Army high command, not Bhutto, responsible for 1971 East Pak fiasco, says d

[T-Faz]

be satisfied and have my words, inshaAllah i will not run away instead i will bust the lies spread by the tiny secular/liberal section of our society.

The August 11 speech is very clear, Jinnah simply said that once non-muslims become the citizen of Pakistan thereby accepting the ideology (Islam) for which it was created (due course of time), the state will not be concerned with their religion and as i explained earlier, this is 100% compatible with Islamic system and for this we have examples from the rule of Caliph Umar Ra'.

Bust the lies, its these liberals and seculars who created this country, not Islamists like the countless Maulana's or religious 'scholars' of India.

Also I am amazed at your interpretation of the August 11th speech, the primary focus in the latter part of the speech was that there shouldn't be any distinctions be made between groups in Pakistan. He clearly mentions the situation in England where religious groups caused great problems based on their differences and this is why religion must remains a private matter.

Similarly he never called Islam the ideology in this speech of his and if he did want to implement Islamic laws, why did he hire a Hindu as our very first law minister.

Our secular/liberal section is just trying to put their own words in the mouth of Mr Jinnah. Please bring the statement of Jinnah where he said that Islam has no role to play in politics.

He clearly says that religion will not play a role in state, what more do you want him to say, Islam is a religion isn't it.

I also gave you references whereby he clearly mentions that he will not have an Islamic state but rather a modern state.

I was looking for the statements of Jinnah with references instead of articles by Raza Rumi types where they say "Jinnah is said to have"- either Jinnah said or not said, let me give you an example what it means to be a statement:

This particular conversation between Iskander Mirza and Jinnah is well known, I also gave you a reference from the Express Tribune, why don't you bring a reference for your quote too.

By quoting Raza Rumi, you are only strengthening my argument that lack of understanding of Islamic principles/laws/governance is the trait of seculars/liberals. They fail to understand the spirit of August 11 speech and misinterpreting it.

Islamic principles/laws/governance, so you are some scholar cum historian who understand these Islam and want to implement an Islamic state, wait we already got an Islamic state when Bhutto and later Zia made this country an Islamic republic.

Your confused statements and information is indication enough of why you fail to grasp the meaning of this August 11th speech, not only did Jinnah make it clear that religion will not play a role in this state, he also stated that no distinction should be made within groups and we should all be known as Pakistani's.

That is a nationalist speech, not an Islamist one, he called the people to be known as Pakistani's and not Muslims.

Raza Rumi quotes:

another example of lack of understanding- this man "Raza Rumi" doesn't know that theocracy or theocratic state is not compatible with Islamic System, so Mr Jinnah rightly said 'no to theocracy. Raza Rumi types are wasting their energies in trying to prove that theocracy & Islamic system are one and the same thing.

So now try bringing statements of Jinnah instead of articles from Paktea-raza rumi-tribune where Jinnah is said to have something.

Are you even capable of understanding the concept of an Islamic state, an Islamic state is a theocracy whereby the entire Ummah is under the rule of a Khalifa. Odd isn't it, you want Pakistan to be an Islamic state when we neither have the entire Ummah in this particular nation/state and the way it was achieved, it is directly against the old belief on how an Islamic state ought to be established.

I have the courtesy to give yo links while you are blowing hot air with your erroneous statements. This 'Islamic system' you speak of, what exactly are the core tenants of it and why did the Islamic clergy of India oppose it so bitterly, Maulana Maududi even wrote about how Pakistani against the central tenets of Islam.

Why can't you bring me a singular source whereby this so called Islamic state was the end result for Pakistan.

Jinnah on one hand used to fight against the inclusion of Islamic laws and you are telling me that he wanted an Islamic state.

412c

Even the Indian constitution takes after his speech because of its core secular message. The following is from an assembly debate in India after the partition.

Therefore it is up to to us to create a secular State. It would no be wrong for me to quote Mr. Jinnah in this connection, whatever, he might have said before Partition. He said: My idea is to have a secular State here.

Somebody asked : Religious or secular ?

He said: Hindus and Muslim are alike to me. They must have equal opportunities. I am trying to make a common nation for both of us. Why should our Muslim friends who owe allegiance to Mr. Jinnah and whom they revere as I do, think differently in this matter ? I am not prepared to call a single individual a minority. I do not like the word minority at all. Therefore I am saying that I am opposed to this amendment.

