Pakistan, Turkey friendship rooted in history: Ayaz

[Joe Shearer]

Im sorry but the bold part I highligted shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Ataturk's vision is not in ruins and wont be. Erdogan understood that no matter what those ideas are what make up the country. After the coup everyone came back to those ideas and that vision. Current defeat of the Army? What are you talking about. Im sorry but please post things as if its facts when you have no knowledge of what your saying.

I stand by every word, comma and full stop of what I have written.

 

[Baybars Han]

I stand by every word, comma and full stop of what I have written.

It doesn't really matter if you stand by it or not. You simply don't have the knowledge about the things you wrote. That professional tag doesn't really change anything as it has no status. The point is you never stated an opinion on which I can agree or disagree. You stated something like a fact which is wrong.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It doesn't really matter if you stand by it or not. You simply don't have the knowledge about the things you wrote. That professional tag doesn't really change anything as it has no status. The point is you never stated an opinion on which I can agree or disagree. You stated something like a fact which is wrong.

That is what you say. So how does your assertion have any more weight than mine?

Actually don't bother to reply. Whether I am right or wrong can be tested by readers by independently referring to opinions and strategic evaluations, and they really do not need to start doing so because you think I am wrong. Those who wish to check would have done so anyway; those who do not wish to check will not now want to do so thanks to your post.

Your opinions really have no credibility. Nothing that you have said, or that is recorded about you, seems to indicate that you have any particular claim to expertise. So why are you wasting time?

 

[Farhan Bohra]

@hellfire twe
@SarthakGanguly

A meaningless, vapid thread.

I noted with some amusement @hellfire 's enthusiasm on discovering this aspect of Jinnah. Ataturk was a very strong influence on him, and my amusement is due both to his lack of awareness of this very basic characteristic, and equally to the ignorance of all on this thread of the direct and fundamental contradiction encapsulated in this personal history.

When Gandhi supported the Ali Brothers in the Khilafat Movement, it was Jinnah who warned him, in vehement terms, not to introduce religion into the body politic. Look up that dire warning, and read for yourself the force and passion with which this essentially secular person cautioned Gandhi. We can safely say that this terrible step by Gandhi laid the foundation for the forthcoming alliance between the conservative Muslim and the ulama and the Congress, an alliance that led to their calling Pakistan Paleetistan, and jeering at Jinnah as the Kaffir-e-Azam. One of the main culprits was Maulana Maudoodi, about whom my limited vocabulary will fail to do justice; only the acid pen of a Yassir Latif Hamdani can adequately deal with it.

Meanwhile what has been described in a brilliant word as the Muslim 'salariat', led by the graduates of the Aligarh Muslim University, lined up with the Muslim League, as they saw a direct competition developing between them and educated Hindus for the loaves and fishes of office. They were leaderless and ineffective, except for British efforts to maintain their presence with tactful attention to the rules, and a positive disposition towards Muslims, until Jinnah returned from his self-imposed exile in Britain, upon which the movement caught fire and moved from strength to strength. It was at this point that the British Viceroys, from Linlithgow onwards, heaved a monumental sigh of relief and hauled up the Muslim League to a position of parity with the Congress, led, as always, by a completely unpredictable and idiosyncratic Gandhi.

It is interesting to note what a huge impact on the sub-continent these two Kutchis had.

To return to the point, Jinnah's vision was close to Ataturk's vision; both lie in ruins now. Ataturk has been betrayed by Erdogan and the return of Islamism to Turkey, and the current defeat of the Army, not necessarily a secularist Army, but possibly one affiliated to a different strand of Islamism, one opposed to Erdogan. Jinnah was betrayed in very short order; the nascent state left him to die in a broken-down ambulance, and soon moved to the Basic Objects resolution, which betrayed all his hopes and aspirations for his nation, including his faith in a confederation once the bitterness was over, and to the renegade Maududi's persecution of the Ahmedis, which led to a sentence of death for several crimes, a sentence never executed.

As a staunch admirer of Jinnah, not a blind admirer, but one who sees his greatness and his vision with admiration, while saddened at the loss of his great mind to the greater cause of south Asian progress and development for a narrow purpose which today makes no sense whatsoever, I am also wholly contemptuous of these hedge scholars who seek to co-opt him and his charismatic memory for their own narrow purposes.

