

    wah bhai wah. Is this what is called a sufaid jhoot.

    The comments are up there for everyone to see (mine were moderated by ATP but only because in my frustration I used some language I should not have, but teh substance is still there).

    You said that Ahmedis were a Western conspiracy by the Freemasons.

    I said that was nonsense and asked you for proof.

    Your proof was to ask me about the Washington memorial.

    What is not to understand here?

    You made a serious defamatory statement and you shoudl be able to provide some proof for it.

    Otherwise anyone can just rise and say so-and-so is a running a brothel so lets take them hostage!

  54. Khawaja Habib says:
    April 14th, 2007 5:49 pm

    The national memorial museum is a very fine place and very well done. It is very educational and has a more balanced history presented than is in the schools.

  55. YLH says:
    April 11th, 2007 5:27 am

    Dear Sulman,

    The point my dear friend that unfortunately missed you in entirety is that principle of citizenship and issue of fundamental rights exists independently, whether the state is founded on cultural, ethnic or any other form of nationalism… which is why a Non-French speaking French citizen should have the same rights as a French speaking French citizen … so on and so forth We wish to hold the State of Israel (of which you are supposedly a supporter) to the same principle when it comes to Arab Israelis which form 1/8th of the Israeli population.

    Even if – in blatant disregard of the fact that in 1940s they were considered Muslims and their votes were sought on that premise- it was decided to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim .. you cannot- as per the Fundamental Rights Chapter of Pakistan’s constitution- force them to not call themselves Muslims… even if the state continues to consider them so. Thus… not only was the constitutional amendment wrong … but even after the amendment there was no justification for the PPC 298 C … which violates the Pakistani constitution and the fundamental human rights of the said community.

    FYI Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was a politician… and he admitted that he was merely playing politics when he did what he did… As for Kasuri’s father… he had quit Bhutto’s cabinet in 1973…. a whole year before the passing of the said amendment…

    And finally whatever your objections against Ahmadis… you cannot say that simply because Pakistan was created in the name of Islam (which is a dubious and historically inaccurate statement but let me humor you) that Ahmadis should be declared Non-muslim. The fact is that Ahmadis were considered Muslims by Jinnah and the Muslim League, whereas those against Ahmadis were also against Jinnah and the Muslim League. Indeed… Pakistan did not have claim to the Gurdaspur region (about which it still raises a lot of hue and cry) had it not been for the Ahmadi population which brought the over all Muslim population in the majority there… At the very least, the 87% Muslim electorate which became the basis of Muslim League’s claim as a representative body of Muslims included Ahmadis. So what has happened in Pakistan is the denial of the very principles that Pakistan was created on.

    So the issue is multi-layered… and in a fair court of law you cannot win your case… unfortunately… judiciary in Pakistan went to hell some 20-30 years back.

  56. YLH says:
    April 11th, 2007 5:33 am

    Dear Mahi,

    Stanley Wolpert actually is someone who believes that both Jinnah and Gandhi, despite their human failings, were trying to do the right thing… and that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who, because of his impetuous temperament, brought disaster to the subcontinent… and that British made a mistake listening to Nehru and Patel instead of Jinnah and Gandhi….

    However… reading H M Seervai’s book… I am forced to conclude… that Gandhi had a major role… equal to, if not bigger than, Mr. Nehru’s in the disaster. H M Seervai, as you may be aware, is one of the greatest constitutional lawyers produced by India and a true patriot… his estimate, painful and upsetting to himself even, is that Maulana Azad was the only person in the Congress willing to do the right thing.

    So read it… and I am sure you’ll get a fresh perspective on things.

  57. Nazir says:
    April 11th, 2007 5:49 am

    [quote]Mr. Nazir, please consult a lawyer some day. I am an L1 constitutional and corporate law major at Loyola, [/quote]

    You are a lawyer (of sorts), let’s consult you.

    [quote]There is no issue of humanity and human rights when it comes to faith-based plagiarism. [/quote]

    According to what law? Proof this. How many in US have been put in prison for going to church or doing other Christian rituals while majority Christians did not accept them as Christians? People who live in west know very well that your claim is false. People freely believe what they want to believe and can express to a large extent what they want to and no one puts them in prison even if majority disagrees with them whether religiously or otherwise. So don’t go ahead and make any false statements.

    Please go ahead and prove me wrong with examples where people have been put in prison because they professed a particular faith peacefully despite being considered heretic by the majority.

    [quote]Muslims in other countries wouldn’t practice islam and claim to be practicing Christianity, would they? [/quote]

    An interesting question here is why would a person be adamant to practice a faith which he/she does not really believe in and will continue even under pain of punishment? In all likelihood they probably DO believe the faith to be true whether you agree with them or not.

    But whether a Muslim does that or not is entirely on that Muslim and to that he/she is completely entitled to under freedom of faith which does not define what set of beliefs you need to have, in the same as Islamic teaching of “no compulsion in religionâ€

  58. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 5:55 am

    Adnan

    Thats a good one. thanks for sharing.

  59. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 6:04 am

    Nazir, at this time the muslims are the most prosecuted minority in the west. Second I know atp will gladly chop my post but here is the answer. The sect you are so vehemently defending here was a Freemasons/Illuminati conspiracy agaisnt mulsims of subcontinent. And till today they play very well in the hands of western powers against Islam in general and Pakistan in particular.

  60. Nazir says:
    April 11th, 2007 6:22 am

    [quote]For the last time, Law was written to PREVENT PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM,[/quote]

    What is ‘PREVENT PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM’ exactly? Aren’t there 72 or so sects already who call each other kafir? But first what is PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM or for that matter PLAGIARISM OF A RELIGION? Are you talking here of western law studied at Loyola or something else? Who decides when it is PLAGIARISM OF A RELIGION? If it is left on majority they will always decide in their own favour. There has to be a fairer way to decide it. In US/West/International Law how many examples have you seen where majority is given free hand to prohibit any minority from not professing their faith because majority considered it PLAGIARISM?

