Did Quaid-e-Azam Want Islam in Pakistan ?

[Vitamin_C]

In that speech he said your religion has nothing to do with running of the state. My simple friend that is the corner stone definition of secularism ie separation of state and religion.

His speech that we are free to worship whatever we want is not to suggest he is a secularist at all.

 

[Vitamin_C]

There is not a single speech of him where he says he wants Shariah. Infact one of his final speeches talks about secularism ie separation of state and religion.

Secularism doesnt mean atheism, it means the working of the state is separated from religion. Shariah law on the other hand means laws are based on religion. Find me single speech where he talks about enforcing Shariah.

What we have is many people who witnessed his final days telling us he wanted an Islamic system in the country.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Where did you get this from? I have read Soviet history and took 4-5 courses on this at masters level, Soviets had no intention in getting involved in Afghanistan or to stay there for longer than few months they were dragged into it by Afghan govt of the time.

Where did you get the idea that Soviets had any intention to go into Pakistan? They neither had budget, nor political will, nor incentive to attack Pakistan. This is just a bongi you made up.

Afghan was a bear trap set up by CIA and ISI to prolong Soviet stay in Afghanistan by worsening the law and order situation there. Zia ul haq was responsible for ruining law and order in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Had we don't nothing Soviets would have left sooner because they never had the intention to stay there if you study their documents and politics.

What about the rape and killing of Shia people in northern Areas under Zia nose where terrorists were airlifted from Afghanistan and left to rampage through there was that also fault of Soviets? The Iranian revolution in Iran in 1979, was that also fault of Soviets? What about the Islamic laws that Bhutto brought in 1970s was that also because of Soviets?

You have zero knowledge of history and you have zero facts backing anything you say. Lets wait and see how you find Quaid e Azam backing you on Islamic State based on Shariah.

We had to do that at the time otherwise the Russians were ready to cross the border most likely taking Peshawar.

 

[Citizen X]

Where did you get this from? I have read Soviet history and took 4-5 courses on this at masters level, Soviets had no intention in getting involved in Afghanistan or to stay there for longer than few months they were dragged into it by Afghan govt of the time.

Where did you get the idea that Soviets had any intention to go into Pakistan? They neither had budget, nor political will, nor incentive to attack Pakistan. This is just a bongi you made up.

Afghan was a bear trap set up by CIA and ISI to prolong Soviet stay in Afghanistan by worsening the law and order situation there. Zia ul haq was responsible for ruining law and order in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Had we don't nothing Soviets would have left sooner because they never had the intention to stay there if you study their documents and politics.

What about the rape and killing of Shia people in northern Areas under Zia nose where terrorists were airlifted from Afghanistan and left to rampage through there was that also fault of Soviets? The Iranian revolution in Iran in 1979, was that also fault of Soviets? What about the Islamic laws that Bhutto brought in 1970s was that also because of Soviets?

You have zero knowledge of history and you have zero facts backing anything you say. Lets wait and see how you find Quaid e Azam backing you on Islamic State based on Shariah.

Yeah I'm pretty much sick of this Soviet warm water nonsense argument myself which people use to justify Zia putting his nose into Afghanistan where it didn't belong because the bloody idiot thought of himself as some great Mujahid.

 

[Vitamin_C]

We blame polarization on American involvement Soviet Afghan war. American's weren't keen on getting involved either. It was Zia Ul Haq who convinced the Americans to do it. Bin Laden and Taliban are more brainchild of Zia than they are of CIA so its pretty bizarre that we blame it on US.

As for warm water, is complete non-sense. First of all Soviets didnt want to go into Afghanistan, when they went there, they didn't want to stay. Their economy in 70s and 80s was pretty bad as is. Why would they take on Pakistan especially since Pakistan was non-Nato ally that would invite retaliation not from just Nato and US but also from China.

Russians are good at defending their country but they are not ones who go far from their borders to occupy other countries.

Zia had no business there, especially since we were supporting the wrong side, mujahideen were looters and rapists of worst kind. Look at Afghanistan what they did to it after they took over, this is why Afghans dislike Pakistan so much ad Pakistanis don't understand why their brotherly neighbor country is so bitter. Its because we completely annihilated their country and left them at mercy of warlords and rapists.

