Open Challenge to SAFMA to prove Quaid-e-Azam secular!

[KhanHaripur]

[h=6]Its and open challenge for these Zionists of SAFMA to produce one single speech of Quaid e Azam where he said that Pakistan must be a secular state!![/h][h=6]Alhamdolillah, every patriotic Pakistani Muslim can produce hundreds of speeches before and after the creation of Pakistan where Quaid categorically said Islam, Quran and Sunnah would be our constitution. Liaqat Ali khan was one of our founding fathers and he also passed Objective resolution in 1949!

[/h][h=6]These SAFMA Zionists say that Allama Iqbal had no role in making of Pakistan, astaghfurullah! Below I am posting an extract from a letter. Just read this and see how bloody liars these SAFMA Zionists are. Quaid has himself said that Iqbal was his spiritual force and personal friend and the philosopher behind the Pakistan movement. These RAW backed Zionists are afraid of Iqbal and his spiritual vision.[/h][h=6][/h][h=6]Allama Iqbal wrote a letter to Quaid on 28th May, 1937 in which he clearly told him the game plan according to which Pakistan was to be created:[/h][h=6]Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states. The Congress President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu-Muslim nation is impossible in India. In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities[/h]
Allama Iqbal wrote another letter to Quaid in June 1937 in which he said: To my mind the new constitution with its ides of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nation entitled to Self-determination just as other nation as in India and outside India are?
[h=6]Baba Iqbal, even directed Quaid Azam on the foreign policy and issues of the Muslim world way back in 30′s. The Palestinian issue was raised by Quaid on the instructions of Iqbal. Eveyr step Quaid took was on the directions, guidance and encourangeemtn of Baba Iqbal. After passing the Lahore resolution for Pakistan, Quaid visited the muqam of baba Iqbal and said that we have done exactly what Allama Iqbal had asked us to do! read below what Iqbal had said to Quaid![/h][h=6]The Palestine question is very much agitating the minds of the Muslims. I have no doubt that the League will pass a strong resolution on this question and also by holding a private conference of the leaders. Personally I would not mind going to jail on an issue which affects both Islam and India. The formation of a Western base on the very gates of the East is a menace to both Iqbal to Quaid 1937. Imagine, Iqbal even wanted to go to jail for this critical issue of Ummah![/h][h=6]Marvi said that the Pakistan resolution was actually called Lahore Resolution, Mind you marvi, the name Pakistan Resolution was exclusively given by the hostile Hindu Press, the hindus with whom she wants friendly relations![/h]A video response to SAFMA by a patriot:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[sngilani]

Pakistan is a Muslim country and will remain so. It was created for Islam. No doubt about it.

 

[adnan_younus]

His speech to teh first constituent assembly and 100% authentic unlike the death bed stories about khilafat-e-rashda system.. and teh speech about banking model is about that model only... im not in favour of forcing islam on teh state but im against the current economic model of numbers and credit....
thats shud be enuff for his vision about pakistan ..

also his appearance.... he is wearing western clothes.... so if u ask any islamic scholar he says imitating what non muslims wear is not permissable... and wil quaotes numerous hadiths and ayats...

isnt that enuff proof he was secular...

two nation theories still stands... two nation theory has nothing to do with islamic state.. it has to do with muslim majority and hindu majority political rights... just liek currentl we have
n-nation theory in pakistan.... where balochis are fightng for their rights and sindhis cry for theirs and muhajris in karachi demand theirs, hazara ppl etc etc etc

Its and open challenge for these Zionists of SAFMA to produce one single speech of Quaid e Azam where he said that Pakistan must be a secular state!!

Alhamdolillah, every patriotic Pakistani Muslim can produce hundreds of speeches before and after the creation of Pakistan where Quaid categorically said Islam, Quran and Sunnah would be our constitution. Liaqat Ali khan was one of our founding fathers and he also passed Objective resolution in 1949!