    [quote]the religion in the name of which Pakistan was created. [/quote]

    Can we leave emotional bits to a side for now? What has that got to do with anything? You are a lawyer let’s talk principals and laws and leave slogans for politicians and Mullahs.

    [quote]What part of Islamic Republic of Pakistan do you not get?[/quote]

    The part that was created by the same Mullahs who opposed Pakistan in the first place and shouted Kafir e Azam and Na-Pakistan when Pakistan was being created.

  61. Nazir says:
    April 11th, 2007 6:31 am

    [quote] Qadianis can practice qadianiat all they want,[/quote]

    What is Qadiniat? I asked you before but you have avoided the question. Is it what they (Qadianis) decide or is it what you decide for them and impose on them using the above law? In effect ‘qadianiat’ is something that you define for them and force them to follow. The absurdity of this is so obvious but can you give another example in recent history when a state makes up a “religionâ€

  62. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    April 11th, 2007 6:45 am

    @Nazir: Read Roohany Khazaen and increase your knowledge before blaming others.

    Now don’t ask another question “What is Roohany Khazaen?”.

  63. USMAN says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:18 pm

    What position am I changing? Pray, tell.

    The messges are up there for all to see….

    Do you have any PROOF or is this one more case of distracting people after giving jhoti gawahi and propaganda for the purpose of defaming others.

    By the way, I had also asked what the Islamic punishment is for spreading lies and defaming without proof?

  64. Nazir says:
    April 11th, 2007 6:50 am

    [quote]By the way, if you call pakistani majlis e shura of bhutto era zani and sharabi and deviant, I’ll be interested to know what you think of the men who drafted the Islamic Sharia during the Ummayad Dynasty.[/quote]

    What has this got to do with what we are discussing here? What we are discussing is rights of people and not who is right theologically. You are a lawyer, you should understand the difference.

    [quote]Chiniot, my naive friend, is the main stronghold of Qadianis in Pakistan and perhaps the world. Hence my recommendation. [/quote]

    Is that so? And how is it naive to ask how is it related to our discussion? More and more I am convinced you are repeating what you have heard from Mullahs instead of talking with reason like a lawyer. Do you really expect people to go to far off places every time they discuss something with you on the Internet?

    [quote]About this law’s being a definition of muslim and non muslim: There’s something we call precedence in law. Rulings and laws such as this become a reference guide in deriving the definition or building through negation a description of something. This law clearly defines the Qadiani religion as different from islam, consequentially Qadianis different from muslims.[/quote]

    Despite being a lawyer, you must clarify something and please double check with your teacher..this law *does not* seek to define who is a Muslim. There isn’t a definition in this law that you can take and use in general. This law does not even seek to comprehensively define who a non-Muslim is. This law only targets a particular group, against the human right norms, and forces them to stop professing their peaceful beliefs under the pain of punishment thus violating their human rights seriously. Beliefs are personal matters and no assemblies or majorities are allowed to interfere in peaceful beliefs of people. How is it an alien concept for you studying at Loyola and living in US beggars belief. Ever heard of bill of rights? What about concept of civil liberties? Are you willing to be dictated by majority if they claim that your concept of God is a plagiarism of their concept of god and that you should be stopped from believing in the same god as there is a danger of confusing with the concept of god as they believe?

    I feel its either of two things here;

    1. You know that you are on weak ground and hence deliberately using vague, hastily generalised and incorrect statements, or

    2. You are a bad lawyer. :)

  65. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 7:53 am

    USMAN Lets see how you measure up for the ‘PROOF’. Have you seen Washington monument? Can you explain what it represents?

  66. USMAN says:
    April 11th, 2007 11:24 am

    “he asked what is the proof freemasonary exists”

    NO…. read, please.
    I DID NOT ask for proof of whetehr freemasonry existed, sure it dod and does.

    I asked for PROOF of whether this has anything to do with Qadianiat.

    And your PROOF is to ask whether i know why the Washington Monument is shaped the way it is!

  67. mediatatters says:
    April 11th, 2007 8:32 am

    bassssssss.

    what would Mulla Nasr-uddin say ? besides chuppppp!

    perhaps (khuda) Hafiz Hussain Ahmed can en-lighten our moods !!

  68. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    April 11th, 2007 8:37 am


    Jabir. No, I don’t and don’t care for why the Washington Monument is the way it is. Please stick to the topic. We are talking about Pakistan

    Ajeeb dhakkan Insaan ho. Was that not you who asked:

    Freemasons, yeah sure… where is the proof (and, please, PROOF… not some propaganda drivel claiming it is so because ..

    and when he gives proof then you react like a girl that “I don’t care”.

    Jabir, apply Imam Shafa’ai’s golden quote and ignore him. =)

  69. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 8:37 am

    Jabir. No, I don’t and don’t care for why the Washington Monument is the way it is. Please stick to the topic.

    If you dont care to answer my question, then I dont care to give you any explanations. Everything is related, so it will be futile on your part to cherry pick the parts of the conversation

  70. USMAN says:
    April 11th, 2007 10:59 am

    I am not even going to dignify Adnan’s rant with an answer…. anyone who writes something like “you react like a girl” is a chauvinistic and has no respect for anyone.

    I ask for evidence and you give me a “metaphorical” question about silly fantasies and conspiracy theories about the Washington Monument. What sophmoric drivel?  Next you will be asking me about the Loch Ness Monster?
    If you don’t even know what PROOF is then what is the point of wasting our time.

    You made an absolutely ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim about Freemasons etc. and I asked you for PROOF… not more conspiracy theory. If you have any, Iwoudl love to see documents, letters, photogrpahs. If you have is opinions and fantasies of others then don’t waste my time. I, at least have better things to do.

