The fiction of the Ideology of Pakistan: YLH

[El Sidd]

@Oscar @Horus

Here is a challenge, thrown on FB, from my dear friend Yasser Latif Hamdani to his detractors including your kind selves

I challenge my detractors on PDF to call for an investigation into my finances and show one cent that I have received from any foreign sponsor. Nor am I an Ahmadi. One does not have to be Ahmadi alone to speak sense. Some people can’t argue on the content but come up with baseless lies. If these detractors would only reveal their addresses I would sue them for defamation but they won’t because they hide behind their online avatars impugning other people's reputations and integrity

Regards

PS: As is my friends wont, the challenge was somewhat more fiestily worded, however this being a family forum, I have without due authorisation, edited the content to make it compatible with PDF's gentlemanly discourse.

Ask him to free the slaves.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Ask him to free the slaves.

That exactly is what he is trying to do ...
Trying to Free the slaves of "Mutalia Pakistan" ; state-sponsored religious-chauvinistic indoctrination via distortion

 

[SQ8]

Intelligent ? Maybe
Mature ? Definitely not

Then lets agree to not engage in discourse.. since I consider you a sanctimonious fellow at best.

@Oscar @Horus

Here is a challenge, thrown on FB, from my dear friend Yasser Latif Hamdani to his detractors including your kind selves

I challenge my detractors on PDF to call for an investigation into my finances and show one cent that I have received from any foreign sponsor. Nor am I an Ahmadi. One does not have to be Ahmadi alone to speak sense. Some people can’t argue on the content but come up with baseless lies. If these detractors would only reveal their addresses I would sue them for defamation but they won’t because they hide behind their online avatars impugning other people's reputations and integrity

Regards

PS: As is my friends wont, the challenge was somewhat more fiestily worded, however this being a family forum, I have without due authorisation, edited the content to make it compatible with PDF's gentlemanly discourse.

Anyone can sue anyone in court, and considering he is a lawyer he feels comfortable in his field.
Is/ was , Father was.. that is just irrelevant as such and his denial makes it even more convoluted.. he could just ignore the responses.
Regarding his allegiance, Ill trust the source I know ... there is no onus to believe it.
Ive already disagreed on the basis of his content alone.

 

[El Sidd]

That exactly is what he is trying to do ...
Trying to Free the slaves of "Mutalia Pakistan" ; state-sponsored religious-chauvinistic indoctrination via distortion

Sometimes Messiahs are slaughtered in Front of the slaves they were sent to Set free.

But

I meant this guy is as Much a Mullah as the others so he should let the slaves free first before talking about Finances.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sometimes Messiahs are slaughtered in Front of the slaves they were sent to Set free.

But

I meant this guy is as Much a Mullah as the others so he should let the slaves free first before talking about Finances.

Victims of Mutalia Pakistan are Stockholm Syndrome addled,
You can't be blamed

 

[I.R.A]

No my friend, it is not an attack on Islam ... You have your own understanding of Islam which is not compatible with secularism. The Founding Fathers of this Nation clearly disagreed with your version of Islam ... What you are describing as an "attack" on Islam was declared perfectly Islamic by none other than Allama Muhammad Iqbal himself.

Are we talking about same Allama sahib who once said "juda ho deen siyasat say to reh jati hay chengaizi"? and "Deen e mullah fasad fi sabillilah".

Iqbal may have had an understanding of difference between Mazhab and Deen after all?

What actually is the motive and end goal of secularism?

Secularism is actually Islamic idea, when you talk of equal rights, opportunities, welfare, prosperity, state being the guardian of its citizens ...... its all Islam. But when you try separating Quranic principles from a Muslim state and try calling that state a secular state ...... that actually is not only an attack on Islam but sheer hypocrisy. My understanding of Islam vs generally accepted understanding of secularism ......... bring something which is new to Islam and beneficial for the people.

Which one is better 1.Theocracy 2. Mutated Secular God less State or 3. Real Islamic state following Quranic principles ...?