A few days ago, a senior, sober, thoughtful member put up a book review on Churchill and the Muslim world; I forget the name. It was a brilliant review, by an obviously scholastically accomplished faculty member at LUMS, which might easily be described as IIM Lahore. I have already pointed out to a select few the harsh and dismissive terms in which that author deals with the illusions that our little shallow students have been hurling at us with the accompaniment of football fan vocabularies and barnyard imitations. Why @hellfire and @SarthakGanguly (whom I respect intellectually and socially as much as I detest his political alignment) bother to get into the drain to fight these battles I have yet to understand. I hope I never do.

I dont think there is any commonality between Ataturk and Jinnah.
Ataturk was nationalist and secular. Know the danger of keeping Islam in politics.

While in totally reverse, Jinnah brought religion in politics and even demanded separate electorate. Sorry, but Jinnah supported the Two Nation Theory, and its a disgrace to call his vision close to Ataturk .

Dont you think? these guys were opportunist that even dumped there nationalism into gutter?

A man in 1904 write "Sare Jahan se accha hindustan humara", and after Tagore won the Nobel, suddenly he started to say we cant live with these black ugly people?

Jinnah wanted a state on haterness, and he got one.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I dont think there is any commonality between Ataturk and Jinnah.
Ataturk was nationalist and secular. Know the danger of keeping Islam in politics.

While in totally reverse, Jinnah brought religion in politics and even demanded separate electorate. Sorry, but Jinnah supported the Two Nation Theory, and its a disgrace to call his vision close to Ataturk .

Dont you think? these guys were opportunist that even dumped there nationalism into gutter?

A man in 1904 write "Sare Jahan se accha hindustan humara", and after Tagore won the Nobel, suddenly he started to say we cant live with these black ugly people?

Jinnah wanted a state on haterness, and he got one.

You have no idea about Jinnah and what he represented. If you had read my post, you would have known who brought religion into politics. And if you had read your history, you would have known who started the TNT.

Do your homework before you make shallow comments on the forum.

 

[Farhan Bohra]

You have no idea about Jinnah and what he represented. If you had read my post, you would have known who brought religion into politics. And if you had read your history, you would have known who started the TNT.

Do your homework before you make shallow comments on the forum.

Shallow comments?

Okey, say it factually and historically, that he not supported Two Nation Theory and separate electorate.

I accept it, if you prove it he wanted a state based on ethnicity not on grounds of religion. Simple as that, otherwise all other things are BS.

And as liberal, if you support Iqbal's and Jinnah's Two Nation Theory, then god save us.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Shallow comments?

Okey, say it factually and historically, that he not supported Two Nation Theory and separate electorate.

I accept it, if you prove it he wanted a state based on ethnicity not on grounds of religion. Simple as that, otherwise all other things are BS.

And as liberal, if you support Iqbal's and Jinnah's Two Nation Theory, then god save us.

I am an atheist, so I do not interfere with God or her work.

 

[Farhan Bohra]

I am an atheist, so I do not interfere with God or her work.

You believe in God or not, it doesnt matter. You love Jinnah and Two Nation Theory , you are a disgrace. But not only that. You actually also disgracing BR Ambedkar's work.

Who was actually worked on problems of different ethnicity and caste, and still he said all can live together.

 

[T-123456]

its a disgrace to call his vision close to Ataturk .

I guess you do not know much about Jinnah,maybe do some research first?

 

[Farhan Bohra]

I am an atheist, so I do not interfere with God or her work.

And please if you love so much about that.

Why you choosing Indian flag? Whose constitution was written by BR Ambedkar, which established on the principle of Nehru and somewhat Gandhi?

BTW, Who love Two Nation Theory and Jinnah already using different flag. And you still have the audacity to use this tricolor? Pathetic.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And please if you love so much about that.

Why you choosing Indian flag? Whose constitution was written by BR Ambedkar, which established on the principle of Nehru and somewhat Gandhi?

BTW, Who love Two Nation Theory and Jinnah already using different flag. And you still have the audacity to use this tricolor? Pathetic.

A false flagger Sanghi pretending to be Muslim questions my antecedents?

 

[Farhan Bohra]

A false flagger Sanghi pretending to be Muslim questions my antecedents?

A Sanghi that admire BR Ambedkar, I must be the first one. Or starting a new revolution.