  71. Nazir says:
    April 11th, 2007 8:53 am

    [quote]Jabir Khan Apr 11th, 2007 at 7:53 am
    USMAN Lets see how you measure up for the ‘PROOF’. Have you seen Washington monument? Can you explain what it represents?[/quote]

    Jabir, you are avoiding the question. No one asked you for proof of existence of Washington monument. We will ask this from whomever claims there is such a things. :)

    You are only asked to provide proof of what you yourself have claimed and in this forum right here. This is a reasonable thing to ask for. You are the accuser and you need to provide proof. If not then perhaps the decent thing to do is to accept that perhaps you made a mistake in hasty accusations? This would prove that your religion demands honesty from its followers and that you do try to follow it. Rest is up to you. Visitors can make up their own minds depending on your response.

    However I am a little intrigued as how you have switched topic form human rights issue to the presumed “criminalâ€

  72. Sulman says:
    April 11th, 2007 9:07 am

    LOL
    Gosh you guys really have some time on ur hands. I wouldnt be able to keep up, for I have walls at my home I can smash my head with for that matter.

    YLH: I never claimed I had anything against Qadianis. They are a fine people. Nothing wrong with them. Nothing wrong with their beliefs either.

    The state of israel is a whole different matter, so, lets not even go there. Come to my website, and we’ll talk.

    Nazir, the term no personal attacks doesnt mean anything to you, does it? Or its another case of you not getting what you read?

    Look Newton, you need to do some readings in the history of Christianity. Ever heard of the Ecumenical councils? Go study their work, trust me, u need to. Ever heard of a Pope Gregory? (and please dont quote the da vinci code here) Ever heard of a 100 years war? know what that was all about? to declare what was christian and what was not.

    Nazir, what is qadianiat: How about you define that for me? When I wanted to find out I went to Chiniot, hence my recommendation that you visit the place sometime and see what pure form of islam is being practiced over there that we oppressive pakistanis are outcasting.

    You keep attacking my personality and keep judging me from all those petty points but you’re hardly proving the point how the law against calling a religion that is not islam oppressive in its literal essence oppressive of Qadianis. As long as they don’t call their practices islam, the law doesnt go get them.

    And if you are so adamant about Pakistan’s being anything than a religious state, how about some evidence from your side? What reasoning, did our beloved mr. jinnah present to claim that pakistan needs to be formed?

    But like I’ve said, I dont have time for this, while you and the internet cafe guy are friends, it seems. This thread is not the place to discuss qadianis and their matters. Again, I never denied persecution/oppression of Qadianis because I don’t even know of any such cases, or cases of their non-persecutions. All I said was pakistan’s formation was opposed by religious leaders who still exist in pakistan, hate jinnah for any reasons, and would come out and perhaps do something about the statues at the monument. Celebrate the monument for a minute man, before going back to your well of delusion.

  73. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 9:08 am

    Nazir he asked what is the proof freemasonary exists. When I pointed my towards wahsingtom monument, i didnt ask about its physical existence but what it represnts metaphorically. And in that lies the answer to his question. Period.

    So who is avoiding the question here? Or is it getting too thick for you as well?

  74. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    April 11th, 2007 9:26 am

    Nazir, I am not a deoband follower,I am a barelvi but I didn’t blindly believe words by Kokab Noorani sahab who never start Friday prayers unless he collects a handsome amount in name of “Chanda”.

    The book or specially the exceprt mentioned by Kokab Sahab, I googled a bit to find the exact statments,found this:

    tinyurl.com/yvakpt

    -The first statment that “suppose if there’s some prophet at the time of Muhammad[saw] then He[saw] will be still the last Prophet”

    Kokab sahab were not aware that there was an arab at the time of Muhammad[saw] named “Muslima Ibn Kazzab” who were jealous of Muhammad[saw]‘s popularity and despite of he knows that Muhammad [saw] was the last prophet, he used to tease Him[saw]. So yes the statment made by Qasim sahab is quite true that even if someone claims to be a prophet which Muslima Kazzab did at the time of Muhammad[saw] then it doesnt mean the other person is the last prophet. Go and read further about Muslima Kazzab, he was alive even after death of Muhammad[saw].

    -The 2nd statment that “someone claims to be a prophet after death of MUhammad[saw] then it wil not effect the Khatm-e-Nabowat”

    I can recall two “famous” name. Mirza Ghulam Qadyani and Rashad Khalifa.

    atleast these two points don’t appear blasphemous and can’t be compared anyway with the baseless of prophet by mirza qadyani.

    I couldn’t get the last part of 3rd point as it’s written in a difficult urdu and I am not expert in it.

  75. tina says:
    April 11th, 2007 10:59 am

    Jabir, have you been to India? It’s just that I find your attitude a little antique. Like I said we do not have to justify the existence of Pakistan any more, like maybe people had to a half century ago, by saying that Muslims are being crushed in a Hindu majority India.

    My fiance is from old city of Hyderabad and I went to India for the U.S. immigration required meeting last summer, for me the first time to India.

    But before that I knew a lot of Indians and my fiance’s family is mixed Indian/Pakistani as often happens.

    Let me tell you all the Indian Muslims I know would be very surprised to hear they are lower achieving or more disadvantaged than Dalits!

    Indian Muslims are light years ahead of many groups of poor Hindus, mainly due to their advantage in education.

    Quoting reports like this wherever they come from is just a way of stirring up hatred towards India and like I said before, of what use is that any more?

    Jabir, if you want to know something about Indian Muslims I suggest you get a visa and a ticket. Reports can be written about anything and numbers can be twisted to mean anything you want.

    My personal opinion these days for what it’s worth, is that Muslims in India are not oppressed in an institutionalized, systematic way (I’ll give you the Kashmir exception). I know there is some religious tension. But let’s not overstate the case, please.

