Pakistan Meant To Be A Secular State, Quaid-e-Azam Did Not Want An Islamic Republic, says Haji Adeel of ANP

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

The big news making the headlines today is that Haji Adeel of ANP has spoken out against the Islamic character of the Pakistani state.  Coming out of an official Christmas celebration,  Haji Adeel said:

1.  Pakistan was meant to be a secular state for all people of Pakistan.

2.  Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah did not name Pakistan an Islamic Republic.  Pakistan should become the Republic of Pakistan.

3.  Quaid-e-Azam and Bacha Khan both believed in secularism. 

4.   Denying Non-Muslims of Pakistan the right to become president or prime minister is discriminatory, wrong and against the basic principle of Pakistan.

Haji Adeel was right ofcourse and this is a point that has been driven home by us on PTH many times.   What is interesting is how other politicians reacted. 

The first to react was Liaqat Baloch of the Jamaat-e-Islami who said:  “Haji Adeel’s Party opposed Quaid-e-Azam in referendum”.    I have written in some detail on the issue of referendum and criticized Bacha Khan and his party for it,  but I wonder who gave Jamaat-e-Islami – which opposed Jinnah tooth and nail-  to bring up this point?  Just shows how Jamaat-e-Fitna-e-Maududiat is a party of crooks and hypocrites.

PML-Q’s reaction was middle of the road.   S M Zafar said that Jinnah wanted equality of citizenship and freedom of religion and if that is amounted to secularism,  Jinnah was secular.  He however said that under a parliamentary democracy there is nothing wrong with limiting the office of president to Muslims.   However there was no justification for any other office being closed to non-Muslims (incidentally the constitution does not say the PM has to be a Muslim but is subject to a Muslim only oath). 

Then in came Munawar Hassan of Jamaat-e-Fitna-e-Maududiat.   He  too declared that Haji Adeel was playing with fire.   He then went onto say that “secular lobby” is only basing it’s case on one speech and that too is being misinterpretted-  how does one interpret “religion is a personal faith of an individual”  and there would be no bars against anyone is beyond me.  Furthermore  Jinnah’s entire life as a whole shows and proves quite convincingly that Jinnah stood for equality of citizenship,  freedom of expression, freedom of religion and a democratic polity based on rule of law- this is secularism.

But perhaps the most disgusting reaction came from ANP’s Zahid Khan who completely disowned Haji Adeel and said that Haji Adeel had nothing to do with party policy.  He said further that Khan Abdul Wali Khan was a signatory to the Constitution of 1973 and therefore ANP saw Pakistan as an Islamic Republic. 

How is history distorted in Pakistan and given a spin to suit the Islamists is perhaps indicated by Aaj TV’s “Blackbox documentary” on Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan.   Jinnah had said:  ‘The tolerance and goodwill that the Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back to thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs’

Aaj TV translated this as “Shahinshah Akbar nay jo rawadari ghair muslimo ko dikhai wo hamaray liye namoona nahi

Shame on Aaj TV!  Shame on Aaj TV’s crooked owners and shameless editors.

Picture- Courtesy Mobilink



Filed under Jinnah, Jinnah's Pakistan, Pakistan

106 responses to “Pakistan Meant To Be A Secular State, Quaid-e-Azam Did Not Want An Islamic Republic, says Haji Adeel of ANP

  1. yasserlatifhamdani

    Happy Birthday Mr. Jinnah….

  2. yasserlatifhamdani

    Also… Merry Christmas to all…

  3. Hoss

    I think it is important to start this debate. I am surprised that it came from Haji Adeel, who does not fit the profile.

    We need to see Aitzaz Ahsan and some in the PPP to come forward.
    I think we will see support from the PMLn as for as the minority issue goes.

  4. Jasmine

    It doesn’t matter what he wanted. He’s dead. He’s been dead for sixty years. Pakistan had no other place to go but into a cul-de-sac of Islam. All it could do is restate Islam, restate it again, and again, and again and again.

  5. At a very crucial stage of history, this debate should be started, It will be a real test for all……

    Do U really think PML(N) will support it or hawks like Babar Awan will support this….

  6. ranjit

    The only force which can make Pakistan secular is the military, a la Ataturk………otherwise, the civilians will never be able to change it from a islamic state…… is simply not possible given the obvious public reaction against such a move…….

    Ironically, declaring pakistan a secular state is in the best interest of Islam…… will ensure that pakistan is a successful, modern, prosperous state and it will give a good name to islam………but the question is how to get there in the first place?

  7. yasserlatifhamdani

    Uncle Hossp,

    I had already jump-started it…. when your protege on chowk…. that idiot who you like so much…. was mocking me.

    The debate is now bigger than ever… and I daresay I have a huge contribution.

  8. Hoss

    I have no protégé. I sure would you give you credit but Haji Adeel’s voice is heard by bigger audience. I am sure some day number of people you address would increase but right now Haji Adeel gets the credit for raising the issue at national forum.


    I don’t really know much about Babar Awan and how he is a hawk.
    There are several reasons for the PMLn to support this and one of them is to stay with the political current in Pakistan that is rapidly moving towards the secular or non religious discourse at national level. Haji Adeel coming out shows that the amount of political risk in talking the similar stands has gone down considerably.

  9. Hoss

    the amount of political risk in talking the similar stands has gone down considerably.

    Taking the similar stands…

  10. Pingback: Global Voices Online » Pakistan Was Meant To Be A Secular State

  11. Bloody Civilian


    thanks for highlighting Aaj TV’s shameless lies.

    zahid khan’s comments are not surprising. only recently we had ghulam bilour talking of qadiani conspiracies in the moon sighting controversy.

    munawar hassan’s followers are claiming even jinnah’s cap as evidence in support of their argument. what more could jinnah have done to guard against such crooks?

    it’s the householder who gets burgled that gets blamed for leaving a window open, not necessarily the other way round. and what about the burglar? people take the same attitude in the civilian vs military rule debate in pak.

  12. wajid

    Those jerks can’t even translate a line properly!?

  13. PM

    Let’s start at the top and change the name:

    Islamic Republic of Pakistan

    to be completely honest, to

    Mafia’s Republic of Pakistan

  14. Pingback: Pakistan Meant To Be A Secular State, Quaid-e-Azam Did Not Want An … | Desi Blog

  15. G.Vishvas

    The kuran-centered fascism of islam is the big headache and the big producer of lies (including deceitful translations) and violence and violent emotions and emotionalism.

    Kuran teaches absolutism and totalitarianism. That is its core spirit. A society which does not allow kuran to be criticized is sliding down into fascism everywhere. Pakistan proves this.

    To call a book divine or or perfect or final or uncriticizable is an insult to god’s wisdom and to human intelligence. Such a double insult is not going to go away without causing terrible damage to ourselves and to our relationship to god (some god who is good and wise by definition).

    Muslims are either fools who cannot understand this or they are infatuated into their own manipulated idiocy. It is safe to be an idiot, is it? Islam’s god-concept is faulty to the core. Jinnah was no intelligent or honest man in this regard and went in for (the supposedly glorious) islam.

    Jinnah was a megalomaniac – as per his own plan. He was offered the prime ministership of a united India and he rejected it? That is proof of his not being a megalomaniac? Why forget the islamic component of his megalomania which worked in his soul even as he went about creating a secular image about himself in the company of non-muslims? It was for him more “heroic” and hence more “glorious” to play the leader of a supposedly persecuted minority of self-declared victims.

    How does megalomania and the closely related martyrdom-complex function? Islam and muslims are pathetic examples of this other-worldly misguidance.

  16. Ajay

    The only way to save Pakistan and the countries around it is to divide it. There should be an active effort in this regard.

  17. Milind Kher

    Neither dictatorship nor the Shariah has helped Pakistan in the least.

    It needs to get over these failed models of state and opt for secularism.

  18. PM

    Why is there a sudden surge of Indian bigots.

  19. Vijay Goel

    @PM A long weekend nothing much to do.

  20. Milind Kher

    Judging from Rashid’s comment, Ahmediyas have contributed substantially to Pakistan’s progress, and were held in high esteem by Mr Jinnah.

    What went wrong?

  21. ENKHAN

    ANP leadership lacks intellectuality to come up with such a dubious statement, and thanks to our ‘jahil’ media for propogating it. Jinnah’s Pakistan was meant to be an Islamic state ideologically and in practice, its sad that its psychologically more biased to secular ideology today.

  22. yasserlatifhamdani


    You have the right to your own view…. however wrong it may be.