All individuals are at par. We cannot recognised religion as far as the State is concerned. I wonder if my friends who have suggested separate electorate for minorities would appreciate theremarks of a great leader of India. It is Mr. Jinnah who in his address to the Pakistan Assembly says:–

We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and ,equal citizens of one State. We would keep that in front
of us as our ideal and in course of time you will find that in the political sense the Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will
cease to be Muslims because religion in the personal faith of each individual. That is what the Governor-General of one of the parts of India says, Sir, he was known here to be the worst communalist, as it were,-but even he, when he takes, over the charge of a State, even he, when he takes up the reins of a communal State and the administration of a big country composed of Hindus and Muslims, he ways so. It is very well known that his State is a Muhammadan State and they are proud of its being Muhammadan and they proudly call it Pakistan; even in that State he says, religious will not be taken notice of by the State.

Every individual will be an individual and Hindus will lose their Hinduship as far as their political rights and privileges are
concerned. I submit Sir, that even they are believers of oneness of their people. Why should we introduce this separatist tendency into our politics ? Sir, at another place the same very great leader says you are free to go to your temples and places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to one religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State. I submit Sir. Constitution making is the business of the State Muhammadans as such have nothing to do with it They are here because they are citizens of India. We are one nation which stands for justice. We will legislate in a manner that will be a guarantee against all injustice. and we shall not recognise any sections. Sir, this amendment is not in keeping with the high principles we last adopted and which we have passed as resolutions in the past.”

Constituent Assembly Debate On 27 August, 1947

 

[T-Faz]

Sir, can you tell me that how do you separate religion from Islam??

I am talking about separation of religion and state.

You can practice your religion in such a state, much like anyone else but religion will play no role in the business of the state.

You cannot and should not force your own understanding of your religion onto others, everyone should be free to practice what they like freely without any hindrance.

What's bad in this?

 

[T-Faz]

Pardon me but how much Mr. Jinnah used to follow Islam in his personal life?

From whatever I have read, he was not religious in his personal life at all.

Jinnah was not a very religious man, he knew about his religion but he was lax towards it.

He was also an Islmaili for the greater part of his life.

He never claimed to be religious or put up such an affront.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Why don't we let MUSLIMS decide what to be done with Pakistan.

how about that !! ??? hmmm ???

non muslims can give it a rest ! and mind their own stuff.

As for Mr Bhutto, a feudal like him who left us gifts such as Benazir, Zardari and now Bilawal ! not to mention those two thug sons of his !

Without "Iran" backing, PPP was nothing.

Need we say more ??

 

[Sinnerman108]

What did people gain from the creation of Pakistan? Hindus who were left stranded on the wrong side of the border suffered tremendously. East and West Punjab were cleansed on religious lines. East and West Bengal suffered enormously. Who gained from this disaster?

Are Pakistanis more well-off now? Did your utopian project succeed? Indian Muslims have to pay the price whenever anything wrong happens in Kashmir, or if there is a terrorist strike in India.

The Pakistan project was similar to the Zionist project of Israel. They wanted a purely Jewish state, you wanted a purely Islamic state. They drove out the Palestinian living amongst them. You drove out the Hindus...

drove out hindus !
and he does not even mention how much Muslims were driven out of hindustan.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Your statement sounds as though Allah himself ordered the creation of a state for the Muslims of the Subcontinent....

Pakistan was the creation of politicians...and most importantly humans....who are motivated by the same greed and lust for power as you and I....

Its funny how you try to belittle the choice of Muslims who decided to stay back in India while at the same time support the idea of "self determination" for the Muslims of Kashmir....
Contradiction galore!

Ahan ... you are dense or just act like so ?

Tell me what do you think of millions of muslims who did migrate there ? for money ? for power ?

 

[wmdisinfo]

what i will say is Mixing $hit with a stick makes it more smelly its better put some sand on it walk forward.

 

[Vinod2070]

Ahan ... you are dense or just act like so ?

Tell me what do you think of millions of muslims who did migrate there ? for money ? for power ?

Many times more Muslims chose to stay back.

 

[Abu Basit]

Bust the lies, its these liberals and seculars who created this country, not Islamists like the countless Maulana's of religious 'scholars' of India.

Also I am amazed at your interpretation of the August 11th speech, the primary focus in the latter part of the speech was that there shouldn't be any distinctions be made between groups in Pakistan. He clearly mentions the situation in England where religious groups caused great problems based on their differences and this is why religion must remains a private matter.