    I think the report you cite may indicate that Dalits are making long strides in the present day after many centuries of being at the very bottom. If they are achieving more, this is a positive message for them and an indication that the programs meant to help them are working. However, I think it says not much about Muslims.

    Thanks for hearing me out.

  76. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 11:46 am

    tina this report was commisioned by the Govt of India itself. Are you saying Indian Govt is lying?

    Just like meeting some upper class affluent Indians does not mean that lower class hindus and their plight do not exist. By the same token the have-nots of Muslims in India are suffering at the hand of the same system, they live in a world apart from well to do muslims. Again, I will put emphasis on the report commisioned by the Govt of India itself.

    Thank you for acknowledging Kashmir issue. Lets not forget what happend to Gujrati muslims as well in 2002. Hundreds of thousands of them were displaced and many have not been allowed to retuen. And 3000+ killed during that ethnic cleansing have not seen the light of justice till todate. Or maybe it didnt happen in the first place?

    bibi badaam khaya karain. haafzay kay liya achay hotay hain!

    Your personal life account tell you have split loyalties and it is rather hard for you to handle them rationally.Sometimes I wish I was resident of this Nerverland of your’s, where everything is so perfect, nice and trouble free.

    Thank you for giving me an ear (though I realy want to twist it this time around)

  77. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:02 pm

    Now you are changing you position. Adnan noted the same thing. Not a very noble thing to do.

  78. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:33 pm

    By the way, I had also asked what the Islamic punishment is for spreading lies and defaming without proof?

    You mean to ask what is Islamic punishment for a person who first asks the existence of freamasonary and then changes his mantra as soon as he is caught lying?

    Phone lal masjid, if you are so interested in knowing the punishments. They will gladly deliver it to you.

  79. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:59 pm

    Freemasons, yeah sure… where is the proof (and, please, PROOF… not some propaganda drivel claiming it is so because ..

    Go ahead say these are not your words. talk about sufaid jhoot.

  80. tina says:
    April 11th, 2007 12:59 pm

    I guess I should have forestalled Jabir bhai bringing up the Gujarat riots by mentioning it myself, first. I should have known. Say anything even neutral about India, you get smacked with the Gujarat riots.

    Gujarat riots were not started by government order, although I don’t believe the response and follow up was appropriate. But in India, what’s new about that?

    This one incident in sixty years does not prove a government led persecution of Muslims. It just doesn’t.

    And since when is a govt. of India report given such high status in your eyes? Govt. reports from any country can be misread or inaccurate or simply wrong. Sometimes you have to believe your common sense.

    When all this hulla gulla about lying and proofs starts creeping into the thread, it means people are running out of meaningful points of argument. And as for divided loyalties, lots of people have them, it’s not a sin. We are all trying to work out our place in this world.

  81. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:08 pm

    tina bibi Kindly tell me the status of Narendra Modi – the architecht of the riots at the that time.

  82. tina says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:08 pm

    As for divided loyalties, see the statues above. Some have suggested that Jinnah, a London educated lawyer, should not be shown in Western dress. Yet he did wear it. Also, Jinnah had a love marriage to a girl who was not a Muslim which everyone disapproved of. He was an admirer of Ataturk, and his daughter called him “grey wolf” after Ataturk to please him. Ataturk as we know was an ambitious secularist. Yet, Jinnah is the father of the Islamic republic of Pakistan.

    I think we might even be able to say that Quaid-e-Azam himself experienced an internal conflict or two in his life. As previous poster noted, so did Iqbal. Saying that someone has conflicted feelings or divided loyalties does not make them a bad person. Only simpletons are completely sure of themselves all the time.

  83. Nazir says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:29 pm

    [quote]
    tina bibi Kindly tell me the status of Narendra Modi – the architecht of the riots at the that time.[/quote]

    Jabir, the status of nerindar modi in India is less than the status of leaders of Jamaat Islami, Jamait Ulema Islam and other “religiousâ€

  84. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 1:34 pm

    tina I didnt mean to offend you at all. I apologize if it is the case.

    Do you agree there are dedicated revisionist making changes to history all the time? This presents two faces of history, one true and the other false (revisioned). The question is which is the one you accept as truth.

    And same goes for quotes about Quaid, either they are true or false. Depends on who told the story. If he was an admirer of Attaturk, how come it means he also adhered to his philosophy as well? Second,I dont think you will ever call your father ‘grey wolf’ to please him, so how can you assume Dina ‘a daughter herself’ uttered these words about his father. Unless they were being used during her opposed marraige period, in anger.

    And by the way being simplton has its rewards. I have seen the best approach of solving any problem is by using the simpler means first. They carried out a study on a japanese island to know the secret of happiness of its habitants. The conclusion was they gave a damn to over complicated ‘realities’ of life. Live a stress free life, otherwise the system will squeeze you dry.

  85. Ismail Hussein says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:53 pm

    I guess then we can conclude from the list from Saad and comments from Jabir that looking back, the plight of Muslims in India has turned out to be no better than the plight of Muslims in Pakistan.

    Hum becharey musalman. Wahan auroun nay maara, yahan apnou nay maara.

  86. Ismail Hussein says:
    April 12th, 2007 1:06 am

    Adnan Siddiqui is exactly right.

    Putting a picture of Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Quaid-i-Azam is clearly a sign of a “leftist/secularist/qadyaniat” agenda.

    Just read the post, this is exactly what Adil is writing about here!

  87. Zahra says:
    April 13th, 2007 2:09 am

    I actually think the sculptures are quite elegant. I think we should have more. Not only because we should be encouraging arts but also because it reminds people of history. Glad to see that this is being done.

  88. Saad says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:36 pm

    This one incident in sixty years does not prove a government led persecution of Muslims. It just doesn’t.

    I pretty much agree with everything else that you had to say but this.