  23. Anoop

    Indeed the insertion of that one word ‘Islamic’ has done great harm to Pakistan than anyone can imagine. But, wasn’t Pakistan created in the name of Muslims? Who are Muslims? Answer: People who follow Islam. So Pakistan is a country born in the name of people who follow only Islam. None can change this status quo.
    I have no idea why Pakistanis choose to wear their religion on their sleeve. Look at the Cricket team and compare it with Bangladesh’s Cricket team. How come nobody from Bangladesh dons a beard?
    I think it has to do with the liking to impress the “other person” about how pious he or she is.
    Anyway, why does Pakistan’s name has to be debated based on a single person’s (MAJ) view? What about the ordinary Pakistani?? Does he agree?
    I dont think the ordinary Pakistani wants Pakistan to be a secular state and that is not going to change very soon.. Pakistan will be stuck with a name it cannot afford. It needs secularism to integrate with the world inorder for its economy to grow. Its name is standing in the way!
    For example, Saudi Arabia can overtly be Islamic because it can afford to. It has huge oil reserves and the world will conveniently overlook its non-secular society and invest in mainly oil-related industries. But, the question is can Pakistan afford a non-secular Identity?

  24. ENKHAN


    I am aware of my rights. You’re merely advocating the policy that Jinnah never clearly initiated. Jinnah repeatedly stated his stance that Pakistan will be a state where Islamic rules will be practised. Islamic system itself provides safeguards and equal rights to minorities.

    Declaring the state as secular would deny the whole independence movement and the two nation theory. Its a shame how these diabolical statements are promoted in media these days.

  25. yasserlatifhamdani

    Anoop Dawg,

    Pakistan was formed not as a country for Muslims blah blah… but was formed as a result of irreconcilable constitutional differences between the two main parties of the subcontinent. Pakistan was never intended to be a country only for Muslims…. but was envisaged as one solution to the complex constitutional problem of the subcontinent that arose from awkward Muslim majorities in the East and West… in short Pakistan may well have been a Muslim majority equivalent of the Hindu Majority India…

    Pakistan’s Islamic status actually hits the Pakistan movement and its principles at the root. Pakistan Movement was waged around the point that a permanent majority may not dictate to a permanent minority by sheer numbers alone… by going Islamic, Pakistan has done exactly that thereby negating the fundamental principle on which it was founded.

    The rest of the questions are equally ignorant …

    “Look at the Cricket team and compare it with Bangladesh’s Cricket team. How come nobody from Bangladesh dons a beard?”

    How many Pakistani cricketers wore beards from 1947 to 2000? ZERO. As for your other question… there are several South African Muslim cricketers who wear beards…. does that say something about South Africa?

    The only thing you have right in your entire post is that Pakistan cannot afford a non-secular identity? Then what is the point your awkward post that makes no sense and goes in circles?

  26. yasserlatifhamdani


    Jinnah repeatedly said- in 33 odd different speeches that I have quoted on several occasions:

    1. State would be completely impartial to a person’s faith and origin.

    2. Religion would have nothing to do with the business of the state.

    3. Religion of a Pakistani citizen is the personal faith of an individual.

    4. Sovereignty would rest unconditionally with the people of Pakistan without regard for religion caste or creed.

    Furthermore… he appointed a Hindu as the law minister.

    If this is an Islamic state… we are fine with it. But this is not the Islamic state we live in now do we?
    Why don’t you first achieve the abovementioned… stop burning Christians, abducting Hindu women and forcibly converting them to Islam, stop killing Qadiyanis for practising their faith, stop destroying each other’s mosques… before you claim that “Islamic values” protect “minorities”.

  27. Milind Kher


    I agree with you. The minorities must be made to feel safe if Pakistan is to become the nation that Mr Jinnah wanted it to be.

  28. ENKHAN


    Well the points you quoted *do not* necessarily indicate he wanted the state to be secular, as all the above mentioned points can be pratical in a muslim state as well.

    I totally agree that today Pakistan is neither an islamic state nor a secular one, though as far as I observed the reason of this outcry of secularism is childish. Today, Pakistan has provided them almost equal freedom to raise their opinions, to raise issues they’re facing, they’ve the media covering the atrocities and casualties. They are no more discriminated, and I believe the reason of discrimination wasn’t Pakistan being an Islamic state, it was the uneducated herd and mulla-raj that provoked people to eradicate minorities. India is a secular state and we’re all aware of Ahmedabad/Surat incident, nothing of that sort yet happened in Pakistan against Hindus or Christains yet our media is stucked to this lollypop until they suck the whole juice out of it. The problem has to have a resolution, from with-in the system, not to over-rule the foundation of system and the concepts over which the state’s ideology was formed.

  29. yasserlatifhamdani

    “Well the points you quoted *do not* necessarily indicate he wanted the state to be secular, as all the above mentioned points can be pratical in a muslim state as well. ”

    Well to me those points constitute a secular state. If this can be done in an “Islamic” state …. then such an Islamic state would be completely compatible with secularism.

    However…. you know as well as I do that there is no such Islamic state nor has there ever been which promises any of these points. Maybe Pakistan can be the first then. In that case your fight against the Mullahs and fascists who want to make Pakistan a theocracy…. not with us secularists.

  30. enkhan

    Ofcourse, even Jinnah hated the mullah-ism and its still at large. Religion is not a mullah’s property and being an Islamic state, how the title is abused by mullahs for the reason to remove Hindus, Christains and the rest of minorities is wrong I totally agree to that. The condition, in which the head of the state should be muslim has to be revised as well. Though practically the state ideology would be more compatible with its basis if it stays an Islamic Republic, but rectify the problems within system rather than refuting the system, why cant it be the first Islamic state that respects the rights of minorities?? Why do we’ve to remove the Islamic label for that??

  31. yasserlatifhamdani

    I have already answered that. If you can establish an Islamic state which allows Non-muslims to become president and prime minister, which is impartial to a citizen’s faith, which gives everyone equal rights regardless of religion caste or creed and where religion is not the business of the state… then I will wholeheartedly support it.

  32. swapnavasavdutta

    “permanent majority may not dictate to a permanent minority by sheer numbers alone”

    Wasn’t Pakistan going to be a permanant Muslim majority state dictating to permanant non-muslim minority?

    What permanent majority Muslims were promising to permanant minority non-muslims that permanent majority Hindus were not promising to permanent non-Hindu minority?

    If permanent majority Muslims Pakistan have not given permanent minority non-muslims what they wanted from permanent majority Hindus in united India even after 60+
    years, why do you think it will happen now and should this permanent muslim majority state should be given
    infinte amount of time to grant and honour it? May be, if it does not happen after say 100 years, either that
    state should be demolished or should
    state that it can’t grant permanent minorities all it promised and they are
    free to do whatever they want i.e. go
    their separate ways like we did.

  33. swapnavasavdutta

    I think this concept of permanent majority is absurd. Hundred year ago, whites were thought to be permanent majority in US but in 2090, they may not be, it could be Hispanics.
    1000 years ago, Hindus were permanent majority in Kashmir, now they are not.

    And what was permananent majority going to dictate to permanent minority?
    How to dress, how to observe your religion, how to think? What was the fear?

  34. swapnavasavdutta

    Wasn’t INC promising the very such
    “Islamic” state and it still was not
    good enough?

  35. yasserlatifhamdani

    swapnawasdutta sb,

    You are as out of sync with the debate as you are irrelevant to it.

  36. swapnavasavdutta

    May be and that is fine. You are free to ignore or delete my comments.

    But I still fail to see how a problem of permanent majority dictating is solved by creating a Muslim majority state where again by being Muslims, a permanent majority can dictate permanent minority (non-muslims), it
    does not have to be Islamic state just
    like India was not going to be Hindu state.

    Basically you are saying, we Muslims majority is better than you Hindu majority, we as permanent majority will
    not dictate you non-muslims but you as
    Hindu permanent majority will dictate us. Lot of Hindus were not buying that
    argument and they were proven right.

  37. wahmed

    You need to write a book on Jinnah and Secularism.

  38. dr jawwad khan

    really ?? then what about this:

    Quaid-e-Azam said in his presidential address in 1940:
    “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders… The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects of life and our life are different.”

    In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on November 21, 1945, he said:
    “We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.”

    In a message to NWFP Muslim Students Federation in April 1943, he said:
    “You have asked me to give a message. What message can I give you? We have got the great message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”

    In an Eid message to the nation in 1945, he said:
    “Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. Everyone except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code; it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all, to those of each individual; from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet (S) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Holy Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines and rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society in every department of life, collectively and individually.”