These SAFMA Zionists say that Allama Iqbal had no role in making of Pakistan, astaghfurullah! Below I am posting an extract from a letter. Just read this and see how bloody liars these SAFMA Zionists are. Quaid has himself said that Iqbal was his spiritual force and personal friend and the philosopher behind the Pakistan movement. These RAW backed Zionists are afraid of Iqbal and his spiritual vision.

Allama Iqbal wrote a letter to Quaid on 28th May, 1937 in which he clearly told him the game plan according to which Pakistan was to be created:

Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states. The Congress President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu-Muslim nation is impossible in India. In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities


Allama Iqbal wrote another letter to Quaid in June 1937 in which he said: To my mind the new constitution with its ides of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nation entitled to Self-determination just as other nation as in India and outside India are?
Baba Iqbal, even directed Quaid Azam on the foreign policy and issues of the Muslim world way back in 30′s. The Palestinian issue was raised by Quaid on the instructions of Iqbal. Eveyr step Quaid took was on the directions, guidance and encourangeemtn of Baba Iqbal. After passing the Lahore resolution for Pakistan, Quaid visited the muqam of baba Iqbal and said that we have done exactly what Allama Iqbal had asked us to do! read below what Iqbal had said to Quaid!

The Palestine question is very much agitating the minds of the Muslims. I have no doubt that the League will pass a strong resolution on this question and also by holding a private conference of the leaders. Personally I would not mind going to jail on an issue which affects both Islam and India. The formation of a Western base on the very gates of the East is a menace to both Iqbal to Quaid 1937. Imagine, Iqbal even wanted to go to jail for this critical issue of Ummah!

Marvi said that the Pakistan resolution was actually called Lahore Resolution, Mind you marvi, the name Pakistan Resolution was exclusively given by the hostile Hindu Press, the hindus with whom she wants friendly relations!

A video response to SAFMA by a patriot:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[KhanHaripur]

Who is a secular? Oxford Dictionary defines secular as one who is “not connected with religious or spiritual matters”
On August 6, 1939, he said: “I was born Muslim; I am a Muslim and shall die a Muslim.” On another occasion he said: “I am no Maulana or a Maulvi but I also know a little of my faith” This clearly tells he was NOT a secular character by any definition of ‘secularism’.
source : http://safmaexposed.wordpress.com/

His speech to teh first constituent assembly and 100% authentic unlike the death bed stories about khilafat-e-rashda system.. and teh speech about banking model is about that model only... im not in favour of forcing islam on teh state but im against the current economic model of numbers and credit....
thats shud be enuff for his vision about pakistan ..

also his appearance.... he is wearing western clothes.... so if u ask any islamic scholar he says imitating what non muslims wear is not permissable... and wil quaotes numerous hadiths and ayats...

isnt that enuff proof he was secular...

two nation theories still stands... two nation theory has nothing to do with islamic state.. it has to do with muslim majority and hindu majority political rights... just liek currentl we have
n-nation theory in pakistan.... where balochis are fightng for their rights and sindhis cry for theirs and muhajris in karachi demand theirs, hazara ppl etc etc etc

 

[Unicorn]

His speech to teh first constituent assembly and 100% authentic unlike the death bed stories about khilafat-e-rashda system.. and teh speech about banking model is about that model only... im not in favour of forcing islam on teh state but im against the current economic model of numbers and credit....
thats shud be enuff for his vision about pakistan ..

also his appearance.... he is wearing western clothes.... so if u ask any islamic scholar he says imitating what non muslims wear is not permissable... and wil quaotes numerous hadiths and ayats...

isnt that enuff proof he was secular...

two nation theories still stands... two nation theory has nothing to do with islamic state.. it has to do with muslim majority and hindu majority political rights... just liek currentl we have
n-nation theory in pakistan.... where balochis are fightng for their rights and sindhis cry for theirs and muhajris in karachi demand theirs, hazara ppl etc etc etc

You are absolutely right. His speech to the assembly is completely secular and as a secular person I can attest to this. I have read the text, however, he has made other speeches, if authentic, would not qualify as secular.