    The Gujrat massacre was anything but a one off incident. Some of the other major massacres/riots targeting Muslims in India were:

    1. Jabalpur Massacre – 1961
    2. Ahmadabad Massacre – 1969
    3. Bhiwandi, Jalgaon & Mahad – (1970)
    4. Aligarh – 1978
    5. Nellie Massacre – Feb 1983
    6. Meerut Massacre – 1987
    7. Hashimpura Massacre – May 1987
    7. Bombay riots at the time of the demolition of Babri Mosque – 92/3

    (just google up the names to read into the details of these incidents)

    As for the Samachar Commission Report, it’s the most recent and exhaustive report on the status of Indian MUslims (404 pages) headed by a former Judge.

    You can download it from here
    or here.

  89. tina says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:42 pm

    Jabir, you did not offend me (too much :) It’s true what you say, I just don’t see it as a negative.

    Grey Wolf was the title of Ataturk’s autobiography and I believe Jinnah’s daughter used it positively. In Germany, “Wolf” is even a proper name (Wulf Grunwald for example). It’s not an insult at all in this context. Perhaps Jinnah admired Ataturk but did not find his policies suitable to the subcontinent’s circumstances. Perhaps he admired him, but had a lot of reservations about the steps he took to force Turkey into the modern age. We don’t really know, at least I have never read a biographer who went into detail on this point.

    I can refer you to the Wikipedia article on Jinnah as the fastest place to check this. I know how people feel about Wikipedia but most of what is in their article on Jinnah is pretty much common knowledge. If I am wrong in this feel free to correct me. I am not a Jinnah expert by any means.

    For those whose circumstances permit them to lead a stress free life, I congratulate them; this is truly happiness. I think most of us have to deal with many different problems though wherever we live in the world.

  90. tina says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:46 pm

    Saad thank you for the links and the additional information. We have a few Indian readers, perhaps one of them will weigh in on this?

  91. Nazir says:
    April 11th, 2007 2:55 pm

    Saad, what are you comparing the situation in India with? Are you saying situation in Pakistan is much better?

  92. Saad says:
    April 11th, 2007 3:00 pm

    I didn’t do any comparisons, just mentioned the fact that Gujrat was not a one off incident.

  93. Saad says:
    April 11th, 2007 3:01 pm

    And uploaded the Samachar report for those who want to give it a read.

  94. Harris says:
    April 11th, 2007 3:15 pm

    Three bronze statues started a riot in Blogistan that spread to Qadianis, Indian Muslims, Freemasons and the West.

    There are reports that the unrest will soon spread to the Presidency of Pakistan and Lal Masjid. The reporter has learned from reliable sources that it is a Jewish conspiracy designed to malign the respected status of Pakistan in the world as a peace loving and law abiding nation.

    “People in Blogistan have a tendency to be passionate about their political views and go out of their way to express them in every post whether it is relevant or not” stated an observer when asked about the situation.

    “This is exactly why statues are banned in Islam. Government should have known that the statues will only lead to blood” expressed a pious looking bearded man on the street.

  95. mahi says:
    April 11th, 2007 5:48 pm

    Tina, Saad and others – I was going to keep silent on this front, but since you asked an Indian reader to weigh in, I’ll post my 2 cents.

    First off, things are complex, please dont expect an easy to grasp scenario. Two, my visibility is only into South India. Finally, of all the riots Saad mentions, I am familiar with only 2/3!

    Muslim situation: A cursory look at Indian cities will tell you that there are a few pretty rich Muslims (who control the politics of the community),a few middle class due to historic urban roots or Gulf workers, and the rest mostly poor. The rural scenario is not as visible, as they are more integrated into the age-old fabric and doing just as well or bad as people in their broader caste may be expected to do. So yes, on many developmental indicators (and this goes beyond just money/jobs) they are not doing well.

    But to claim they are doing worse than Dalits is to sensationalize news I believe. For one, leaving out UP/Bihar, Dalits dont get the same amount of attention to really know how their lot is doing. I have rural roots, and hence know from experience, the situation of Dalits in villages. They are the bottom, although things have improved quite a bit in just the last 20 years. A political consciousness has developed, some of their progeny moves to towns and then to cities for education. And overt discrimination of yesteryears is gone (keep in mind this is a south Indian village, which I ‘think’ may be very different from the North).

    So, for a layman observing, like me, it is not visually or anecdotally apparent that Muslims are doing worse than Dalits.

    One disadvantage Muslims have is that Dalits dont have to fight off deep-rooted or institutionalized archaic own-community or religious injuncitons that hold them back. This to me explains partly why Dalits are improving, in spite of being rooted in the villages, where access to opportunity is much less than in urban areas. While Muslims, even being from cities, are not showing faster progress.

    Riots: Saad is right in that Gujarat was not the first large scale killing. There were many before, even going to pre-1947. But Gujarat is still different. It is the first (leaving out 1984 Delhi riots, cos that involved Sikhs and not Muslims) when a state govt actually supported and carried out a pogrom. This to me is vastly different from earlier riots, where the worst accusation would be official indifference and bias within police against Muslims. I’ve lived through communal riots in Hyderabad and know a bit about them.

    If they weren’t engineered by Cong governments for some silly electoral/political purpose, mostly, some incident or the other (in Meerut 87, for ex, Rajiv Gandhi opening locks on Babri Masjid to allow Hindu priests perform prayer) that would lead to rioting (in Meerut there was massive rioting and destruction by irate Muslims), leading to a calling in of the police (who are totally distrusted by Muslims, in return viewed as troublemakers by the Police), Hindu mob retaliation with help/indifference from Police. But often, riots will stop once the Army is called in. Regardless of the numbers that die, I view this as different from Gujarat.