The advocates of secularism in Pakistan only whine about minority rights, I said whine because they don't have grip on understanding of minority rights under Islam, it is as if they know nothing of other rights ...... their fight is against molvi Islam ........ the faces you see debating all this are Mravi Sarmad vs Mufti Naeem.

 

[Adonis]

Are we talking about same Allama sahib who once said "juda ho deen siyasat say to reh jati hay chengaizi"? and "Deen e mullah fasad fi sabillilah".

Iqbal may have had an understanding of difference between Mazhab and Deen after all?

What actually is the motive and end goal of secularism?

1. Secularism is actually Islamic idea, when you talk of equal rights, opportunities, welfare, prosperity, state being the guardian of its citizens ...... its all Islam. But when you try separating Quranic principles from a Muslim state and try calling that state a secular state ...... that actually is not only an attack on Islam but sheer hypocrisy. My understanding of Islam vs generally accepted understanding of secularism ......... bring something which is new to Islam and beneficial for the people.

Which one is better 1.Theocracy 2. Mutated Secular God less State or 3. Real Islamic state following Quranic principles ...?

The advocates of secularism in Pakistan only whine about minority rights, I said whine because they don't have grip on understanding of minority rights under Islam, it is as if they know nothing of other rights ...... their fight is against molvi Islam ........ the faces you see debating all this are Mravi Sarmad vs Mufti Naeem.

1. Absolute B.S - Secularism means equal rights for every human being irrespective of their believes, faith, religion, gender, caste or creed. In fact, Islam is the opposite to secularism. Tell me in which Islamic country, all people (non-Muslims included) have equal rights? Isn't it that non-Muslims had to pay extra tax in olden days to follow their religion (Jaziya)? Do women have equal right as men in Islam? Which Islamic country thinks is a Welfare state..it's either autocratic or Monarchic in nature.

 

[I.R.A]

First try to understand the difference between Islam ........ and Muslim majority countries. Theocracy and Islamic state based on Quranic principles, Islam as a Deen and Islam practiced today as a religion.

In fact, Islam is the opposite to secularism.

Bring something to convince me ........ yes Islam is totally opposite of today's Godless secularism only when it comes to making the state a Godless state .......

Isn't it that non-Muslims had to pay extra tax in olden days to follow their religion (Jaziya)?

Isn't it that Muslims are required to pay a tax called Zakat that is higher than Jizya?

In any modern country almost everyone is required to pay tax ........ and its application is sometimes unjust.

Islam still wins this when it levies lower taxes on minorities living in an Islamic country compared to tax levied on the Muslim populace.

Do women have equal right as men in Islam?

You obviously have no idea of Muslim women's role in earlier Islam. Let me reiterate, Messenger married a business woman as his first wife, that marriage lasted till Khadeeja passed away. Muslim women accompanied their husbands and Muslim armies to battlefields. Quran specifically mentions "women are not your property".

Rights for women are not measured by how much flesh they are made to expose.

Which Islamic country thinks is a Welfare state..it's either autocratic or Monarchic in nature.

I am not cheer leading any Muslim country of today ......... I want them to change to real Islamic states.

 

[Desert Fox]

https://dailytimes.com.pk/329072/the-fiction-of-the-ideology-of-pakistan/

On the Higher Education Commission’s data base, one finds two PhD theses on Jinnah, one discussing his leadership skills and the other his brief time as the Governor General of Pakistan. Both are quite mediocre, badly researched and based on literature review of only a piddling subsection of the biographies on Mr Jinnah. It would seem that PhD on Jinnah is unofficially banned in Pakistan.

There is a very good reason for it and I only discovered it once I started researching my second book on the life of Mr Jinnah, which is a detailed biography of our founding father to be published by an international publisher. Since this was a very serious undertaking, I spent the last several months going through the great man’s speeches and letters right from his days in Lincoln’s Inn to his dying day.