Therefore this debate can not be won. If I was a judge I would render the verdict for secularism considering the fact that as a politician he made speeches depending on the type of audience but the speech made to the lawmakers will carry the most weight.

 

[sngilani]

You are absolutely right. His speech to the assembly is completely secular and as a secular person I can attest to this. I have read the text, however, he has made other speeches, if authentic, would not qualify as secular.

Therefore this debate can not be won. If I was a judge I would render the verdict for secularism considering the fact that as a politician he made speeches depending on the type of audience but the speech made to the lawmakers will carry the most weight.

You are just fighting over one person's (Qaid-e-Azam's) speaches ignoring all those Muslims who struggled to get Pakistan, along with Qaid-e-Azam. You should take this struggle more holistically which spans over 200 years. The ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu society to absorb it. Muslims of South Asia believe that Islam and Hinduism are not only two religions, but also two social orders that have given birth to two distinct cultures with no similarities. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were not confined to the struggle for political supremacy, but were also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than a thousand years, they continued to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dresses they wear are entirely different.

The ideology of Pakistan took shape through an evolutionary process. Historical experience provided the base; with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan began the period of Muslim self-awakening; Allama Iqbal provided the philosophical explanation; Quaid-i-Azam translated it into a political reality; and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, by passing Objectives Resolution in March 1949, gave it legal sanction. It was due to the realization of Muslims of South Asia that they are different from the Hindus that they demanded separate electorates. When they realized that their future in a 'Democratic India' dominated by Hindu majority was not safe; they put forward their demand for a separate state. This is Pakistan.

 

[SINGH KING]

Bro, R u a secular person or non secular ?

Its and open challenge for these Zionists of SAFMA to produce one single speech of Quaid e Azam where he said that Pakistan must be a secular state!!

Alhamdolillah, every patriotic Pakistani Muslim can produce hundreds of speeches before and after the creation of Pakistan where Quaid categorically said Islam, Quran and Sunnah would be our constitution. Liaqat Ali khan was one of our founding fathers and he also passed Objective resolution in 1949!

These SAFMA Zionists say that Allama Iqbal had no role in making of Pakistan, astaghfurullah! Below I am posting an extract from a letter. Just read this and see how bloody liars these SAFMA Zionists are. Quaid has himself said that Iqbal was his spiritual force and personal friend and the philosopher behind the Pakistan movement. These RAW backed Zionists are afraid of Iqbal and his spiritual vision.

Allama Iqbal wrote a letter to Quaid on 28th May, 1937 in which he clearly told him the game plan according to which Pakistan was to be created:

“Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states……. The Congress President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu-Muslim nation is impossible in India. In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities”


Allama Iqbal wrote another letter to Quaid in June 1937 in which he said: “To my mind the new constitution with its ides of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nation entitled to Self-determination just as other nation as in India and outside India are?”
Baba Iqbal, even directed Quaid Azam on the foreign policy and issues of the Muslim world way back in 30′s. The Palestinian issue was raised by Quaid on the instructions of Iqbal. Eveyr step Quaid took was on the directions, guidance and encourangeemtn of Baba Iqbal. After passing the Lahore resolution for Pakistan, Quaid visited the muqam of baba Iqbal and said that we have done exactly what Allama Iqbal had asked us to do! read below what Iqbal had said to Quaid!

“The Palestine question is very much agitating the minds of the Muslims. I have no doubt that the League will pass a strong resolution on this question and also by holding a private conference of the leaders. Personally I would not mind going to jail on an issue which affects both Islam and India. The formation of a Western base on the very gates of the East is a menace to both” Iqbal to Quaid 1937. Imagine, Iqbal even wanted to go to jail for this critical issue of Ummah!

