Ayesha Sidiqa calls Jinnah "Homosexual"

[Jackdaws]

@Jackdaws

I know how you indian treat your leaders especially gandhi and nehru.....

But we Pakistanis respect our leaders...........so say what you have to say about your leaders but don't include the founding fathers of Pakistan in category with them...

They are all subcontinental leaders and all leaders are subject to criticism. Iqbal was not a founding father of Pakistan.

 

[kamrankhan4ever]

They are all subcontinental leaders and all leaders are subject to criticism. Iqbal was not a founding father of Pakistan.

You bet Iqbal was not.....the idea of pakistan was given by Iqbal....

And you are wrong that all subcontinental leaders are subjected to criticism...this may be the case nowadays...but not for our founding fathers....it is only done to divert attention of the youth of Pakistan from the ideology for which Pakistan was made....

You people study in your history books that Pakistan was part of India (when actually it was a part of sub-continent) and Quaid-e-Azam and Nehru made it a seperate state...and this thinking continuous even now...and believe me that is the reason that India hasn't been able to accept the existence of Pakistan....

 

[Musalman]

guys.. I think this has been taken in the wrong context. What i can read in the text is that she is trying to say that the India's and Pakistan's fouding fathers towards the end, wanted to screw each other over and in her dark sense of humor has used this figurative term (of screwing over) in a literal way by calling them as gay.. I dont think it is meant literally, though is definitely not in good taste

I think you are right.

Regarding Jinnah eating bacon. It is written in Stanley Wolpert book, Jinnah of Pakistan. Point is Jinnah eating bacon or drinking whiskey is although totally unislamic but it was his personal acts and we are not even sure if historian who say that are right or wrong. Fact is Jinnah was fundamental in creation of Pakistan and we owe that to him. Frankly i really do not care what he eat or drink all i care is that he was the founder of Pakistan.

With regards to Nehru and Gandhi I have all respect for them, although they are against the creation of Pakistan ( which was their right) but they were as committed to the cause of independence as Jinnah and other Muslims leaders were.

So i suggest all Indians and Pakistanis to respect Jinnah Nehru Gandhi et al.

 

[Trichy]

What hell are they writing, nonsense!!! even though he is a Pakistani, he also in the freedom struggle with British.. it just a BULL S_HIT

 

[zagahaga]

calling quaid that she should go to jail or some nice acid on the face too crule but certainly old school.

 

[Musalman]

calling quaid that she should go to jail or some nice acid on the face too crule but certainly old school.

No sir tolerance is the key. People who throw acid can not debate on what they believe.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

My take on it is that if Pakistan is the democracy it claims to be then nobody should be immune from criticism including its founding fathers. In India there is no law or moral constraints from criticising Gandhi or Nehru etc. Some Indian posters here openly criticise our founding fathers for certain of their policies. That is democracy. However referring to any person as a "homosexual" if they aren't one is offensive and the person should be able to debate an issue without being personally offensive as she was

 

[EjazR]

It could be a fake account. No one can confirm that the Ayesha Siddiqui is the same Siddiqui on face book.

Besides from the reading of the comment it looks like she was making a joke out of it - a bad one at that

You bet Iqbal was not.....the idea of pakistan was given by Iqbal....

Iqbal never adovocated a partition of India and Pakistan. His oft quoted 1930 speech advocated a muslim majority state within the Indian union. However, it is made to look as if he had asked for indepedance

Unfortunately, I have hardly met any Pakistani who has read the 1930 speech in his entirety which clarifies this without any ambiguity. Atleast then people can understand what Iqbal really wanted.

You owe it to yourself to read it here
Presidential Address, annual session of the All-India Muslim League, Allahabad, December 1930, by Sir Muhammad Iqbal

He passed away in 1938 before the resolution of Pakistan was passed in lahore

and believe me that is the reason that India hasn't been able to accept the existence of Pakistan....

Well if you expect Indians to endorse the two nation theory to "accept" the existence of Pakistan, no one will do that. Even as a muslim it is a flawed "Theory" let alone from the Indian perspective.

Ofcourse the politcal setup of Pakistan is acknowledged by India. Other than that what else do you expect India to do to "Accept the existence of Pakistan"

 

[death]

calling quaid that she should go to jail or some nice acid on the face too crule but certainly old school.

show some respect to women just see what are you talking about

 

[Jackdaws]

You bet Iqbal was not.....the idea of pakistan was given by Iqbal....

And you are wrong that all subcontinental leaders are subjected to criticism...this may be the case nowadays...but not for our founding fathers....it is only done to divert attention of the youth of Pakistan from the ideology for which Pakistan was made....

You people study in your history books that Pakistan was part of India (when actually it was a part of sub-continent) and Quaid-e-Azam and Nehru made it a seperate state...and this thinking continuous even now...and believe me that is the reason that India hasn't been able to accept the existence of Pakistan....