Yeah I'm pretty much sick of this Soviet warm water nonsense argument myself which people use to justify Zia putting his nose into Afghanistan where it didn't belong because the bloody idiot thought of himself as some great Mujahid.

 

[Imranpak]

Its not rubbish, Pakistan had control of many areas in Kargil after 1948 but we lost it in 1971 war. Educate yourself on your own history.

I am here to educate you not be educated. Stop kissing the as of India! Losing to an army twice bigger in size is not shameful.

 

[Imranpak]

Where did you get this from? I have read Soviet history and took 4-5 courses on this at masters level, Soviets had no intention in getting involved in Afghanistan or to stay there for longer than few months they were dragged into it by Afghan govt of the time.

Where did you get the idea that Soviets had any intention to go into Pakistan? They neither had budget, nor political will, nor incentive to attack Pakistan. This is just a bongi you made up.

Afghan was a bear trap set up by CIA and ISI to prolong Soviet stay in Afghanistan by worsening the law and order situation there. Zia ul haq was responsible for ruining law and order in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Had we don't nothing Soviets would have left sooner because they never had the intention to stay there if you study their documents and politics.

What about the rape and killing of Shia people in northern Areas under Zia nose where terrorists were airlifted from Afghanistan and left to rampage through there was that also fault of Soviets? The Iranian revolution in Iran in 1979, was that also fault of Soviets? What about the Islamic laws that Bhutto brought in 1970s was that also because of Soviets?

You have zero knowledge of history and you have zero facts backing anything you say. Lets wait and see how you find Quaid e Azam backing you on Islamic State based on Shariah.

Another meaningless zillion lines mail. I got this information from those who fought in the war! Of course they wanted Pak, big time. Stop distracting the topic to rape and murder, clearly you have lost the plot here and need to revisit what this thread is all about!

Your views are embarrassing but even more you are clearly and Indian boot licker who likes kissing their ass. Whilst accepting Pak fault lines and mistakes this thread is not about Russia or Afghanistan rather what the Quaid wanted. In your immature drivel you clearly can't see that or choose not too. What has the killing of Shia's got to do with this topic? What has Iran got to do with what the Quaid wanted??

 

[Imranpak]

There is not a single speech of him where he says he wants Shariah. Infact one of his final speeches talks about secularism ie separation of state and religion.

Secularism doesnt mean atheism, it means the working of the state is separated from religion. Shariah law on the other hand means laws are based on religion. Find me single speech where he talks about enforcing Shariah.

He should not have to say "Shariah" as he was not a practising Muslim. He said you are free to go to wherever you want in terms of places of worship which is exactly what Islam teaches. He did not oppose Shariah law either because he did not know much about it. The great man felt is was better not to discuss something like Shariah due to him having no knowledge on the subject. This is why he did not mention it openly however his nearest and dearest confirm his views. Problem is you don't have a clue what Islamic law is and yes it will be established one way or another just like Pakistan was. You are welcome to move to a secular country right away seeing you fear Shariah so much! Killing rapists and murderers will greatly upset you.

 

[Imranpak]

In that speech he said your religion has nothing to do with running of the state. My simple friend that is the corner stone definition of secularism ie separation of state and religion.

Once more Islam is not a religion! This is why he said what he did! Islam is like soil on which all religions can grow like flowers do. More then anything else Islam stands for social justice. This is what you seem to fear for some reason.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Stating facts is not ass kissing. Its just being honest.

I am here to educate you not be educated. Stop kissing the as of India! Losing to an army twice bigger in size is not shameful.

 

[Vitamin_C]

That makes it a religion. Every religion has their own way of living. Same way Church controlled Europe and Hindutva is trying to control India and Shia Mullah's control Iran. Those are all religions that use their faith to influence policy making of the State - Exactly what Jinnah was against.

Once more Islam is not a religion! This is why he said what he did! Islam is like soil on which all religions can grow like flowers do. More then anything else Islam stands for social justice. This is what you seem to fear for some reason.

 

[Vitamin_C]

You are trying to prove that Jinnah was not a secular but rather an Islamist.

From everything you said there is nothing about Jinnah to show that he was an Islamist. All evidence, including his speeches point to Jinnah being a secular.