    Q: What are the essential features of religion and a religious state?
    A. When I hear the word “religion,” my mind thinks at once, according to the English language and British usage, of private relations between man and God. But I know full well that according to Islam, the word is not restricted to the English connotation. I am neither a Maulwi nor a Mullah, nor do I claim knowledge of theology. But I have studied in my own way the Holy Quran and Islamic tenets. This magnificent book is full of guidance respecting all human life, whether spiritual, or economic, political or social, leaving no aspect untouched.
    Q. What is the distinctive feature of the Islamic state?
    A. There is a special feature of the Islamic state which must not be overlooked. There, obedience is due to God and God alone, which takes practical shape in the observance of the Quranic principles and commands. In Islam, obedience is due neither to a king, nor to a parliament, nor to any other organization. It is the Quranic provisions which determine the limits of our freedom and restrictions in political and social spheres. In other words, the Islamic state is an agency for enforcement of the Quranic principles and injunctions.
    There will be no economic exploitation by the capitalists in an Islamic state. In his presidential address delivered to the annual session of the All India Muslim League,

    in Delhi on April 24, 1943, he said:
    “Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others in order to fatten themselves. It is true we are not in power today. You go anywhere to the countryside. I have visited villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If this is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it. If they are wise, they will have to adjust themselves to the new modern conditions of life. If they don’t, God help them, we shall not help them.”

    Speech at a Mammoth Rally at the University Stadium, Lahore on 30th October, 1947:

    “We thank Providence for giving us courage and faith to fight the forces of evil. If we take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Qura’n, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours…”

  39. yasserlatifhamdani


    This is not what it means and you are free to assume what you wish to assume. No go off…

  40. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dr Jawwad Khan,

    I have read those pronouncements for the thousandth time now and beyond the fact that Jinnah was playing clever politics – politics that in the end only damages his otherwise sterling credentials- I can’t accept that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state nor can any honest or reasonable person accept this point of view.

    Since I have already answered all of these “quotes” a zillion times, I’ll just point out the two main ones which show that Islamists don’t have a leg to stand on.

    1. The 1940 Address:

    Let us assume that it was not a lawyer’s argument for a consociationalist solution for India….

    The 1940 address actually negates your point of view more than it negates anyone else’s. By arguing that the issue was not a religious but cultural one… Jinnah was opening the door to such unorthodox things as:

    a. Atheist Muslim

    b. Agnostic Muslim

    c. Cultural Muslim

    Now pray tell…for example where Ahmadis fall according to that definition? Their names, culture, laws, history is all Muslim. Similarly where do Khojas, Ismailis, Bohris fall? Their lifestyle is closer to Hindus… and the personal law that applies to these Muslim sects is Hindu Family Law.

    Atleast be logical.

    2. The April 1943 Address.

    However what is ironic is that you have only quoted that part of the speech… but not the real crux of the speech.

    The context of the speech is that A H Kazi from Bombay presented a motion calling for the future constitution of Pakistan to be based on Hukumat-e-Illaya, the Holy Quran, Sunnah and the rule of the four caliphs.

    The speech you quote is when Jinnah rose up and vetoed the resolution. Jinnah in the same speech you quoted said that “any such resolution would amount to a censure on every Leaguer. Pakistan’s constitution would be what the people of Pakistan will decide”.

    Thus Jinnah blocked the resolution to commit Pakistan to an Islamic state and then spoke of Islam’s true message … i.e. equality and safeguard against economic exploitation.

    How ironic that you are – in typical Islamist fashion- trying to use the same words in the exact opposite manner.

    So stop this control freakery. Jinnah as a politician said many things…. but Jinnah the statesman always blocked the door for those things finding expression in Muslim League resolutions, or any constituent assembly resolutions.

    Bring one Muslim League resolution or the Constituent Assembly resolution from Jinnah’s time which commits Pakistan to an Islamic polity…. there is NONE.

    This is why Jinnah told a hyper Muslim like yourself in Khaliqdina hall…. “Neither I nor my working committee passed any resolution on ‘Pakistan ka matlab kiya’ … you may have done so to catch some votes”.

  41. Milind Kher


    You may know better as a lawyer. However, I do believe that after the 1937 Shariat Act, no Muslim is governed by Hindu personal law.

    The Khojas are a community and not a sect. You have Ismaili Khojas, Ithna Asheri Khojas and a few Sunni Khojas too. So, you can’t enumerate Khojas as a sect with Ismailis and Bohras.

    Other than these points, your argument appears to be sound.

  42. yasserlatifhamdani

    By Khoja I meant… Shia Khoja Mohammadens i.e. Ithna Ashari Khojas… that Fatima Jinnah signed an affidavit that Jinnah was ….

    Well I’ll have to research this… because I think the petition filed by Dina Wadia relies on Hindu Family Law to govern Jinnah’s estate in Bombay.

  43. Ummi

    I can’t accept that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state

    Who gives a crap what do you expect or not. Facts are facts no matter what you want

  44. YLH

    Apparently you do (because you know I am right) which is why you keep barking on this website.

  45. Milind Kher

    I listened to the whole interview of Jaswant Singh that you posted. Indeed, he has said that if Indians were to realize the reality of Mr Jinnah, Indo Pak ties could be taken to a level of great friendship.

    However, YLH, I am apprehensive that supporters like you of his legacy may be in a minority. You have an uphill task, and may God be with you..

  46. G.Vishvas

    I think Milind Kher is a muslim under a hindu pseudonym. His knowledge of islam is too acurate to come from someone who did not grow up in islam. It is not fair in an on-the-screen discussion for a muslim to take on a hindu pseudonym. Such a shabby misleadment of participants in a discussion will prove to be disastrous. It will destroy honesty and trust. A “hindu” who writes with such knowledge of and sympathy for islam – what is the agenda behind that? What is intended? What is going on here?

  47. Ashraf Siddiqui

    Why don’t we just give up on the Islam/Muslim issue and allow Punjabis and Mahajers to re-integrate with India and NWFP and Baluchistan to go back to Afghanistan since they are clearly not a people of South Asian origin – Pathans are central Asians and Baluch are Middle-Eastern. End of argument since Punjabis and Mahajars are an Indian people in language and in ethnicity.

  48. swapnavasavdutta

    Ashraf, because it is hard to accept you were wrong.
    It is not easy to accept your mistake.
    Besides, what makes you think India would be
    happy and willing to re-integrate Punjabis and
    Mohajirs (and may be Sindhis)? I personally think
    it would be mistake on India’s part, they come with
    too much baggage.
    The whole premise of Pakistan was based on they
    not being Indians and Muslims and Hindus being
    two nations, nothing has changed to make Punjabi,
    Mohajir and Sindhi Pakistanis to think otherwise.

  49. Mustafa Shaban

    In my opinion Quaid E Azam wanted an Islamic State rather than a secular state. ZH did a program on Quaid E Azam and he quoted many of his speeches and his friends expressing that Pakistan should be an Islamic State. This is my opinion.

  50. Milind Kher


    I think we may be getting a demand for a Muslim homeland confounded with an Islamic homeland. You can very much have a Muslim nation which is a secular state. A prime example is Turkey.

  51. YLH

    Dear Mustafa Shaban,

    My dear friend… Zaid Hamid is a crook and liar. I keep telling you this but you don’t believe. It is Pakistan’s greatest misfortune is that this crooked man has appropriated for himself the role of chief interpretter of Pakistani ideology.

    The truth is that the Quaid-e-Azam blocked every resolution both in the Muslim League and constituent assembly trying to commit Pakistan to an Islamic polity… as I showed above the April 1943 speech quoted by Dr. Jawwad says the exact opposite … Jinnah had called the resolution to commit Pakistan to an Islamic state nothing less than a CENSURE on every leaguer in the same speech. Strong words won’t you say for someone trying to make an Islamic state?

    The speeches that you guys quote… are Jinnah the lawyer-politician’s words spoken ambiguously. None of the words spoken in any of the speeches with references to Islamic principles amount to any legal binding resolution. To Jinnah a secular state would be perfectly Islamic … his ideal of a state was that the state would a modern constitutional democratic state…. which would not be a theocracy. This is a secular state.

    In comparison Jinnah the statesman spoke clearly and unambiguously on 11th August and on 21st May 1947… when he said that religion would have nothing to do with the business of the state… that religion was the personal faith of an individual… that sovereignty would rest unconditionally with the people.

    Jinnah’s speech as the President of the Constituent Assembly and his conduct as the president of the constituent assembly shows clearly that he wanted a secular state…

    Or at best that he wanted an “Islamic” state in which Church and State would be separate, matters would be conducted constitutionally and democratically, where the LAW minister would be a Hindu who had no clue about Islamic law and the policy of which state would not be made by priests with a divine mission.