Marvi said that the Pakistan resolution was actually called Lahore Resolution, Mind you marvi, the name Pakistan Resolution was exclusively given by the hostile Hindu Press, the hindus with whom she wants friendly relations!

A video response to SAFMA by a patriot:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[Unicorn]

You are just fighting over one person's (Qaid-e-Azam's) speaches ignoring all those Muslims who struggled to get Pakistan. along with Qaid-e-Azam. You should take this struggle more holistically which spans over 200 years. The ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu society to absorb it. Muslims of South Asia believe that Islam and Hinduism are not only two religions, but also two social orders that have given birth to two distinct cultures with no similarities. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were not confined to the struggle for political supremacy, but were also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than a thousand years, they continued to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dresses they wear are entirely different.

The ideology of Pakistan took shape through an evolutionary process. Historical experience provided the base; with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan began the period of Muslim self-awakening; Allama Iqbal provided the philosophical explanation; Quaid-i-Azam translated it into a political reality; and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, by passing Objectives Resolution in March 1949, gave it legal sanction. It was due to the realization of Muslims of South Asia that they are different from the Hindus that they demanded separate electorates. When they realized that their future in a 'Democratic India' dominated by Hindu majority was not safe; they put forward their demand for a separate state. This is Pakistan.

Subject of this post is not the necessity of a separate state or what was perceived by the Muslim masses. The subject is weather he wanted secular state or Islamic.

 

[desicad]

Don't understand why there is so much hue and cry and paranoia over secularism in pakistan?
If the non secularists are confident that they are in formidable majority then no way the the liberals or secularists will be able to stop pakistan from being a islamic or non secular state.

 

[patriot]

If you by islamic state mean theocracy or mullah shahi,the answer is:No,he did not want that.
He wanted a state governed by rule of law.

Laws based on book of Allah only.

 

[Unicorn]

Don't understand why there is so much hue and cry and paranoia over secularism in pakistan?
If the non secularists are confident that they are in formidable majority then no way the the liberals or secularists will be able to stop pakistan from being a islamic or non secular state.

This is what the fuss about. They all agree that they want Pakistan that was envisioned by Mr. Jinnah whatever it was.

 

[hawk eyed]

Don't understand why there is so much hue and cry and paranoia over secularism in pakistan?
If the non secularists are confident that they are in formidable majority then no way the the liberals or secularists will be able to stop pakistan from being a islamic or non secular state.

there is absolutely no hue over this matter in masses,its just a bunch of bloody secular filth which has roots in media trying hard to somehow convince people but they have been doomed since they began their campaign,no one to listen to these losers

 

[Mughal1]

DO QOMI NAZRIYA

http://www.parwez.tv/dowquominazaria.html


79 Surah an Nazi'at Ayah 01 To 05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TqPVfiWabw&feature=related
79 Surah an Nazi'at Ayah 06 To 26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hheis2gHcSk&feature=related

 

[Mughal1]

His speech to teh first constituent assembly and 100% authentic unlike the death bed stories about khilafat-e-rashda system.. and teh speech about banking model is about that model only... im not in favour of forcing islam on teh state but im against the current economic model of numbers and credit....
thats shud be enuff for his vision about pakistan ..

also his appearance.... he is wearing western clothes.... so if u ask any islamic scholar he says imitating what non muslims wear is not permissable... and wil quaotes numerous hadiths and ayats...

isnt that enuff proof he was secular...

two nation theories still stands... two nation theory has nothing to do with islamic state.. it has to do with muslim majority and hindu majority political rights... just liek currentl we have
n-nation theory in pakistan.... where balochis are fightng for their rights and sindhis cry for theirs and muhajris in karachi demand theirs, hazara ppl etc etc etc

Dear Adnan aplm, there is no doubt that sovereignty only and only belongs to Allah as far as the quran is concerned. However, the quran gives us basic constitution eg goals, guidelines, rights and responsibilities, rules and regulations.