He should not have to say "Shariah" as he was not a practising Muslim. He said you are free to go to wherever you want in terms of places of worship which is exactly what Islam teaches. He did not oppose Shariah law either because he did not know much about it. The great man felt is was better not to discuss something like Shariah due to him having no knowledge on the subject. This is why he did not mention it openly however his nearest and dearest confirm his views. Problem is you don't have a clue what Islamic law is and yes it will be established one way or another just like Pakistan was. You are welcome to move to a secular country right away seeing you fear Shariah so much! Killing rapists and murderers will greatly upset you.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Show me a single credible historian who says that. You are a liar and dishonest and you are making things up to support your point of view even when there is no evidence to support it.

Of course they wanted Pak, big time.

 

[Imranpak]

Show me a single credible historian who says that. You are a liar and dishonest and you are making things up to support your point of view even when there is no evidence to support it.

Once more you know nothing at all. Western historians do not want Pakistan to become Islamic so they would never support the Quaid's theory. All the evidence you are providing is his speech where he says you are free to worship wherever and whatever you want. Islam supports this as well so your point is totally invalid. My sources are the people who actually met the Quaid during hi final days.

 

[Imranpak]

You are trying to prove that Jinnah was not a secular but rather an Islamist.

From everything you said there is nothing about Jinnah to show that he was an Islamist. All evidence, including his speeches point to Jinnah being a secular.

Islamist? He was a man who originally supported secularism before changing his mind, nothing wrong with that at all. When with Congress he did support secularism an all that $hit before having a divine experience. From then on he wanted an Islamic Pakistan not a Mullah driven one that you seem to think represents Islam. There is ample evidence that not only he but Sir Iqbal too wanted an Islamic Pakistan, absolutely. Thing is if i provide video's by a Dr Israr Ahmed you will dismiss them. Similarly I too dismiss you comments of Pak becoming secualar.

 

[Imranpak]

That makes it a religion. Every religion has their own way of living. Same way Church controlled Europe and Hindutva is trying to control India and Shia Mullah's control Iran. Those are all religions that use their faith to influence policy making of the State - Exactly what Jinnah was against.

From Islam's perspective other religions are religions where as Islam is a deen. If Islam supported hatred of non Muslims like Hindutva does of non Hindu's than there would be a problem although I realise many Muslims do have such attitudes. That is due to there own ignorance. If the west forms a Christian law that does not discriminate against non Christians then it is not for others to comment on it, the question is why are you so terrified of Islamic law?. The Quaid Jinnah wanted Islamic law in Pak, only that can bring peace and progress to the country as all other options have been exhausted now.

 

[Imranpak]

Stating facts is not ass kissing. Its just being honest.

Stating facts that India won Kargil and 65!!?? Your having a laugh!

 

[Vitamin_C]

Why are you so surprised? Our duffer generals took a fight with an enemy 7 times larger what do you expect?

Stating facts that India won Kargil and 65!!?? Your having a laugh!

 

[Vitamin_C]

Quran addresses these people differently:
Slaves
Muslims
People of the book
Everyone else

By differentiating between people like that it is not only institutionalizing segregation but also drawing a wedge between them? Will a Muslim marry his daughter to non-muslim? Will Muslims allow a non-muslim to be their ruler? This top level discrimination carries down to lower levels so in a society where you differentiate people based on religion, you cannot have freedom of religion in such a country.

From Islam's perspective other religions are religions where as Islam is a deen. If Islam supported hatred of non Muslims like Hindutva does of non Hindu's than there would be a problem although I realise many Muslims do have such attitudes. That is due to there own ignorance. If the west forms a Christian law that does no discriminate against non Christians then it is not for others to comment on it, the question is why are you so terrified of Islamic law?. The Quaid Jinnah wanted Islamic law in Pak, only that can bring peace and progress to the country as all other options have been exhausted now.

 

[Vitamin_C]

So the only evidence you have to support your claim of Muhammad being an Islamist rather than a secular is Dr Israr Ahmeds videos?

It seems like you are being selective and only looking at information that specifically supports your point of view. In other words you have a selective bias.

There is a speech of Jinnah shortly before his death where he openly says Pakistan will be a secular state (ie separation of religion and state). Why do you ignore that and go to listen to Dr. Israr instead?

Thing is if i provide video's by a Dr Israr Ahmed you will dismiss them. Similarly I too dismiss you comments of Pak becoming secualar.