    Read this Part of Adnan Syed’s article of Role of Islam in Pakistan’s ideology:


    Pakistan’s uneasy relationship with Islam had started to brew even when Pakistan was a demand, not a state. Pakistan as an Islamic state idea was advanced by a small faction inside Muslim League, whose most visible face was Raja of Mahmudabad. He formed Islami Jamaat cell within the Muslim League. Raja Sahib mentioned to Jinnah that since “Lahore Resolution was passed earlier in the year, and when Pakistan was formed it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunnah and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution. Mr. Jinnah banged his hands on the table and said: We shall not be an Islamic State but a Liberal Democratic Muslim State.”[4]

    Raja Sahib Mahmudabad ended up getting expelled from the Muslim League. His relationship with Quaid deteriorated to such an extent that he saw Quaid just once after the independence. In his last years “Quaid’s prodigal child” admitted that his “insistence on Pakistan being an Islamic state and taking recourse to violence” was wrong[5]. Yet his ideas in the early 1940s show signs of visible discomfort shown by the Muslim League leaders as they were freely mixing the terms of Islamic and Muslim state.

    The above episode was one of many where Quaid was clear in one aspect; that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state. He clearly mentioned in his message to the people of the United States that “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission”. [6]

    Or the famous speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 where he laid down what many perceive as his clearest and unequivocal message to the lawmakers of the newly formed country “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”

    To emphasize how shocking Quaid’s speech was for everyone in Pakistan, Maulana Shabbir Usmani immediately yet subtly condemned Quaid’s words. He reminded that if it was not for Islam (the unifying force), religious leaders would not have entered the freedom struggle, and no political party (including the Muslim League) would have been able to mobilize the masses. He called for declaring the new country an Islamic Republic. Other leaders were less guarded in their remarks. Jamaat Islami leader Ahsan Islahi called a Pakistan based on Quaid’s August 11 speech principles a devil’s creation[7]

    Muslim League used the slogans of “Pakistan ka Matlab kiyaa, La Ilaha Illallah (Pakistan means There is no God except Allah)” and “Muslim hai to Muslim League main aa (If you are a Muslim then you should be in the Muslim League)” during the election campaigns. Yet, we do see a documented case where Quaid admonished a Muslim League worker for using the slogan of Pakistan means no God except God in Muslim League first post Pakistan meeting in Karachi. Quaid said that individuals may have used that slogan for garnering votes, but no such slogan was approved by the Muslim League’s central committee.[8]

    Some of the clearest signals about the equality of the creeds was coveyed by Quaid’s actions as Governor General of Pakistan. He appointed J.N. Mandal as his first Law Minister. Setting up a scheduled caste Hindu to head the pivotal ministry of law was a clear sign that Quaid was looking for the laws of the state to rise above the creeds. Sir Zafarullah Khan was appointed the first Foreign Minister, despite protests from the religious right for belonging to the Ahmedi sect. It is well documented that Quaid asked for a Hindu poet Jagan Nath Azad to write the first national anthem of Pakistan. With his actions Quaid was showing that a Muslim majority Pakistan belonged equally to every sect and creed. “Minorities will cease to be minorities in the new state .. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – this has nothing to do with the business of the state”. Isn’t that what he was saying, in words as well his actions?

    As Dr. Ayesha Jalal said “Jinnah’s resort to religion was not an ideology to which he was ever committed or even a device to use against rival communities; it was simply a way of giving a semblance of unity and solidity to his divided Muslim constituents”[9]

    Go read the full article. It is here on PTH.

  52. YLH

    First and the last meeting of All Pakistan Muslim League was held under the chairmanship of the Quaid-i-Azam at Karachi’s Khaliqdina Hall. During the meeting a man, who called himself Bihari, put to the Quaid that “we have been telling the people Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha Illallah.” “Sit down, sit down,” the Quaid shouted back. “Neither I nor my working committee, nor the council of the All India Muslim League has ever passed such a resolution wherein I was committed to the people of Pakistan, Pakistan ka matlab….., you might have done so to catch a few votes.” This incident is quoted from Daghon ki Barat written by Malik Ghulam Nabi, who was a member of the Muslim League Council. The same incident is also quoted by the Raja of Mehmoudabad. [41]

  53. Milind Kher


    Sorry, posted the response on a different thread. Do go through it, it is meant for this one..

  54. Ummi


    For others, here is a speech by Jinnah. An interesting one. The lawyer of Ghazi Ilm deen Shaheed says:

    You don’t sound less ignorant than drunked Taseer who says on thing in the morning and other in evening.

    Jinnah knew about Islam more than psuedo Liberals and molvis of his time.Unlike wannnabes like you he had read about Islam.

    The liberals who often moronically quote Quaid’s 11th August speech usually forget what Jinnah said was actually an inspiration of Omar(RA)’s speech in Jerusalem when He was asked to enter in Church and offered prayers. Omar(RA) replied:

    “From the servant of Allah and the Commander of the Faithful, Omar: The inhabitants of Jerusalem are granted security of life and property. Their churches and crosses shall be secure. This treaty applies to all people of the city. Their places of worship shall remain intact. These shall neither be taken over nor pulled down. People shall be quite free to follow their religion. They shall not be put to any trouble…”

    Jinnah’s words given below are no different that What omar had said:

    You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State

    Kindly don’t throw up your ignorance here again and again and ridicule yourself. Fine Shias(who are busy in beating themselves up) and few others love to curse Omar(RA) et all but history does not change at all

    Offcourse addressed ignorants like you who consider Islam like CHristianity and compare Church and state issue with Islam. Such Ignorants don’t even have any idea that Islam NEVER supported theocracy. Had it been like that we would have things like nuns and priests. Yes, the twisted form of Sufism sure mimics Christianity. Read what Jinnah had said about people like you:

    Every Mussalman knows that the injunctions of the Holy Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. From the Atlantic to the Ganges, says Gibbon, the Holy Quran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence, and the laws which regulate the action and the property of mankind are governed by immutable sanctions of the will of God”. Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows the Holy Quran is the general code of the Muslims(message of Eid to the Muslims in September 1945)

    A big slap on the face of crooks like Yaseer et all

  55. Mustafa Shaban

    @YLH: you haved your point of view and I have mine. Lets agree to disagree.

    @Ummi: I agreee with your analysis, but I do not agree with what you have said about Shias, I am a Shia and I do not curse the Caliph Umar and also Azadari has a logic behind it and its not haram.

  56. Milind Kher

    The comment on Shias is uncalled for. The PTH owners have time and again made it clear that this is not a forum to pursue a sectarian agenda.

  57. YLH

    Ummi mian,

    Now we are back to Ilm Din. I have already discussed Ilm Din in detail. Jinnah was a lawyer at the appellate forum in the case and at no point did he put up a defence that condoned the idea that people should be killed for their views. On the contrary Jinnah’s final prayer was that Ilm Din was misled.. which is true because Ilm Din was an ignorant young man who was an Hashish user. I know about Ilmdin because he was my grandfather’s cousin and my grandfather used to take tiffin for him in jail. I have also read the case in detail.

    As for the Eid message, I have already dealt with it above but an Eid message is not a resolution when Jinnah the lawyer clearly said himself that until there is a resolution passed, no promise has legal binding. So instead of producing run of the mill Eid messages and Muharram messages that Jinnah as a leader of the Muslim League sent out, produce the resolution of the Muslim League working committee or Council or the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan under Jinnah which commits Pakistan to an Islamic polity? If you can’t produce such a resolution you don’t have a point. Like I said Jinnah the politician said many ambiguous things in the period 1940-1947 but Jinnah the lawyer kept all of those things out of official business.

    And you spoke of Hazrat Umar’s speech… Jinnah also said :

    “In due course of time Hindus shall cease to be Hindus and Muslims shall cease to be Muslims – not in a religious sense for that is PERSONAL FAITH of an individual but in a political sense as citizens of the state”.

    Can you produce Hazrat Umar’s speech where he says this? This is secularism pure and simple.

    There is no question that Hazrat Umar’s deal to Jerusalem was Islam’s finest hour – I admire Hazrat Umar for many reasons including this. There is no question that Jinnah thought in his mind that Islam was compatible with secularism. But we must realize the differences … What Hazrat Umar offered to the Christians of Jerusalem was autonomy in their affairs
    with complete disarmament…what Mr. Jinnah offered Pakistanis was equality of citizenship regardless of religion caste or creed. In Jinnah’s Pakistan the Law minister was a Hindu who had no knowledge of Islamic Sharia Law. Would that be possible in a classical Islamic state?

    Yes Jinnah played politics but when all was said and done his ideology in the balance was western secularism and nothing but. Jinnah also said Turkey was greatest Islamic state and Ataturk was the model Muslim leader of the age. So let us not push shall we?