    A word about the Nellie massacre 1983. This incident was all about native Assamese butchering Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants. There was a widespread AASU led movement in the early 80s, by Assamese protesting Bengali illegal immigration from B’desh. This is a very touchy topic in Assam. While the killed may have been Muslims and some Indian Muslims, one has to see this more as Bangladeshis being attacked. To see this as a Muslim massacre is to indiscriminately use the prism of ‘Hindus are out to get Muslims’.

    The 93 Bombay riots, etc, I suspect everybody knows enough. The rest of the riots are only barely known to me.

  96. libertarian says:
    April 11th, 2007 5:55 pm

    Saad noted a list of riots/massacres through India’s independent history. They all – except for Gujarat in 2002 and Delhi in 1984 – had no state complicity. Yes, Muslims died in these riots. But so did Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists, atheists … And if you disregard Kashmir, fewer Indians have died in religious strife since 1947 than Pakistanis in religious and sectarian strife during the same period (keep in mind India’s population is 7x Pakistan’s). And we’re not including thousands killed directly or indirectly by the State/Army of Pakistan.

  97. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    April 11th, 2007 6:37 pm

    “Three bronze statues started a riot in Blogistan that spread to Qadianis, Indian Muslims, Freemasons and the West.”

    Going back to the top, it appears that the debate started when Mr. Jabar Khan invoked Mr. Gandhi into the discussion and then Mr. Hamadani provided the rebuttal. Then Sulman dragged India in and Mr. Jabar Khan introduced the Indian Muslims into the discussion. Then Nazir felt compelled to bring in Qadianies into the discussion and the ‘hell’ broke loose and passions flared. Same people, same topics, same arguments. India-Pakistan, Hindus-Muslims, Jinnah-Gandhi, Religious-Secular, Qadianis as non-Muslims agents of west. The beat goes on and on, post after post. Does any one care that half of the nation can not read or write. Does any one care that most of the people are malnourished and live on less than two dollars a day. Does any one care that masses do not have access to health care, clean water, shelter and basic human needs. Please stop this non-sense. Step back for a second and see how silly and non relevant to the realities of our people these arguments are.

  98. Harris says:
    April 11th, 2007 7:45 pm

    Blogs are a reflection of our society. This is exactly how conflicts expand to families and generations. Someone killed someone else’s horse and they inturn killed the other party’s son and then three generations later the bloodshed still goes on and the new generation doesn’t even know why it all started.

    Like Pervaiz said above, don’t we have more important issues to talk about, than turning a good post about the thoughts of our elders into another “siyasi khichri”?

  99. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 9:29 pm

    Harris, when heated discussions are done by westerners, this is called freedom of expression, brain storming etc. Nothing but praise, oh look the great gora has Speakers’ corner in Hyde park. And when we the ‘desi’ lot do the same, all of a sudden a certain inexplicable snobbery sets in (I myself am no exception to this if you are wondering.)
    Let’s not see them as conflicts. The basic tenet of unity must not be ignored under any circumstance. If you dispute with your brother, does not mean it must turn in to a conflict. Debates are healthy in essence only we turn them in to venting venues. Maybe a mixture of extended military rule and a feudal mentality have prevailed over us?

    Alvi sahib, I think atp should introduce a debating corner, something like Pak Tea House perhaps? That will allow the preservation of sanctity of threads. Just a thought.

  100. Social Mistri says:
    April 11th, 2007 10:26 pm

    Jabir, please go revise history elsewhere. Iqbal and Jinnah drank (and I don’t mean qehva) till their last days. Both of them wore western dress throughout their lives. Jinnah was a secular man and wanted a secular Pakistan. The country was made in order to give muslims a homeland, not to impose a Taliban regime!!! The fear was that India would become a sansritized, RSS-controlled Hindu state where muslims would be quelled, killed and destroyed once the British left. Pakistan was a reaction AGAINST radicalization of religion, not an invitation to it.

    Jinnah sahib, please forgive Jabir, for he does not understand!

  101. Jabir Khan says:
    April 11th, 2007 10:54 pm

    I dont know who is revising history here? Did you have the honour of driking ‘non-qevha liquid’ with them in person, in their last years? If this is not the case then kindly note you are also relying on third hand accounts as well.

    Sincere leadership demands that you fullfil the role model. That is to say the role model demanded was Islamic in substance. Hence their transformation. If you have any doubt about their sincerety, kindly carry on.

  102. Harris says:
    April 11th, 2007 11:25 pm

    Jabir,
    You really failed to understand my above two comments. In no way shape or form did I say anything against the freedom of speech or right of expression. I am actually a huge fan of the concept. All I said was that the thread deviated from its original purpose.

    The post specifically asked for readers’ ideas about the “thoughts” of the statues and look where we are now.

  103. Jabir Khan says:
    April 12th, 2007 12:15 am

    Yes thank you Harris for pointing out, I think I mixed the very first sentence with the rest of the post. Hmmm Have to slow down while scrutinizing the posts.

    As far as the thread is concerned, here is another master piece. Condi Rice in a recent interview said:

    “I have to use stick and carrot to activate Musharraf.”

    Our ‘statued’ forefathers above must be wondering how the ‘commando’ resident of the presidency dare allow this despicable slur.

  104. Harris says:
    April 12th, 2007 12:26 am

    Or may be Quaid is saying to Iqbal, “Dr. Iqbal, I think we should stop calling Pakistan your “dream” and start calling it your “nightmare”.

  105. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    April 12th, 2007 12:51 am


    Same people, same topics, same arguments.


    Does any one care that half of the nation can not read or write. Does any one care that most of the people are malnourished and live on less than two dollars a day. Does any one care that masses do not have access to health care, clean water, shelter and basic human needs

    mr.Alvi i will not disagree with you but you are not clear that whether you are throwing your frustration out on readers or [authors & ATP Managment]? Will it not sound stupid if Adil or some other friend of him make a religion related post and all of us start talking about Shazia Khusk that how well she dances? Come on give us a break mr.alvi! Instead of attacking on readers, why don’t you have courage to send a mail at **@tufts.edu and express your concern to stop making this forum a leftist/secularist/qadyaniat hub?

    wait a minute… I think you believe in Kahin pey nigahain kahin pey Nishana ?