The answer to why the committed secularist, Indian Nationalist and the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity turned into an apostle of Muslim Nationalism is there in that primary record for those who want to actually research it. It also contains conclusive answers to what kind of state Jinnah wanted and what his ideas were with respect to citizenship, constitution and organisation of the state. No the answer cannot be found in snippets and out of context quotes but you have to see the documents in a continuity as a lawyer would in the process of due diligence. The reason why PhDs on Jinnah are actively discouraged is because any honest perusal of the record would bury the fiction of the ideology of Pakistan as it is taught in Pakistani schools, colleges and universities. This ignorance and sheer dishonesty is not limited to Pakistan based professors and PhD scholars. Many a professor emeritus of political science who apparently taught at European Universities also suffer from this delusion that they can comment on history without looking at primary source record.

This legal fiction called the ideology of Pakistan has made it into our constitutional oaths but any attempts to get the courts or the parliament to define what it means inevitably fail. Ideology of Pakistan means essentially what General Ziaul Haq thought it was which is that Pakistan was created as an ideological Islamic state. Misquotes, fabricated quotes and quotes out of context are taken to prove this position and meanings are extracted from them which had nothing to do with the circumstances that led to the partition of India and the resultant twin Dominions that replaced British India as successor states. It has been invented to control constitutional democracy in Pakistan and give unelected institutions a whip to beat up elected ones from time to time.

It certainly has nothing to do with Jinnah, whose one major consistent theme was the unfettered march of humanity — something that he harked back to throughout his life in a multitude of his speeches. He did not believe for example that any one generation could bind the next for all times to come. This was the essence of Jinnah’s political thought — that nothing is static in politics and that the march of humanity will not be thwarted. A militarised Pakistani state at odds with its neighbour and non-identical fraternal twin was not what Jinnah had in mind. The mutual hatred and constant interference in each other’s affairs was not Jinnah’s idea of India post partition. This was not Jinnah’s idea of a Pakistani state.

A modern democratic state does not need an ideology of any kind to exist. Pakistan has to be what the people of Pakistan decide in consonance with Pakistan’s international obligations. It cannot be a shibboleth or an outmoded idea of national identity that can hold a country of 210 million people together. It is service delivery, economics, and constitutional rights. You cannot continue to impose this fiction of ideology of Pakistan on the state indefinitely, just as you cannot go on jailing legislators as was the case with Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir, both gentlemen who I have huge disagreements but who are the elected representatives of the people. To treat them as they were treated in Peshawar recently is the defeat of reason, logic and power of persuasion. If you are going to drive people to desperation, you will force them into roles that they have so far abjured. By adopting Constitutional method of elections and democracy, Dawar and Wazir were putting their faith in the state to mature and finally become a democracy. By denying them their liberty you are undermining their freedom.

The powers that be in Pakistan need to rethink their hackneyed narrative and instead think of history, ideology and identity holistically, informed by real history and facts. No one can undo a country that has nuclear weapons, except its own people. Do not alienate our own people for god’s sake. Bury this fiction of the ideology of Pakistan and instead focus on making Pakistan a progressive and liberal state. Nothing will serve our people and indeed our religion better than a Pakistan that is at peace within and without, at home and abroad. This can be the only ideology that Pakistan can truly have because everything else is necessarily a personal choice and the personal faith of an individual. I did not say it, the founding father did. Time to follow to what he actually said instead of concocting a historical fiction that has no roots in reality.

Regards

What the hell is this guy even talking about?

Pakistan WAS founded for the Muslims of north India, therefore it was never intended to be a "secular" "liberal" or "progressive" state (whatever the hell that even means, even these people don't know).

If Jinnah was advocating for secularism then of all the places he could have formed his secular state he chose a Muslim majority region for the cause of Muslims to have their own state free from the intervention of the Hindu majority? Contradictory much?

A secular state does not care which religion becomes the majority, whether hindu, Christian, Muslim or even Atheism.

But because Pakistan was founded as a state for the Muslims of North India then by default it was never a secular state to begin with because its founding fathers made a preference for a certain religious group.