    This is why almost all the Mullahs opposed him.

    Milind Kher,

    The stinging slap on Ummi’s face is that Mahomed Ali Jinnah was a SHIA KHOJA MOHAMMADEN …who was in private life quite observant of Shia creed especially Moharram and Hazrat Ali’s martyrdom in Ramadan…

    Fatima Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan signed a sworn affidavit that Jinnah was a Shia Muslim.

  58. YLH

    Shaban mian,

    My only suggestion is to consider Ummi’s anti-shia comments in light of Jinnah’s response to Raja of Mahmudabad (incidentally also Shia) as well as that part of Jinnah’s 11th August speech where he speaks of Muslims being divided in Shias, Sunnis and Hindus in their sub-categories.

    Things will become crystal clear if you are honest.

  59. Milind Kher


    What you are saying is right. Ummi has probably let his emotions get the better of him.

  60. Anonymous

    Well, Jinnah was alcoholic and he used to eat pork too, there are many references, Like Akbar S. Ahmed says, nearly every book about Jinnah outside Pakistan mentions the fact that he drank alcohol. Several sources indicate he gave up alcohol near the end of his life.

    How can he be a true Muslim ?? (unless we soften or twist the rules just for him..)

  61. Luq

    Only cowards and asassins could resort to character assasination under the cover of anonymity, such is their character.

  62. vajra

    Thank you, Luq.

  63. G.Vishvas

    Jinnah will only serve to confuse you. The man was an opportunist. Religion and politics are invariably coupled to violence. Be it from god, or in the name of god, or for getting and keeping political power.

    A religion that glorifies violence (as does islam) will not bring peace ever. A god who commands his worshippers to carry out acts of violence is failing in his duty and responsibility. The kuran does contain commands to violence.

  64. Vijay Goel

    Well Lord Krishna inBhagwad Gita also commands and educates Arjuna to war as a holy duty.Let us please not comment on Scriptures revered by many.
    As far as religion and politics are concerned I would like to say that while in case of Gandhiji YLH seems to say that Gandhijis support for Khiafat was political chicancery in case of Jinnahji’s use of religion it was political sagacity or necessity.

  65. Milind Kher

    @Vijay Goel,

    I find your approach remarkably unbiased. And I quite like the ethos of tolerance that you propogate. If there were many more like you, communal hatred would not have taken place at all.

  66. Majumdar

    Ummi mian,

    Thanks for reproducing the quotes of Khalifa Omar (RA) and MAJ (pbuh)- they are indeed very similar. But you have quoted the 8/11 speech very selectively and Yasser Pai has reproduced a very troubling extract from that speech:

    “In due course of time Hindus shall cease to be Hindus and Muslims shall cease to be Muslims – not in a religious sense for that is PERSONAL FAITH of an individual but in a political sense as citizens of the state”.

    Please refer to the italicised text. Is it possible in a true Islamic state for a Muslim to stop being a Muslim in a political sense of the word? My understanding of Islam is very limited but based on whatever I know, an Islamic state gives Muslims and non-Muslims different sets of rights and responsibilities. Not in the sense that Muslims are priviliged citizens (although that may also be true) but also that they have added responsibilities– of defending the ideological frontiers of the state and of propagating Islamic ideology both within and outside the realms of the said Islamic state, among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Tasks which naturally cannot be entrusted to non-Muslims.

    If that is the case Jinnah sahib’s observation that Muslims will cease to be Muslims in a political sense cannot be equated with the requirements of an Islamic state.

    Can you pls clarfiy?


  67. YLH

    Vijay Goel sb,

    That is not true. Gandhi’s intentions behind use of religion and Khilafat movement may have good but he introduced for better or for worse Mullahs into politics.

    Jinnah’s use of islamic slogans was wrest that space from the Mullahs …and these slogans were ambiguous. We however criticise him because those very people he aimed to isolate now use his words – examples above- to dilute his vision of a constitutional democratic secular state.

  68. G.Vishvas

    To Goel et al

    Bhagvadgita is not a sacred text in the sense that kuran is. There are no general commands to kill in BG, but only on a well-defined limited battle field. It contains no command like the one in the kuran which says : “kill them wherever you find them”. or “lay waiting for them and use every stratagem to kill them”. BG is a conversation between Krishna and Arjun – nothing more. It s not generally valid for all. The kuran’s commands are final and supposedly for all for all times.

    Jinnah talked many contradictory things and left behind a violent mess called Pakistan and its islamic ideology. If he had really been a good-natured decent honest man then he would have left behind a public-made will (he knew he had not long to live) commanding his followers to restitute the hindu component in Pakistan with all the human rights etc. If he had done that then we could have deservedly called him “great leader” (qaid e azam) and he would have set Pakistan on a different, healthier, more humane political course. Jinnah will not save Pakistan. He is now either useless or confusing or only worsening the troubles.

  69. Anonymous

    Well, Jinnah was alcoholic and he used to eat pork too, there are many references, Like Akbar S. Ahmed says, nearly every book about Jinnah outside Pakistan mentions the fact that he drank alcohol. Several sources indicate he gave up alcohol near the end of his life.

    How can he be a true Muslim ?? (unless we soften or twist the rules just for him)

  70. ylh

    Having red wine or white wine with dinner or a bit of scotch with a cigar or gin and tonic is not alcoholism.

  71. Milind Kher


    The Holy Prophet (SAWA) has said, “God has locked up sins and has put the key in alcohol”. So, the strictly Islamic view is that Alcohol is absolutely forbidden.

    Yet, as we are all human, some people transgress this law. That does not make it any less forbidden, it is just a weakness being indulged.

    I would agree with you that moderate consumption of alcohol is not alcoholism, yet the fact remains that it is not allowed.

  72. Anonymous

    Its evident how he was maniac enough, even when he was offered to rule united India he turned it down to prefer divison…

  73. YLH

    Read the history of Cabinet Mission Plan … Had he accepted that ridiculous proposal of PMship he would have been a lesser man.
    It was not about division at all. But then for this you would need to grow up and read history.

  74. AZW


    Watching Messrs. Ummi, Dr. Jawwad, Kashif and (unfortunately) my namesake over past one year has convinced me that they are closed to the facts as they can be. They like to read into quotes without any regards for the context, and seem to manufacture their own parallels lately too. As someone said “you can have your opinion Sir, you however can not have your facts too”.

    It was therefore quite a stinging rebuke when Dr. Jawwad was made to realize that the April 1943 address that he gleefully quoted actually was the repudiation by Jinnah of the motion calling for the future constitution of Pakistan to be based on Quran and Sunnah.

    Quaid was (as some call intentionally) vague about the terms Islamic, and Muslim. He was however extremely clear what Pakistan would not be as a state. Pakistan was not to be a theocratic state ruled by divine mission. He spoke of that negation quite clearly on more than one occasion (VOA address, Reuters interview). His speech in front of the first Constituent Assembly laid out in clearest terms the essentials of a democratic state where citizens would be Pakistanis first and creed will absolutely matter none in the eyes of the state (how Dr. Jawwad can compare it to Hazrat Umar’s Jerusalem address is beyond me).

    That being said, Professor Abdul Wahid Siddiqui has counted 90 speeches between 1940 and 1947 where Jinnah spoke of Pakistan and Islam together.

    Many of Jinnah speeches saw Islam as a huge influence, but with an understanding that religion would not be the determining factor when it comes to the state. In Feb 1948, he laid out his vision of Islam and Pakistan in the following terms: “The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). We are members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in right, dignity and self-respect. Consequently, we have a special and a very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it.”

    As Sharif Mujahid pointed out that Jinnah’s speech on Special Marriage Bill in the Imperial Legislative Council “reflected his conviction that Islam is not the name of any static mode or pattern of life. It is a spirit and not a body”.

    Quaid’s words on using Sharia as role model for Pakistan (even when we assume that he talked of personal laws, or a guiding spirit) remain uncomfortably at odds with his negation of a theocratic state and his affirmation of a secular state of Pakistan. We can all say that the demand for a considerable minority to barter for its rights was correct in the fractured and tumultuous 1940s United India. We can wince uncomfortably when Quaid and Muslim League invoked Islam as a uniting factor for the disparate Muslim polity. We can say that for a political leader to use Islam as a uniting factor will entail this contradiction, a necessary political manoeuvre, as Dr. Ayesha Jalal points out. Maybe he didn’t even know himself how little time he was left with after the creation of Pakistan. Maybe 62 years are too painful for us to be unduly harsh towards him. But in my view for a leader, who used religion as a uniting force, to not remove any doubts unequivocally, again and again about the complete separation of religion and state, once the new state was born will surely count as a disappointing failure on Quaid’s part.