  106. Harris says:
    April 12th, 2007 1:35 am

    >

    Hunhhhhh?????? I am lost now. Would someone please translate this for me?

  107. Jabir Khan says:
    April 12th, 2007 2:38 am

    Iqbal: ‘bhaitay bhaitay thak tay nai gayee’?
    Jinnah: ‘Nahi par chaa da order dita si par chota muriya nahi’
    Iqbal: ‘ oye chotay, pata nahi kithay mar giya ai, sir syed saab tusi khlotya ki kar rai ho, ik jhaati tay maro’
    Sir Syed: ‘main sochi piyaan aan, nazar nai aundaa, hali time naiee ai’
    Jinnah: ‘sunniyaa ai islamabad day haalaat fair khraab ho ray nai’
    Iqbal: ‘chado jee, miti pao, ai kut kut tay lagi rahndi ai, sanon ki, issi tay apnaa kum puraa kar dita si.
    Jinah: ‘kahnday tay teekh o, par sanon tay ithay kursi tay suknay paa dita ai, mera rang wi khraab ho giyaa ai’.
    Iqbal: ‘ sach kahnday o, chaloo fair qailoola kariyeh’.

  108. YLH says:
    April 12th, 2007 3:03 am

    Not only did Jinnah admire Ataturk greatly…. but Jinnah considered Ataturk as the Greatest Muslim of the 20th century and one of greatest people in history… worthy of emulation by Muslims of South Asia:

    Speaking to the press in November 1938 … after the demise of Kemal Ataturk, Jinnah, the president of the Muslim League said:

    “He (Kemal Ataturk) was the greatest Musalman in the modern Islamic world and I am sure that the entire Musalman world will deeply mourn his passing away. It is impossible to express adequately in a press interview one,s appreciation of his remarkable and varied services, as the builder and the maker of Modern Turkey and an example to the rest of the world, especially to the Musalmans States in the Middle East. The remarkable way in which he rescused and built up his people against all odds has no parallel in the history of the world. He must have derived the greatest sense of satisfaction that he fully accomplished his mission during his lifetime and left his people and his country consolidated, united and a powerful nation. In him, not only the Musalmans but the whole world has lost one the greatest men that ever lived.

    (Quaid-e-Azam and the Islamic World, Rizwan Ahmed, Published 1981 on the occasion of OIC Foreign Ministers’ conference in Karachi)

    For the sake of accuracy… Jinnah did not create the “Islamic” Republic of Pakistan but simply the Dominion of Pakistan. His concern was Muslim political and cultural sovereignty and economic future … in which he was partially correct…

    Sulman…

    Even if we accept your arguments (which are wrong as is) weren’t Ahmadis considered part of the 87% electorate that voted for Pakistan? Didn’t the Muslim League woo the Ahmadis on the premise that Ahmadis were as good as Muslims as anyone else?

    Wasn’t Sir Zafrullah Khan the principal author of the Lahore Resolution? Wasn’t Zafrullah Khan… an Ahmadi Muslim… nominated as a Muslim to plead the Muslim case in front of the Boundary commission…

    Your failure to answer the questions raised in my previous posts shows that you are not even willing to address the real issues…

  109. YLH says:
    April 12th, 2007 5:13 am

    PS: While I agree with the spirit of what Tina is saying … I should point out – as someone who is accused more often than anyone else of harboring a “Qadiani/leftist/secularist” agenda here by our resident McCarthy mian who suspects that I am a Qadiani myself- that Gujurat Riots and the violence against Muslims are incomparable… 3000 Muslims were killed/burnt alive in one single day there

    Consider the fact that despite the most horrible institutionalised discrimination against them … the total number of Ahmadis killed since 1974 is at 79. This is the number claimed by the Ahmaddiya community. The situation vis a vis sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis is worse.. claiming approx. 5500 lives over the last 17 years… out of which 60% were shiites… However… there have been NO pogroms against any community in Pakistan.

    Every death is wrong and being better than India doesn’t mean anything. However… the pogrom against Muslims in India was an event, that hasn’t occured in Pakistan post 1971 Bangladesh killings…

  110. libertarian says:
    April 12th, 2007 10:33 am

    YLH: However… the pogrom against Muslims in India was an event, that hasn’t occured in Pakistan post 1971 Bangladesh killings

    Hundreds in Balochistan (06-07), thousands in Baltistan (87-88), all the folks killed as “apostates” or for “blasphemy” … (not counting the Ojhri “explosion” here).

  111. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    April 12th, 2007 12:03 pm

    Gentlemen/Ladies: Dr. Adil Najam has provided us this forum to discuss and express our thoughts and opinions regarding matters and issues relating to Pakistan. He may have his own slant but that is not the issue here. The issue with me is that why we are unable to move beyond the subjects of India-Pakistan, Hindu-Muslim, Qadianies as non-Muslims etc. etc. Why should we invoke the perceived short comings of others to make a point in our arguments. Why finger pointing. Jinnah died nearly six decades ago, Iqbal died nearly seven decades ago, and Sir-Syed died who knows when. These leaders of ours were sincere lot and they did for the nation what they thought was right in the context of their own times. I ask this question to myself; what have we done for Pakistan and for our people lately. Pakistan is much much more than what these discussions here are about. Why are we still discussing and justifying the existence of Pakistan. To say that Pakistan is a better place than India, or vise-a-versa, does not prove any thing. From international standards both countries are in terrible state. Pakistan good or bad, it is our country and it is here to stay, God willing. Are we unable to see the full beauty of Pakistan. What about arts, literature, poetry. What about our social and economic issues. Are we capable of talking about any thing, any thing beyond religion and especially of others.