The day Pakistan becomes a "secular" state is the day it will cease to exist because to do so would undermine its very foundation.

PS next time someone advocates for turning Pakistan secular, just remember who else desires the same:

https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...army-chief-bipin-rawat/videoshow/66879787.cms

@Psychic @LeGenD @Metanoia @OsmanAli98
@django

 

[Yankee-stani]

What the hell is this guy even talking about?

Pakistan WAS founded for the Muslims of north India, therefore it was never intended to be a "secular" "liberal" or "progressive" state (whatever the hell that even means, even these people don't know).

If Jinnah was advocating for secularism then of all the places he could have formed his secular state he chose a Muslim majority region for the cause of Muslims to have their own state free from the intervention of the Hindu majority? Contradictory much?

A secular state does not care which religion becomes the majority, whether hindu, Christian, Muslim or even Atheism.

But because Pakistan was founded as a state for the Muslims of North India then by default it was never a secular state to begin with because its founding fathers made a preference for a certain religious group.

The day Pakistan becomes a "secular" state is the day it will cease to exist because to do so would undermine its very foundation.

PS next time someone advocates for turning Pakistan secular, just remember who else desires the same:

https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...army-chief-bipin-rawat/videoshow/66879787.cms

@Psychic @LeGenD @Metanoia @OsmanAli98
@django

Pakistan just needs a unified nationalism not the provincial bumpkin crap spewed also tackle we wuz arabs and the wahhabist crap and Pakistan will be great again

 

[M. Sarmad]

Are we talking about same Allama sahib who once said "juda ho deen siyasat say to reh jati hay chengaizi"? and "Deen e mullah fasad fi sabillilah".

Iqbal may have had an understanding of difference between Mazhab and Deen after all?

What actually is the motive and end goal of secularism?

Secularism is actually Islamic idea, when you talk of equal rights, opportunities, welfare, prosperity, state being the guardian of its citizens ...... its all Islam. But when you try separating Quranic principles from a Muslim state and try calling that state a secular state ...... that actually is not only an attack on Islam but sheer hypocrisy. My understanding of Islam vs generally accepted understanding of secularism ......... bring something which is new to Islam and beneficial for the people.

Which one is better 1.Theocracy 2. Mutated Secular God less State or 3. Real Islamic state following Quranic principles ...?

The advocates of secularism in Pakistan only whine about minority rights, I said whine because they don't have grip on understanding of minority rights under Islam, it is as if they know nothing of other rights ...... their fight is against molvi Islam ........ the faces you see debating all this are Mravi Sarmad vs Mufti Naeem.

Yes, we are talking about the same Allama Iqbal who is hailed as "Mufakkir e Pakistan" ... Regarding separation of state and church, he categorically stated :

".. the structure of Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view..."

As for those who whine about minority rights because they don't have grip on understanding of minority rights in Islam (sic) , they do it because they see minorities being persecuted in Muslim states, in the name of Islam. Instead of blaming them, you should blame those who are actually responsible for that interpretation and implementation of Islam which leads to discrimination and persecution of religious minorities in (some) Muslim states ...

 

[TMA]

Yes, we are talking about the same Allama Iqbal who is hailed as "Mufakkir e Pakistan" ... Regarding separation of state and church, he categorically stated :

".. the structure of Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view..."

As for those who whine about minority rights because they don't have grip on understanding of minority rights in Islam (sic) , they do it because they see minorities being persecuted in Muslim states, in the name of Islam. Instead of blaming them, you should blame those who are actually responsible for that interpretation and implementation of Islam which leads to discrimination and persecution of religious minorities in (some) Muslim states ...

So you have stumbled upon the duality on Allama Iqbal's thought then....just like many others...question is which do we take? His Hindi and Dari works or his English works as pre-eminent....??Or is there a third way of reconciling them??