  75. AZW

    @ Mustafa Shaban:

    Ever heard of the term, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    Ummi, Kashifiat and his gang supports the most violent religious thugs that we have seen in recent times. For the past 20 years, Pakistan has seen thousands of minority sect (mostly Shias) members killed by Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and their affiliates who were trained in the seminaries and training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    Taliban themselves slaughtered thousands of Shia and minority Shia Hazaras in Mazar-e-Sharif and other battles in the 1990s. A brief glimpse to their murderous mindset was witnessed in the few months the dear Taliban managed to govern Swat during early 2009.

    You are a minority Ismaili Shia, and in your confused analysis, the Taliban and their sympathizers (and yes Imran Khan, Fazl-ur-Rahman and Munawwar Hassan have dubious distinction of being their previously unabashed sympathizers and apologizers) are the knights in shining armour, foremost friends of Pakistan, and enemies of an Imperialist and conniving West. Do not cry and weep when these knights will take off their masks, call you a non-Muslim and kill further thousands of your religious brethren in their own self righteous religious frenzy.

    I am not a minority Shia, and I absolutely shudder at how bloody it will be if the knights in shining armour of your confused ideologies are given right of way.

    You have the excuse of being young. That excuse will not last forever. World is not a black and white place where absolute evil and good are distinctly distinguishable. But history remains a brutally honest guidebook. Religiously fanatic army will kill mercilessly in the name of religion. You do not need more of the bloody episodes to learn the harsh lesson that a fractured democracy is a lot better alternative than a superimposed idealistic stability that an autocracy or religious mandate invariably accompanies. Kashif, Ummi, and Dr. Jawwad have chosen to close themselves to the world as it moves forward at breakneck speed. They have been stagnant in the evolving world and therefore cheer vindictively as Taliban bludgeon their way through Pakistan without providing any ideology that they can offer to our nation.

    They and you have nothing in common, except sharing a multitude of abject and utter confusion. I hope for your sake that this commonality will not last for long.

  76. Gorki

    @G. Vishwas:
    “A religion that glorifies violence (as does islam) will not bring peace ever. A god who commands his worshippers to carry out acts of violence is failing in his duty and responsibility.”

    G. Vishvas, your words of wisdom (or lack of it) continue to demonstrate how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I am tempted to leave you alone but since you have an obviously Hindu sounding name and insist on sharing your ideas (perfected it seems, from your reading of Pakistani newspapers, the Animal farm and Nineteen Eighty four) on the PTH there is a great risk that a casual visitor to the PTH may assume that someone like you is an average Indian.
    You seem to lack the understanding that comparing a 20th century European political philosophy and a 6th century writings of a faith are two very different things and cannot be compared.
    While your criticism of the modern day fanatics may still seem credible, your blanket condemnation of an entire faith based on selective text is very unfortunate and demonstrates that you yourself are as deluded as the fanatics you seem to condemn.
    Your above words seem to imply that Islam stand apart from other major faiths of mankind in making references to violence. Thus in a desperate attempt to try to broaden your limited world view, I am posting the following quiz. I will provide the answers later once you have had a chance to take a shot at it. I sincerely hope you find it educational.
    Match the command with the faith:

    1. It is Ok to Kill Homosexuals
    2. It is OK to Kill False Prophets
    3. A nonbeliever may not spit on the ground lest a believer should be polluted by touching it with his foot
    4. An unbeliever is required to wear a black thread either in his neck or on his wrist for the purpose of ready identification
    5. A proud quote from which religious text says “When all else fails, it is a duty to take up the sword against injustice

    a) Islam
    b) Christianity
    c) Sikhism
    d) Buddhism
    e) Hinduism

    Enjoy 😉

  77. G.Vishvas

    To adnann (and gorki)
    Certain sentences in the kuran lead to fascism-totalitarianism and Arabic hegemony (and racism and chauvinism). Sooner or later a muslim-majority state will be confronted with this basic fact – no matter how much its secular or opportunist founder wants it to be different. Jinnah could not have stopped the slide of Pakistan into the Islamic abyss, especially when this islamo-fascist identity is necessary for Pakistan to differentiate itself from the hated-ridiculed-vilified-humiliated Indians and hindus.
    Some writing in the PTH, even some hindus (who wish to flatter muslims), want to disprove me in this, but with have no success in their pathetic attempts. Pakistan’s reality proves my analysis to be right.

    To gorki
    Your quiz about religions is nothing worth because it all depends upon who takes his religion seriously and in what fashion. Furthermore the person who formulates questions always has an advantage which the replier does not have in answering them (as one sees in the various money-games played on TV).

    So cut that childish stuff out. I don’t fall for it. Even I can put together a list of questions which will make you go red in face about your supposed much-touted knowledgeability or wisdom etc. (e.g. Who were the mathematicians who proved Meyer’s Cluster Theorem etc. BTW even I don’t know the answer to this question, but could have pretended as if I do on my own). So stop being childish in order to please the Pakistanis and muslims.

    I am bothered about which religion is doing which and how much damage TODAY. I live in the 21st century and must therefore even judge ideologies created in the 7th century if they intrude into my life, be it with bombs or sweet words. In this sense I have to judge islam and realize and wish to communicate my judgment to others for their own safety. Muslims and their hindu bootlickers may have great opinions about islam – but islam’s actual results and my experience is very different.

    Here is a quote from a letter in the DAWN of 30.12.09
    “My postscript of warning: Those who admire us are not necessarily our friends and those who criticise us are not necessarily our enemies.”
    B.A. MALIK, former ambassador, Islamabad, in his letter to the DAWN of 30.12.09

    1 gram of poison in 99 grams of honey and the resulting mixture has to be treated as poison. So it is with kuran and islam and whatever else on religion or ideology. We have to be strict in this matter, especially regarding older ideologies. The older an ideology or religion the more justified a blanket judgment (or even condemnation).

    regarding your quiz:
    Muslims are killing homosexuals and so-called false prophets (“call someone a dog and shoot him” principle) and calling non-muslims as najis (unclean). It was a muslim ruler in Egypt who commanded Christians to wear blue and jews to wear yellow dresses (the Nazis took up this in enforcing the yellow star on the jews in KZ camps). This “when all else fails” is a very vague subjective term and has functioned to instigate muslims to proud and “dutiful” violence against non-muslims. The kuran habitually uses terms without defining them accurately. Look what it has led to in muslim societies on confusions and conflicts.

    Take a cue from ambassador B. A. Malik and stop being a bootlicker of islam, muslims and pakistanis. There is a turkish saying: “Friend speaks bitter”. In deed the flatterer is never the true friend. Muslims are steeped in self-flattery and accept only flattery and thus ruin themselves. Why join hands with those who wish to ruin the muslims through flattery?

  78. AZW

    @ Vishwas:

    The troll satisfies the following six criteria:

    1) Troll gets on one bandwagon and despite any cajoling or coaxing, refuses to change his mantra, despite every reason and rationale is applied to the troll

    2) Troll repeats the same repetitive mantra in each and single topic, irrespective of the topic at hand. Important threads are hijacked successfully by trolls and future useful discussions turn into empty troll induced exchange of words

    3) Troll refuses to engage in rational arguments; thinking himself to be the know-all be-all, he condescendingly admonishes the poor participants trying to reason with him

    4) Troll’s bandwagon mantra is mostly derogatory and demeaning towards certain group of people

    5) When challenged on his beliefs with specific examples or questions, troll refuses to answer the questions and sidesteps by proclaiming that it is troll who would not take the bait and engage in that discussion. Others are however dutybound to discuss the points dear troll raises, pertinent or not

    6) Troll generally imparts adverse perspective on the discussion boards for the new comers to that board

    Effective remedy: Only one or two warnings are suffice for trolls. The warnings usually go unheeded, but in the interest of fairness they must be given.

    In your case, let’s put it this way. If you appear again with the following words in your comments, you shall be guided dutifully to the spam list that awaits you with open arms: Fascism, chauvinism, hegemony, kuran.

    Next time, there would be no warning.

  79. G.Vishvas

    Abusing me will not help Pakistan. Call someone a dog and shoot him – that is what you are doing (or trying to do).

    I have always replied to relevant questions asked by others or directed at me.
    Those words used by me have not been refuted or proved to be irrelevant by you (or others) in the context of what is happening in the world today (not only in Pakistan) – so why are you now not admitting tht bitter truth (instead of making use of your power to silence me)? Silencing me will not help Pakistan – I have raised several relevant points to be answered by gorki. Let him answer them first before you can take your action of silencing me.