This acts as a framework within which muslim are free to have their own goals, guidelines, rights and responsibilities and rules and regulations as a single community and within this framework individuals have the right to have their own goals, guidelines and rights and responsibilities or rules and regulations.

Anything that contradicts this framework can be clearly proven from the quran as unislamic. This also means all so called hadith and fiqh based shariat that was invented for kings and rulers by mullahs is also not acceptable.

In short islamic goals within which ummah is free to live as it likes are freedom, justice, fairness, compassion, brotherhood, progress and prosperity. Only and only this framework decides whether ummah is living and working according to islam or not. So any goal ummah sets for itself must not contradict the divine goals.

Likewise there are rules to regulate ummah or society eg murder is forbidden so ummah is not allowed to make any law that contradict this guideline. This is why no fatwa of anyone can be accepted as genuine islam if it contradicts any divine guideline and the same is true about any hadith attributed to the prophet. It is because the prophet cannot be expected to oppose the quran.

So most of shariah is not islam at all but invented stuff that is anti islam when examined properly by rules of examination. So there is quite a lot of misunderstanding about islam and islamic rule. Islam is not a rule by any person but Allah therefore all are subjected to the very same rule or standard ie all are equal before divine rule of law, constitution or law.

Unless people have ability to understand this much they cannot see what is wrong with ideas that are promoted by many muslims due to their ignorance about islam. Islam is not a tradition but a rule of law. Rule of law is mostly about setting limits that are not to be transgressed by anyone or society will break down. Likewise limits must be proper that make society work and not stupid, anti social that do not let society come into existence or do not let it survive and instead destroy it.

Mullaism is a concept or ideology whereby people turn deen in to mazhab and then divide rule of law and rule of religion into two separate spheres ie cause split between worldly affairs and religious affairs known as church and state separation in secular christian countries. This is imperialist trick to use and abuse people at both ends ie in the name of loyalty to king and country and in the name of loyal to god and his agents ie mullahs.

Most stuff was borrowed from jews and many jews turned muslims just to bring down rule of the quran from within as they brought down rule of toraat, zaboor and injeel before it. Jews always conspired against islam since the time of the prophet. However they did not succeed in life time of the prophet. The quranic rule did not last long after him. Rule became malukiyat whereby mullahs became rulers in the name of religion and kings became rulers in the name of country.

In india sir seyyid challenged mullahs' interpretation of the quran whereby they used to fool masses and iqbal challenged their concept of islam whereby they separated islam between religion and state. All this is very nicely explained by dr israr and alaama parwez. Dr tahir qadri has also talked about it as well as others.

So mullaiyat is nothing new. The simple thing to remember is mullahs are those who are quick at denouncing others as kaafirs. Ulema do not do that, they accept differences in opinions as normal human evolution of thought process. They are not dogmatic and ritualistic.

Khilaafat is simply a concept whereby ummah is organised on basis of quranic precepts to manage all its affairs as a single community. It is not about being ruled by anyone. Even the prophet was not a ruler but one of the people ruled by the same law as his followers. Anywhere we see the prophet is given any status that opposes this is trick by mullahs to show that prophet was like a mullah or a king. All this is against the spirit of the quran which tells us it is not right even for a prophet that when Allah gives him book that he should claim rule for himself. All this is done so that these corrupt people could justify that they have the right to rule the people because the prophet did it too.