 

[M. Sarmad]

If Jinnah was advocating for secularism then of all the places he could have formed his secular state he chose a Muslim majority region for the cause of Muslims to have their own state free from the intervention of the Hindu majority? Contradictory much?

A secular state does not care which religion becomes the majority, whether hindu, Christian, Muslim or even Atheism.

But because Pakistan was founded as a state for the Muslims of North India then by default it was never a secular state to begin with because its founding fathers made a preference for a certain religious group.

The day Pakistan becomes a "secular" state is the day it will cease to exist because to do so would undermine its very foundation.

PS next time someone advocates for turning Pakistan secular, just remember who else desires the same:

https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...army-chief-bipin-rawat/videoshow/66879787.cms

@Psychic @LeGenD @Metanoia @OsmanAli98
@django

Another perspective:

Jinnah believed that in a Hindu majority India, Muslims might not be able to practice their religion freely. So, he demanded that Muslims should be given fixed representation in the central legislature to make sure that the Hindu majority is unable to impose their will on Muslim minority through legislation. The Indian Congress did not accept Jinnah's demands and India got partitioned consequently.


In Pakistan, the Muslim majority after the death of Jinnah, treated the Non Muslim minorities exactly the same way Jinnah had feared Muslim minority would be treated in a Hindu majority India .... India has proven itself better than Pakistan as it's Constitution does not discriminate against Muslims (or any other minority for that matter) ... Jinnah had a vision, he had a dream, but we failed him ...

So you have stumbled upon the duality on Allama Iqbal's thought then....just like many others...question is which do we take? His Hindi and Dari works or his English works as pre-eminent....??Or is there a third way of reconciling them??

Prose over poetry of course as poetry can be interpreted in many different ways
So, his English works/lectures in this case


As for 'reconciliation', Iqbal believed that although what Turkey did (i.e declared itself secular by separating state and church) was allowed in Islam, but looking at western countries and how Nationalism and Secularism caused great destruction (i.e. WW1), it was undesirable..

 

[Desert Fox]

Another perspective:

Jinnah believed that in a Hindu majority India, Muslims might not be able to practice their religion freely. So, he demanded that Muslims should be given fixed representation in the central legislature to make sure that the Hindu majority is unable to impose their will on Muslim minority through legislation. The Indian Congress did not accept Jinnah's demands and India got partitioned consequently.


In Pakistan, the Muslim majority after the death of Jinnah, treated the Non Muslim minorities exactly the same way Jinnah had feared Muslim minority would be treated in a Hindu majority India .... India has proven itself better than Pakistan as it's Constitution does not discriminate against Muslims (or any other minority for that matter) ... Jinnah had a vision, he had a dream, but we failed him ...




Prose over poetry of course as poetry can be interpreted in many different ways
So, his English works/lectures in this case

This is true and I agree with you. This is in fact very sad and tragic as I have personally seen this. But this has everything to do with the mentality of our people than with Islam or secularism. Islam does not condone this kind of behavior.

 

[M. Sarmad]

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" (In Jinnah's own words)... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were/are diametrically opposed in their interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal believed was the "true spirit" of Islam, that was considered "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah where he has talked about Islam, but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah's interpretation/understanding of Islam with Mullahs' (which is opposite to Jinnah's interpretation) ... As a result, one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... ... The truth is that Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... of a progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. not western but Islamic ... !!!

Dr. Javed Iqbal (Allama Iqbal`s son) explains this in the following words ...... it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state.



============

"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.” - Muhammad Ali Jinnah ...




We want Jinnah's Pakistan where no citizen is discriminated against on the basis of religion, where Jinnah's Islamic ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind are properly implemented ... Where religion is a matter of personal choice and not the business of the state ...


You don't have to remove Islam from the constitution to create Jinnah's Pakistan. The 1951 Libyan Constitution is a perfect example of what Jinnah wanted for Pakistan .....

The 1951 Libyan Constitution proclaims Islam as the state religion but formally sets out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations "without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions"

Islam and Secularism are indeed compatible ..