    Every discussion veers off the topic – that is natural. That is done by many participants here too, so why single me out?

    Since pakistan tea house calls itself pakistan tea house we have to discuss the ruling ideology of Pakistan. This ruling ideology, which was created in Arabia in 7th century and is alien to the Sindhu river basin and irrelevant to the 21st century, keeps producing so many violent, crazy, death-yearning, death-bringing young men and even women. It has to be described using the appropriate words and not some fake sweet-sounding diplomacies in which no one can trust anymore.

    Muslims like flattery – and I am going to say that again and again. Will you now declare the word flattery as unacceptable? The questions that I raise are more relevant than what you care (or dare) to admit. These questions are going unanswered but then you call me a troll for no valid reason.

  80. vajra


    And about time, too!

    Though I do feel it’s been left fairly broad, and it should be easy enough for Little Troll to construct sentences without these words and without logic; he’s done at least one of these for around ten to fifteen posts already. ;-D

  81. Gorki

    Dear Vishvas:

    First the answers:
    1. It is Ok to Kill Homosexuals b) Christianity
    “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
    2. It is OK to Kill False Prophets b) Christianity
    If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
    3. A nonbeliever may not spit on the ground lest a believer should be polluted by touching it with his foot e) Hinduism (The Sudras were probihited to spit in the Maratha ruled Maharashtra to protect the Brahimins walking barefoot.)
    4. An unbeliever is required to wear a black thread either in his neck or on his wrist for the purpose of ready identification e) Hinduism (Also the Sudras were made to wear this in medievial Gujarat for obvious reasons)
    5. A proud quote from which religious text says “When all else fails, it is a duty to take up the sword against injustice c) Sikhism (During the Khalistan movement in Punjab, it was common to display pictures of Guru Gobind Singh publicly with the Persian couplet taken out of Zafarnama written by him saying
    “Chu kaar aaj hama …….halal ast burdun ba shamsheer dast’
    with its English translation paraphrased underneath which said exactly as I wrote.

    These questions were not meant to ridicule you (no one is expected to be a walking encyclopedia on every subject), rather these were asked more as rhetorical questions, ones that make you think.

    I apologise if the purpose of my post was unclear; but the point was made since your wrote:
    “Your quiz about religions is nothing worth because it all depends upon who takes his religion seriously and in what fashion…”

    That is exactly the point I have been trying to get across to you for the last several days; ie. It does not matter what religious texts say, the wise ones use these texts as metaphors, the idiots assume the literal interpretation.
    It is not the fault of religion A or religion B; all of them say things that at times sound contradictory or immoral, especially if taken out of context; rather one must find fault with those zealots who insist on following the letter of the text and ignore the spirit.

    My problem with you is that you tend to blame the faith for the errors of its mistaken followers.
    It is not a question of bootlicking etc. but of being able to use one’s head to interpret the evidence scattered all around.
    Take PTH for example; if all one saw here was rants by Ummi or Dr. Jawad Khan, one could assume that all followers of Islam were bigots, yet one finds people like YLH and AZW, BC and Milind Kher who are Muslims and yet wonderfully openminded and humanist in their approach.

    Thus to me it is clear that being Muslim has no more to do with being a bigot than being a Christian has with being a skinhead Neo Nazi.
    It is this one point I have been trying to make; otherwise I have a great deal of respect for Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity as faiths that inspire billions around the world.
    I am not blind, I am aware of all the evil that is being propogated in the name of Islam today; yet one has to be aware also of the fact that it is being condemned by a large majority of Muslims. By ignoring the sane voices of all those around us while tuning on to only the Jawad Khan’s of this world one comes off as the same kind of bigot.
    You can take your pick who you want to listen.


  82. Hayyer

    G. Vishvas
    “Abusing me will not help Pakistan. Call someone a dog and shoot him – that is what you are doing (or trying to do).”

    Are you trying to help Pakistan? Did Pakistanis ask for that help?

    “Silencing me will not help Pakistan”

    But we all know that you cannot be silenced. So there is hope for Pakistan yet.

    “Since pakistan tea house calls itself pakistan tea house we have to discuss the ruling ideology of Pakistan”

    You may also noticed that it is a Pakistani site meant for Pakistanis. Indians are guests on it, self imposed guests. Pakistanis are too polite to kick some of us out especially those who believe ‘maan ya na maan, mein tera mehmaan’.

    In India it is considered the epitome of rudeness for a guest to abuse his host, but that does not apply to you, no? Because you are a missionary for the truth and nothing will stop you in your divine mission.
    Tere man mein hai vishvas, honge kamyab ek din.
    You get no response here not because there is no answer to your ill informed prejudices, it is because no one wants to engage with you.
    In such a situation it is politic for anyone with a modicum of self respect to withdraw, which is what you have been repeatedly asked to do. I feel fairly certain, though you may not believe it that your absence will do no damage to Pakistan.

  83. Milind Kher


    Thanks for the honorable mention 🙂

    It is good to come across people like you and the others you mentioned. One always acquires new knowledge and fresh perspectives.

  84. G.Vishvas

    To gorki

    1,2) you are quoting the old testament and attributing it to christianity.
    3) It would be nice if people stop spitting – I am sick of all the spit that I have to see and avoid in India. How do you translate believer into brahmin and non-believer into shudra?
    4) shudras were avoided just like orthodox muslims would avoid those who eat pork or drink alcohol. what is wrong with that?
    5)apartheid is a necessity in every society – do you know any society that does not practise some apartheid? Brahmins did it openly. Others do it clandestinely.
    6) the understanding of what a shudra is changes – but the apartheid remains.
    7) when “all else fails” then sword is allowed – how is that defined, who defines this “all else”? Does the word khalistan not have the same meaning as the word pakistan and the same intention and method? is sikhism not a mixture of islamic and hindu ideas? And when the islamic ideas dominate then it is like any sunni extremism-separatism (I have to avoid the f* word! by order of those who are better humans than me).

    What if somene takes this religion seriously? How do you rein them in? Islam fails specially when it comes to this control. That is what muslims are demonstrating and suffering under.
    To hayyer

    Pakistan is India’s dangerous neighbour. So I have to comment on pakistani forums – this has nothing to do with being an invited guest or not. If your neighbour is setting his house own on fire then you have to take action and not wait to be invited. Leave out those silly formalities. I want to help Pakistan so that I can live peacefully in India. An embassy of islamic-arabic expansionism and extremism in my neighbourhood is not what I want or need. Non-muslims have shown too much tolerance and leniency towards islam and its agents and are now in a bad situation because of their own foolishness. Islam is already 1400 years old and we know with certainty now that the stuff is not going to work.

    Islam also came to India uninvited. Was Mohammad bin Kasim (the first founder of Pakistan) invited to come to India? He came as an aggressor and looter. And many such followed him. Hence it is silly to talk of my being an uninvited guest in pakistani forum. Your islam came uninvited here. So go back to Makkah and Madinah. Islam is not an ideology created in the Sindhu river basin or by the humans who lived there. What right does a pakistani have to say that a hindu is an univited guest in the Sindhu river basin? Would the arabs accept it if they have to take permission form the CC of the communist party of North Korea in order to visit Makkah? Sindhu river basin is the original name-giving homeland of the hindus (those who have not become quislings of islam are the real original owners of this land) – islam, arabs, turks, muslim marauders, pakistan ideology, jinnahists, pashtun migrants and refugees etc. are all univited (and unwanted) guests there.

    Come to think of it: a quisling of an ideology created in Arabia has the audacity to tell a hindu that the hindu is an uninvited guest in the Sindhu river basin! What nonsense! This is the result of the falsified islam-glorifying history-narratives which are fed into the pakistani minds.

  85. G.Vishvas

    Nothing is gained by forbidding a word. The idea that certain words have to be, or can be, forbidden is born out of a totalitarian mentality, a kind of gagging. Or out of a desire to hide something

    Words hurt, especially if they are true.

    If a word hurts someone then the correct way forward for him is to ask why this word has been used in his context and not threaten the word-user with ugly consequences. In fact anyone who makes such threats confirms that the word was indeed used appropriately and justly.

    Banning words that are obscene or filthy is justified – but to forbid words that have no politically meaningful compact alternatives means to cut short an important criticism and discussion.

    A harsh ideology (or religion) can be described only by using harsh words. Why blame the word-user for this (if he uses harsh words)?

    If an ideology A created in a region B (and its language, sociology, history etc.) is imposed on region C (with a different language etc.) then the followers of this ideology A in region C can be justly called quislings. The word quisling describes the situation correctly and fairly and hence the word cannot be forbidden – even if it hurts someone’s feelings. A criticism that does not hurt feelings is useless. One may as well not bother to express it.