Western style secular democracy is anti islam because there in is no concept of set divine limits. This is where I disagree strongly with idea of dr ghamdi. His idea is that people are naturally bestowed with divine precepts. Had this been the case then people ought not to cause and accept all these destructive and terrible painful deeds but they do and we can clearly see all this all around us. Also if it was natural thing then why such things are so much emphasized in the quran? It is because what is supposed to be natural comes naturally nobody needs to be told about it. Animals do things naturally read no book and need no book to advise them. So if the people were left to their own devices they would not find the way hence the need for divine guidance. Moreover in the western democracy the concept that some people rule others is anti islam. Islam is all about brotherhood no masters no slaves, no rulers and no ruled. Just a family living by agreed upon house rules with sanctions against any member that breaks them.

regards and all the best

 

[mjzone786]

mashallah indian bhout comment kartay hain idhr (clap):lol::lol::lol:

 

[SINGH KING]

what u gonna do with hindus, sikhs and other minorities

there is absolutely no hue over this matter in masses,its just a bunch of bloody secular filth which has roots in media trying hard to somehow convince people but they have been doomed since they began their campaign,no one to listen to these losers

 

[Mughal1]

You are absolutely right. His speech to the assembly is completely secular and as a secular person I can attest to this. I have read the text, however, he has made other speeches, if authentic, would not qualify as secular.

Therefore this debate can not be won. If I was a judge I would render the verdict for secularism considering the fact that as a politician he made speeches depending on the type of audience but the speech made to the lawmakers will carry the most weight.

Dear Unicorn, to know whether speech of jinnah is secular or islamic you need to know islam=deen as well not just secularism and religion. If you know islam, only then we can debate this issue. I know what secularism is and what islam is as a rule of law. So you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Islam is best way for humanity as a whole to live by because islam forces people by way of reason to work sensibly for the good of each other. Islam gives people social structures to be a society, it gives people systems that ensures society works and it guides them to good practices in dealing with each other.

The problem is several folds, lack of education amongst muslim masses about proper islam and interference by mullahism and ruling elite from within muslim quaters. Also nonmuslim masses out of unreal fear that if islam is established anywhere then they will soon be ruled by muslim imperialists as before, which is propaganda by their priestly classes and their ruling elites. The real problem is self interests of nonmuslim priestly and ruling classes because they won't be able to exploit their slaves any more on their terms.

I do acknowledge though that muslim imperialism may be a problem ie as soon as islam rules the hearts and minds of people some stupid muslim will rise to show us who is the world's most powerful man. My hope is that now masses are not easy to control as they were in the past. So unlikely that islamic imperialism will raise its ugly head and damage reputation of islam once more. Of course this fear cannot be eliminated 100% but at least there is no harm in trying islam in relation to all existing systems that are clearly very damaging. In other words we are not doing much better looking at the polarized world out their between rich and poor, powerful and the weak.

Islam is straightforward but people who claim to be muslims are not all that straightforward, if they were we would not be in a situation we find ourselves in today. The other way may be for nonmuslims to accept islamic rule and set the whole thing properly by bypassing existing muslims. It is because good system is good for anyone to adopt, it is not monopoly of muslims only.

regards and all the best.

 

[Unicorn]

what u gonna do with hindus, sikhs and other minorities

Minority issue is now not relevant from 15 percent minorities at partition to know four percent in another ten years there will be non.

 

[Unicorn]

Dear Unicorn, to know whether speech of jinnah is secular or islamic you need to know islam=deen as well not just secularism and religion. If you know islam, only then we can debate this issue. I know what secularism is and what islam is as a rule of law. So you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Islam is best way for humanity as a whole to live by because islam forces people by way of reason to work sensibly for the good of each other. Islam gives people social structures to be a society, it gives people systems that ensures society works and it guides them to good practices in dealing with each other.

The problem is several folds, lack of education amongst muslim masses about proper islam and interference by mullahism and ruling elite from within muslim quaters. Also nonmuslim masses out of unreal fear that if islam is established anywhere then they will soon be ruled by muslim imperialists as before, which is propaganda by their priestly classes and their ruling elites. The real problem is self interests of nonmuslim priestly and ruling classes because they won't be able to exploit their slaves any more on their terms.