Similarly he never called Islam the ideology in this speech of his and if he did want to implement Islamic laws, why did he hire a Hindu as our very first law minister.



He clearly says that religion will not play a role in state, what more do you want him to say, Islam is a religion isn't it.

I also gave you references whereby he clearly mentions that he will not have an Islamic state but rather a modern state.



This particular conversation between Iskander Mirza and Jinnah is well known, I also gave you a reference from the Express Tribune, why don't you bring a reference for your quote too.



Islamic principles/laws/governance, so you are some scholar cum historian who understand these Islam and want to implement an Islamic state, wait we already got an Islamic state when Bhutto and later Zia made this country an Islamic republic.

Your confused statements and information is indication enough of why you fail to grasp the meaning of this August 11th speech, not only did Jinnah make it clear that religion will not play a role in this state, he also stated that no distinction should be made within groups and we should all be known as Pakistani's.

That is a nationalist speech, not an Islamist one, he called the people to be known as Pakistani's and not Muslims.



Are you even capable of understanding the concept of an Islamic state, an Islamic state is a theocracy whereby the entire Ummah is under the rule of a Khalifa. Odd isn't it, you want Pakistan to be an Islamic state when we neither have the entire Ummah in this particular nation/state and the way it was achieved, it is directly against the old belief on how an Islamic state ought to be established.

I have the courtesy to give yo links while you are blowing hot air with your erroneous statements. This 'Islamic system' you speak of, what exactly are the core tenants of it and why did the Islamic clergy of India oppose it so bitterly, Maulana Maududi even wrote about how Pakistani against the central tenets of Islam.

Why can't you bring me a singular source whereby this so called Islamic state was the end result for Pakistan.

Jinnah on one hand used to fight against the inclusion of Islamic laws and you are telling me that he wanted an Islamic state.

412c

Even the Indian constitution takes after his speech because of its core secular message. The following is from an assembly debate in India after the partition.



Constituent Assembly Debate On 27 August, 1947

Yeah a well known conversation in the secular/liberal circle ...

The only weapon in the armory of seculars is just one single August 11 speech which they deliberately interpret wrongly to fool the people. The spirit of this speech can be seen by the appointment of a non-muslim as a minister i.e non-muslims will cease to be non-muslims in the political sense in due course of time.

A very childish argument given by seculars in support of their claim is this appointment - i don't blame them as their understanding of Islam comes from western sources- otherwise, in an ideological Islamic state, a non-muslim can be appointed at good positions on account of them being subservient to an Ideological Islamic State.

We don't need lectures from seculars ,who spread lies and create hoax, on the ideological thinking of Mr Jinnah. His statements, i quoted before, are more than enough. I believe, you are speechless as you had nothing to respond to these sayings. Let me highlight it once again for you with red color this time.

Bahadur Khan (Nawab Yar Jang) asked Jinnah point blank : " I ask you Quaid-e Azam, whether or not Pakistan was going to be founded on the Quran?" Jinnah thumped his fist on the table and said, " Certainly, it will be based on the Quran".

(Muslim League Session, KHI. December 1943)

"When i hear the word Religion for madhab in english, my thinking goes to the private relationship of man with God (secular ideology) but i know very well know that 'Religion' in Islam is not limited .... I'm not a Molvi nor a Mullah nor do i claim to be an expert in Islamic studies but i have tried to study Quran and Islamic Laws own my own.

In the teachings of this great book Quran, there's a guidance for every aspect of life. The spiritual aspect of life, ]Social, Political, Economics (Islamic Ideology), to say there isn't any aspect which is out of the fold of the teachings of Quran. The principles and practicality of Quran is the best not only for Muslims but also for the rights of minorities in an Islamic government which is beyond imagination elsewhere."

(interview with students Usmania university, hyderabad deccan. 1941)

Looks like the earth has started slipping beneath your feet that's why the ridiculous claim that seculars made Pakistan. We are fully aware that the ideologists like Allama Iqbal have now become thorn in bush and doesn't fit well with seculars. You guyz need to read the history of Pakistan movement from Pakistani sources and you will come to know the role played by Scholars like Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani.

and i will it for some other day to teach you the lesson as to what's the difference between a theocracy and as Islamic state...

 

[T-Faz]

Yeah a well known conversation in the secular/liberal circle ...

Get happy and say Salam to Maulana Jihad Khan from me.