  112. Ahmed2 says:
    April 12th, 2007 2:12 pm

    I always shy away from posts where people controvert and not converse. However, after reading Mr. Pervaiz Munir Alvi’s comments above I am impelled to write. I cannot agree more with what he says and there is no need to add anything more. May I give below two verses from Iqbal which may perhaps provide some food for constructive thought:-

    “Khaam hai jab tak to hai mitta ka ik ambaar tou
    Pukhta ho jai to hai shamsheer e be-zanhaar tou”

    “Naheen tera nasheman qasr e sultani kay gumbad par
    Tou shaheen hai basera kar paharoun ki chittanoon par”.

    We can best honor the memory of the leaders to whom this post is dedicated by recalling what they said, and did, and why, and how that is relevant to our life today.

  113. Nazir says:
    April 12th, 2007 7:50 pm

    This one is an analysis of the Minister Nelofer situation; http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/apr2007-daily/13-04-2007/col3.htm

    Even Pro-Mullahs are now getting a bit sceptical.

  114. Ibrahim says:
    April 12th, 2007 10:44 pm

    Really, this is said. Unfortunately, what a waste of money! These sculptures are useless and complete israaf (extravagance). There is no need to “remind” people of what Iqbal’s and Jinnah’s ideas were by building their sculptures. If someone wants to learn from them, there are enough books, history texts, essays, and useless anniversaries, etc. These images don’t achieve much except waste public money. Just step out of the museum and see how this money could’ve been used beneficially.

    This country doesn’t have the luxury to do such things, especially when these things achieve little. “Artâ€

  115. Ibrahim says:
    April 12th, 2007 10:49 pm

    “This is sad”, not said. Uff, a typo right off the bat, Allahu musta’an!!

  116. Harris says:
    April 13th, 2007 1:07 am

    Ahmed,

    Please don’t take it personally but I would like to correct Iqbal’s verse.

    “Tu Shaheen hai basera kar paharon ki chatano mei”

    The poem goes like

    “Ouqabi rooh jab bedaar hoti hai jawano mei
    Nazar aati hai un ko apni manzil aasmano mei

    Nahi tera nashaiman qasr-e-sultani ke gumbad par
    Tu shaheen hai basera kar paharo ki chaton mei”

  117. YLH says:
    April 13th, 2007 3:15 am

    Art and aesthetics are never a waste of money…

    States, ideologies and civilisations don’t last forever… but what the leave behind gives us a good measure of their role in history…

    People who have a problem with building monuments etc should go visit the remarkable Greek-Gandhara ruins in Taxila … barely 30 minutes from Islamabad…

  118. YLH says:
    April 13th, 2007 3:20 am

    Libertarian,

    You are right.

    -YLH

  119. April 13th, 2007 7:00 am

    They dont talk nothing man..they are just statues

  120. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    April 13th, 2007 8:58 am

    To my knowledge these three statues are the first ‘public’ attempt of this kind. From purley aesthetic sense, these bronze figures do not look too bad. Art and architecture are cultural reflections of a nation. While Pakistan has produced some very fine artists and many Pakistanis have collected their work, the general public is still not aware of their fine work. That is where the museums and easy access to them comes in. There is need of good quality museums in every city of Pakistan that could house and display the works of Pakistani and international artists. Art and appreciation of it must be a part of our education. Nations without art have no soul.

  121. Ahmed2 says:
    April 13th, 2007 9:42 am

    Dear Harris:
    You are correct. Thanks for pointing out. This gives me an opportunity to add a couple more verses which are equally relevant:

    Teray sofay hain affrangi teray qaaleen hain irani
    lahoo mujhko rulati hai jawaanon ki tan-aasani
    Amarat kya, shikoh e khusrovi bhi ho to kya hasil
    na zore e haidri tujh main na istaghnai salmani

    Na dhoond is cheez ko tehzeeb e haazar ki tajjali main
    Kay paaya main nain isthaghna main meraj e mussalmani
    (Aik Naujavaan kay naam)
    (Istaghna= bay-niayazi)–Feroze ul Lughaat.

  122. Jabir Khan says:
    April 14th, 2007 5:20 am

    Na dhoond is cheez ko tehzeeb e haazar ki tajjali main

    yehi to saraa masslaa hai,

    they dont understand, or they understand but refuse to acknowledge.

  123. Shaukat says:
    April 18th, 2007 1:45 pm

    What do they say to each other at night?

    They wonder what Pakistanis are saying about them!

    And I can bet that none of them like what they hear

  124. Kiran says:
    April 17th, 2007 12:11 pm

    I read the post on how the old statues in Lahore disappeared and wonder if the same will happen to these!

  125. Abraz says:
    April 18th, 2007 2:36 am

    Those who forget history have no future. Lets not let that happen to us.

  126. Aslam says:
    July 19th, 2007 4:00 pm

    “Despite the prosecution’s best attempts to prove that the assailant was a Khaksar, Justice Blagden of the Bombay High Court stated in his decision that there was no evidence to prove that Jinnah’s attacker was a Khaksar. Thus, there is no justification left to state that the assailant was a Khaksar. ”
    Source:
    http://allamamashraqi.com/faqsaboutmashraqi.html

  127. mian says:
    September 4th, 2007 9:03 am

    They are our national heroes and thier statues must be put on mjor roads in lahore karachi and islamabad.

  128. Maryam Khalid says:
    July 2nd, 2009 9:50 am

    We r so much absorbed in the fake colors of world that we have forgotten the fact”ALL THAT GLITTERS ISN’T GOLD”.We have 2 wake up & protect our country instead of wastinfg time in music n movies n outings etc.before it gets too late!!!

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)