Actually, you study that Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, do you not? Of course it was - and what is Pakistan today was part of British India. Accept the existence of Pakistan? What rubbish - we all accept that Pakistan exists and I hope it flourishes. If you want to learn your history - then there must be no holy cows which should not be slayed. All these men - Nehru, Patel, Gandhi, Jinnah, Liaquat were politicians - and none should be above criticism. Jinnah accepted the cabinet mission plan which would keep India united while it was Congress which rejected it. All of them were jostling for power. This does not take away from their contribution to freedom of either India or Pakistan - it just removes the halo around their heads and make them what they were - flawed people - basically just normal human beings.

 

[Hutchroy]

Actually, you study that Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, do you not? Of course it was - and what is Pakistan today was part of British India. Accept the existence of Pakistan? What rubbish - we all accept that Pakistan exists and I hope it flourishes. If you want to learn your history - then there must be no holy cows which should not be slayed. All these men - Nehru, Patel, Gandhi, Jinnah, Liaquat were politicians - and none should be above criticism. Jinnah accepted the cabinet mission plan which would keep India united while it was Congress which rejected it. All of them were jostling for power. This does not take away from their contribution to freedom of either India or Pakistan - it just removes the halo around their heads and make them what they were - flawed people - basically just normal human beings.

With 20% to 25% Muslims in United India, Jinnah wanted 50% of the content in every sphere of Governmental Services i.e. Defence Forces, Parliament, Civil Services et al.

I am sure this proved that Jinnah was a Great Democrat as well as a Great Constitutionalist.

BTW : Malaysia has a 38% or so Non-Muslim Content in its Population.

Does Malaysia give a 50% Content in Representation as above to the Non-Muslims?

Your Guess is as good as mine.

P S : I flly and totally support Jinnah in having created the separate State of Pakistan. May Pakistan always Prosper as a "Separate and Independent Nation".

 

[kamrankhan4ever]

It could be a fake account. No one can confirm that the Ayesha Siddiqui is the same Siddiqui on face book.

Besides from the reading of the comment it looks like she was making a joke out of it - a bad one at that




Iqbal never adovocated a partition of India and Pakistan. His oft quoted 1930 speech advocated a muslim majority state within the Indian union. However, it is made to look as if he had asked for indepedance

Unfortunately, I have hardly met any Pakistani who has read the 1930 speech in his entirety which clarifies this without any ambiguity. Atleast then people can understand what Iqbal really wanted.

You owe it to yourself to read it here
Presidential Address, annual session of the All-India Muslim League, Allahabad, December 1930, by Sir Muhammad Iqbal

He passed away in 1938 before the resolution of Pakistan was passed in lahore



Well if you expect Indians to endorse the two nation theory to "accept" the existence of Pakistan, no one will do that. Even as a muslim it is a flawed "Theory" let alone from the Indian perspective.

Ofcourse the politcal setup of Pakistan is acknowledged by India. Other than that what else do you expect India to do to "Accept the existence of Pakistan"

About the two nation theory...it is not flawed as you think...and you have proven it yourself in Gujrat and Kashmir.... I dont want to talk about other incidents because two nation theory concerns Hindus and Muslims.... You want to debate about two nation theory lets have a debate...tell me what part of it is flawed and i will INSHALLAH refute your claim.....


And about Allahabad Address...you are right but partially...here is an excerpt from the Allahabad address

Personally, I would go farther than the demands embodied in it. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.

Hindus should not fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states. I have already indicated to you the meaning of the word religion, as applied to Islam. The truth is that Islam is not a Church.

The demand was for autonomous Muslim states...but did you people agreed to that....? answer is no and that is where the two nation theory played the role..

And it is also right that Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal were nationalists who wanted a united India in the start but it was not going to happen....so from the demand for autonomous Muslim states the demand changed to a separate country in 1940....

Allama Iqbal was the right hand man of Quaid-e-Azam and his mentor....And it would be ridiculous to say that Quaid-e-Azam wanted a separate country and Allama Iqbal didn't coz he died in 1938 and doesn't have any part to play in the creation of Pakistan....

And about the account...it is real i copied it from a website where it was posted along her other notes.....You can just mail her and confirm it......

www. facebook .com/notes.php?id=616995232 (Remove spaces) and check out

 

[Al-zakir]

Is she a Pakistani version of Taslima Nasreen???

Well we all know what happened to that creature.

Another reason why bharat is a enemy of islam and muslim in general. It has shelter this women despite strong protest by muslims of bharat. Lets not count us. It doesn't even care about the sentiment of it's muslim population over hinduani ego.

 

[EjazR]

^^^^
She is not in India, she is in europe. So your assertion falls flat. I guess you can now change your opinion about Bharat.

 

[EjazR]

@kamrankhan4ever

Did you read his entire speech? The Pakistan scheme had already been advocated in the 1930s, formally declared by Chadary Rahmat Ali in 1932. Still Iqbal opposed his scheme even when journalists were trying to associate him with it. There are letters even in mid 1930s where he explicitly disassociated himself with the Pakistan scheme as it came to be called.

Infact, Chaudary Rahmat Ali deserves more credit for the conception of present day Pakistan as he was probably the first person who formally defined an independent state of NW India based on religious majority.

Iqbal would probably come under the shared personalities and freedom fighters of the subcontinent like for Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan who although from NWFP in present day Pakistan, played an important role in the freedom movement.