The only weapon in the armory of seculars is just one single August 11 speech which they deliberately interpret wrongly to fool the people. The spirit of this speech can be seen by the appointment of a non-muslim as a minister i.e non-muslims will cease to be non-muslims in the political sense in due course of time.

The Raja started off by saying that since the Lahore resolution had been passed earlier that year, if and when Pakistan was formed, it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunna and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution. Mr. Jinnah banged his hands on the table and said: We shall not be an Islamic State but a Liberal Democratic Muslim State.

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?’

In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State (Islamic 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.

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.

I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with particular reference to the Qadianis. My reply is that, as far as the constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole.

Mr. M. A. Sabir tried as hard as he could to persuade the Quaid-i-Azam to declare Qadianis as being out of the fold of Islam. But the Quaid-i-Azam stuck resolutely to his principle and kept on replying: `What right have I to declare a person non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim’.

A very childish argument given by seculars in support of their claim is this appointment - i don't blame them as their understanding of Islam comes from western sources- otherwise, in an ideological Islamic state, a non-muslim can be appointed at good positions on account of them being subservient to an Ideological Islamic State.

We don't need lectures from seculars ,who spread lies and create hoax, on the ideological thinking of Mr Jinnah. His statements, i quoted before, are more than enough. I believe, you are speechless as you had nothing to respond to these sayings. Let me highlight it once again for you with red color this time.

We do not need your Madrassa education to pervert the history of this nation. I have given you my references and it clearly shows the intent of Mr Jinnah.

Looks like the earth has started slipping beneath your feet that's why the ridiculous claim that seculars made Pakistan. We are fully aware that the ideologists like Allama Iqbal have now become thorn in bush and doesn't fit well with seculars. You guyz need to read the history of Pakistan movement from Pakistani sources and you will come to know the role played by Scholars like Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani.

Islamist under pressure, Iqbal was a known liberal, his affiliations are known to many, he even detested Mullahs.

You need to read history, Shabbir Ahmed did not play any vital role, he was a mere low level scholar against the likes of Maududi and Madani who opposed Pakistan.

and i will it for some other day to teach you the lesson as to what's the difference between a theocracy and as Islamic state...

First learn you-self before teaching someone a lesson.

 

[Abu Basit]

Let me teach some people the ettiquettes of Posting- your post containing speeches/statemenst should be backed by refernces/sources, if you aren't quoting full speech/statement, do inform the readers:

now back to the topic- Jinnah rejected capitalism and talked about Islamic economic model: (the following is an excerpt from his speech, if someone is interested, i can give full speech)

It is not our purpose to make the rich richer and to accelerate the process of accumulation of wealth in the hands of few individuals. We should aim at levelling up the general standard of living amongst the masses and I hope your committee will pay due attention to this very important question. Our ideal should not be capitalistic but Islamic, and the interests and welfare of the people as a whole should be kept constantly in mind.

Address to the Members of the League Planning Committee, New Delhi, November 5, 1944

 

[johnny boy]

Let me teach some people the ettiquettes of Posting- your post containing speeches/statemenst should be backed by refernces/sources, if you aren't quoting full speech/statement, do inform the readers:

now back to the topic- Jinnah rejected capitalism and talked about Islamic economic model: (the following is an excerpt from his speech, if someone is interested, i can give full speech)

but was his ideals truely followed

 

[jupiter2012]

thanks you, a good source fo me to more understand.

 

[T-Faz]

Let me teach some people the ettiquettes of Posting- your post containing speeches/statemenst should be backed by refernces/sources, if you aren't quoting full speech/statement, do inform the readers:

now back to the topic- Jinnah rejected capitalism and talked about Islamic economic model: (the following is an excerpt from his speech, if someone is interested, i can give full speech)

Where are your references, all you do is put a footnote with specifying some event. I want you to being links to reputable sources like I did originally.

I brought you links and all you do is go on with your odd quotes that do not have any supporting referenced links.

You did not answer my question or refute my claims, all that you did was divert from topic yet again with your 'quotes'.

 

[Asian.Century]

The fact is that the officers and men of the Pakistan Army were completely demoralised and devastated and, in order to rebuild their morale and honour, my father not only stopped the report’s publication but also put a ban on all media diatribe and propaganda against the armed forces,” Sanam said in a statement, which was sent to The News through her friend based in Islamabad.

How long civilians keep protecting the, land grabbing, power angry, and big budget army of its mistakes?