In both case thats good.
But have some guts, and stop using tricolor. If you believe in something, atleast stand by it. Or you are a hypocrite that love Indian passport and Two Nation Theory at same time.

 

[Hellfire]

I dont think there is any commonality between Ataturk and Jinnah.
Ataturk was nationalist and secular. Know the danger of keeping Islam in politics.

While in totally reverse, Jinnah brought religion in politics and even demanded separate electorate. Sorry, but Jinnah supported the Two Nation Theory, and its a disgrace to call his vision close to Ataturk .

Dont you think? these guys were opportunist that even dumped there nationalism into gutter?

A man in 1904 write "Sare Jahan se accha hindustan humara", and after Tagore won the Nobel, suddenly he started to say we cant live with these black ugly people?

Jinnah wanted a state on haterness, and he got one.

Wow! What books are you reading? Seriously, let know.

You are now cramping my (s)troll so far. Please read about Jinnah, his opposition to Khilafat movement, his distancing himself from Gandhi on the issue as it mixed religion into a purely nationalistic agenda, and the subsequent leadership of Ali Brothers, whose subsequent actions deviated the movement from non violent to violent actions and also, paradoxically, Hindu-Muslim riots at a few places.

It is the same Congress which has till date used the same politics, and brought secularism and communalism into mainstream politcs.

@Joe Shearer Why are you wasting time telling things to those who love ignorance? That is why, I was strolling till you caught me and censured me

@Farhan Bohra oh by the ways, before you attack @Joe Shearer , just ask him his family's (and his) contribution in making a new nation! Also suggest first read, no one is here to teach you or humor your ignorance. I suggested an author in my post earlier, start there.

And if, after my advice to you, you still want to tag him as a disgrace do so with the knowledge that you have absolutely no clue

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Same as you above? Interesting.


Since you seem to be qualified on the subject, what do you think about the works of Syed Nesar Ahmed, especially his views on Khilafat Movement?

My contention, obviously remains, to highlight more of mutualism of political interests and evolution post respective independence, and similarities in the system thereof. By this, I refer to systematic undermining of the secular credentials of the Turk society and the Islamic state set up in Pakistan heading in the same direction, contrary to MA Jinnah's idea of Pakistan (obviously am not qualified to comment on that, he may have had some hidden agenda if one holds your contention in any value) as also the history of subversion of democratic values.

The brotherhood charade is just what it is - a charade.

Why did MA Jinnah oppose the Khilafat movement?

@PaklovesTurkiye Your comments?

@Joe Shearer you might have missed this thread. WAJsal was pulling me on having some fun here

I tried to find it out why MA Jinnah opposed Khilafat movement....This is what I found :-

We can’t look at the Khilafat movement apart from ‘Hijrat movement’ and without keeping into account the fact that British always perceived Muslims in particular a threat to law and order; a perception many Muslim leaders tried to overcome since the 1857 war.

The background of Hijrat movement is that the prominent Mullahs gave fatwas that to save ‘Khilafat’ Jihad against the British is ‘wajib’ (compulsory) but you can’t declare Jihad onto the government you are subject to or paying taxes to. So, the idea was for Muslims to sell their land and move to Afghanistan & then take part in Jihad. So, the simple minded Muslims sold their property & belongings at low prices and migrated towards Afghanistan, only to be rejected.

Jinnah opposed the Khilafat movement for a couple of reasons, including it’s non-secular nature, Khilafat in itself being no more than a symbolic position more corrupted than any other instition & it’s ties to the Hijrat movement which was davastating to the families that took part in it. I believe it was the turning point for him to consider Congress not looking out for the good of ‘Indian Muslims’

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/158034-jinnah-tehrike-khilafat.html

He opposed may be because he was not of the idea of mixing religion with politics....These below links are also interesting regarding that...

https://politicallymuslim.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/khlafat-movement-and-founder-of-pakistan/

http://m-a-jinnah.blogspot.com/2010/04/khilafat-movement-1919-1924.html

 

[Hellfire]

It doesn't really matter if you stand by it or not. You simply don't have the knowledge about the things you wrote. That professional tag doesn't really change anything as it has no status. The point is you never stated an opinion on which I can agree or disagree. You stated something like a fact which is wrong.

LOL ... that is all I can say.