I do acknowledge though that muslim imperialism may be a problem ie as soon as islam rules the hearts and minds of people some stupid muslim will rise to show us who is the world's most powerful man. My hope is that now masses are not easy to control as they were in the past. So unlikely that islamic imperialism will raise its ugly head and damage reputation of islam once more. Of course this fear cannot be eliminated 100% but at least there is no harm in trying islam in relation to all existing systems that are clearly very damaging. In other words we are not doing much better looking at the polarized world out their between rich and poor, powerful and the weak.

Islam is straightforward but people who claim to be muslims are not all that straightforward, if they were we would not be in a situation we find ourselves in today. The other way may be for nonmuslims to accept islamic rule and set the whole thing properly by bypassing existing muslims. It is because good system is good for anyone to adopt, it is not monopoly of muslims only.

regards and all the best.

Mr. Mughal me as a practicing secularist and you as a practicing Muslim I believe we are pears.

The only way one could examine what did Jinnah wanted is to read what he wrote and listen what he said. You cannot find out his intention in Islam, specially, when at least his speech to the assembly is highly secular in nature.If that speech did not existed than it might be a different story. You just cannot take that speech and turn into Islamic in nature no matter how hard you try or how deep you look into scriptures.

 

[hans]

With due respect,

When you look at a Strong, fully growen tree.. you also have to appreciate its foundation in this cased its Roots.

Now your Question about Our beloved Quaid Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, concept about being secular or not.... why not look back towards
All India Muslim league.

Now I do hope you have passed Class 7 History books, you might find a Name .... Called the first President of All India Muslim League.
His name Sir Adamji Peerbhoy

It must be noted that Sir Adamji Peerbhoy who was born in 1846 and died in 1913 had seen the period of four Dais [47th Dai Sayedna Abdul Qadar Najmuddin (1840 to 1885 - 45 years), 48th Dai Sayedna Abdul Husain Husamuddin (1885 to 1891- 6 years), 49th Dai, Sayedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (1891 to 1906-14 years) and 50th Dai Sayedna Abdullah Badruddin (1906 to 1915 – 7 years)]

Getting my Point, Over here we are talking about so called Pure Islam, and what you as your First Muslim President of Muslim league a Dawoodi Bohra. OOOHHHHH

What that is not all We have Sir Aga Khan another All india Muslim Leage President 1909 (Sect Aga Khani)....OOOHHHHHH !!!!

Our Beloved Jinnah Sahib took presidency for the first time in 1916..... Further in 1916 Mahomedali Jinnahbhai was a Documented Shia. Parents name Mithibai and Jinnahbhai Poonja. Jinnah's ancestors were Hindu Rajputs; his grandfather had converted to Islam. Jinnah's family belonged to the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shi'a Islam, though Jinnah later converted to Twelver Khoja Shi'a Islam. You need proof.... Ruttie Petit Jinnah died. It was her 29th birthday. She was buried on February 22 in Khoja Shia Isna'Ashari Cemetery, Mazgaon, Bombay according to Muslim rites. Jinnah sat like a statue throughout the funeral but when asked to throw earth on the grave, he broke down and wept.

Confusion about Jinnah being a Shia Muslim or a Muslim at large took place after 14th Aug 1947. If we are talking about being Secular or Pure Muslman... which Islamic Trajectory are we talking about? If you are talking about Taliban Islam, there was non. if you are talking about Islam that prevail in Pakistan now, its not that.... Question is which Islamic Concept are you talking about?

Further we should not forget speech made by the Quaid-e-Azam in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947.

Further we should not forget Objectives Resolution adopted on 12 March 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.

Our Quaid Died September 11, 1948, his signature are not present on the First Objectives Resolution, or even its Drafts.

Brother my question is .. very simple.... What kind of Islam are we talking about?


Let me be a bit brave at this point.... Pakistan was made for Muslims. But some where along the beaten path we have pushed Pakistan into the folds of Radicalization. its founder members were liberal. Some where some how due to selective breeding we have become Monsters.