    The statement “My feelings are (being) hurt” is a trick used for suppressing criticism. Similarly this accusation of godlessness or blasphemy etc. All these are tricks to suppress criticism and to terrorize/silence the critics. Islam and muslims are especially advanced in the use of these tricks. They use these tricks copiously. One can counter this trick easily by saying “But my feelings are being hurt too if I cannot express my criticism the way I wish to do it. What about that?”

    A criticism must hurt feelings and the criticized person should not behave like a crybaby and throw tantrums but face this criticism with an open mind.
    Once the idea that words may be forbidden, or critics may use only prescribed words, or critics can be silenced by accusing them of some blasphemy, godlessness or harshness or of having hurt some delicate feelings and sentiments etc. makes the rounds then criticism ebbs (critics get scared – after all they are human beings too) and progress towards an honest relaxed society is blocked. What fails in ALL islam-based societies is this honest relaxed way of life. This leads to mental illnesses and more violence.

    If I feel that I must use a certain word to describe something as I see it or experience or analyze it then I have the right to use this word – no one may forbid me that. This is basic decency in any discussion. Others are free not to use or repeat this word. If you forbid me a word then you stand under the moral compulsion to provide me with a word of the same descriptive power, accuracy (as per my judgment) and compactness. If you can’t do that then don’t forbid me this word.

    What Pakistan needs is a strong, well-heard, well-discussed and well-proteced islam-criticizing voice (since islam is the ruling ideology in Pakistan and is responsible for the bad situation in which this land finds itself).

  86. Milind Kher


    I scrolled upward to see your post regarding the Taliban and the Shia once more.

    It is surprising that people like the Taliban who call themselves Muslims can pursue such a deeply sectarian agenda that surely attempts splitting the Ummah.

    There is no Shia Sunni divide, and although subscribers to the Ibne Taimiya ideology have always tried to rouse the Sunnis against the Shias it has never worked.

    Similarly, in Shia gatherings, whenever Sunnis are referred to, the words used are “Sunni brothers”. So surely, all members of the Ummah need to unite against the nihilist ideology of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

  87. yasserlatifhamdani


    Kindly don’t waste your time by trying to post on this website again.

  88. aaina


    Nobody knew what would happen when 1999 ended. Would computer systems crash and paralyze machines, power lines, lights, life as we know it?

    The whole world panicked, although the parties went on. The Indians, called in to help due to their sheer numbers, language skills and survival instincts, worked days and nights, often not knowing when one blurred into the other. They, too, partied but the backdrop was often the office canteen. In the end, all was fine.

    This was the decade that defined India—and India defined. Think back to the mid-1990s, as software services entrepreneurs assure me, and Americans didn’t know India at all. It is cliché now to repeat the cliché then: of snake charmers and the Taj Mahal, poverty and filth. And so the Indians began PowerPoint presentations with a world map. And assurances of 24-hour backup electricity.

    Ten years later, the world is in panic mode again—and some economists think India will come to the rescue yet again. This time, it’s from the evolution of that nascent outsourcing model into the engine of a robust global player that can do more than serve U.S. companies; Indians can buy their products, too. Indeed, ask an economist who will replace the U.S. consumer and the answer increasingly seems to be … the Asian consumer.

    The bookends of this decade are significant for India and its place in the new economic order. The backlash against outsourcing remains a very real threat, intensifying amid 10% unemployment in the U.S. But outsourcing—and the idea that companies must operate cheaply, efficiently, globally—has come to be an accepted, inescapable reality.

    “The last 10 years, Indian outsourcing whether software or voice processes went from the Next New Thing, to the default state,” says J. Vikram Bakshi, who worked in 1999 at Hughes Software Systems, back then a division of General Motors. Now, Indians have moved onto thinking bigger, he says. “Every software entrepreneur is dreaming of creating India’s Microsoft, Baidu,, Google.”

    Mr. Bakshi is no exception. The entrepreneurial bug also bit him and he launched Digiqom, a marketing and brand communications company in New Delhi.

    Indeed, many information-technology consultants who worked for Y2K-related clients 10 years ago have gone into business for themselves, twisting the outsourcing model into all sorts of sectors, from transcribing hospital records to offering American teenagers help with their homework.

    In 1999, Nitin Dhawan worked as a project consultant with American Express India Ltd. His job was essentially trying to drum up business for the company among the U.S., U.K. and India. He likens his own career’s rise to India’s “journey of transformation.”

    Now, he launched an Internet marketing company and serves as its chief executive officer. iMarketing Advantage Ltd. markets legal services in the U.K. and also markets health services in India. In a sign of the outsourcing model coming full circle, he says, “As a matter of fact, we have been outsourcing part of our technology and content development to Eastern European countries and also the U.S. and U.K.”

    He calls it a “kind of reverse outsourcing model.”

    The new mindset, the new confidence, reverberates thousands of miles away. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll from earlier this month a majority of Americans believe the U.S. is in decline. A plurality went as far as to say the U.S. will be surpassed by China in 20 years as the world’s top power. India can hardly be far behind, given its population projected to exceed China and its democratic form of government.

    That would have been unthinkable in 1999.

    But congratulations for India must be fleeting. It is too easy to look backward to see how far it has come. It is hardly fruitful to look forward to a time that it might surpass China or the U.S. as a superpower. What will distinguish India in the decade that begins Friday is its ability to now look inward, to clean its government, to uplift more of its population, to foster the businesses and innovations such as those of Messers. Bakshi and Dhawan and make their success of the last 10 years the norm across regions and industries. That might just clinch more than the next decade—it could well pave the way for an Indian century.

  89. aaina

    Lets hope that in the next 10 years , pakistan achieves at least 10%of what India has in the last ten years.

    Really ,what a shame one feels when one sees young Aitchison boyz gyrating to these silly hindi songs.We should really do something to reduce India s growing soft power in pakistan.

  90. Hayyer

    Indian soft power can be somewhat like American soft power, i.e. pretty trashy, but it is not necessarily all trash.
    I sometimes read comments that Pakistan should do more to shun things Indian. In India there was, or rather still is a government sponsored movement to avoid use of Arabic and Persian words (imported into Hindustani via Urdu) in ordinary speech, but not wholly successful, and recently there has been an increased interest in ghazal forms and consequently in such Persian words and phrases.
    Is Indian soft power to be shunned for its own sake or in the interests of a more solid Pakistan identity.
    I ask because I read your comment to Milind Kher on another post that he should have changed his name.
    Arab names are synonymous with Islam but Arab Christians also carry them, Naseem Talib for example
    So Arab names are not exclusively Islamic. On the other hand Indonesian Muslims have from the beginning continued to carry Hindu names while being good Muslims, though there is a movement towards Arabization now. Iranians continue to be good Muslims with their own cultural identity though influenced by Arabia; they mostly bear Persian names as do the Parsis. Why should a Muslim carrying a Hindu name be objectionable. Your Najam Sethi and our Javed Anand plus sundry others carry mixed names. If it is alright for an Indonesian Muslim to carry a Hindu name and for a Iranian Muslim to carry an Zoroasterian one, what specifically is wrong with an Indian Muslim carrying a Hindu name.
    We must bear in mind that Arab names were not Muslim names before the birth of Islam.,

  91. yasserlatifhamdani

    Just FYI … Aaina is an Indian based in Delhi posing as a Pakistani.

  92. vajra


    That was rankly evident in his postings of 4:41 and 4:48 yesterday.

  93. Milind Kher


    I completely agree with you. In terms of greetings too, there are some biases. Some people want to say “Allah Hafiz” instead of “Khuda Hafiz” on the grounds that Non Muslims use the word “Khuda” forgetting that Christian Arabs refer to God as “Allah”

  94. Hayyer

    Thank you for the information. Shameful thing to do.

  95. PMA

    Hayyer (December 31, 2009 at 11:53 am)

    Enjoyed every word. Many Pakistanis will not like to know that the Arabic words ‘llah’ meaning god, and Allah (Al-llah) meaning ‘The God’ pre-date Islam. The word Illahi means my god. Most Indian Muslims, even those from convert families, tend to have Arabic family names. However in Pakistan Muslims from convert families tend to keep their original family names or drop the family name altogether. But almost all Muslim Pakistanis tend to have Turkish, Persian and Arabic first and middle names. Similarly, since independence, Pakistani Punjabi and Pakistani Urdu have significantly changed from its counterpart in India. Amritsar is only ten miles away from the border, yet the Punjabi of Lahore is significantly different from the Punjabi of Amritsar. Culture is an ever changing phenomenon.

  96. Hayyer

    It is interesting that the Panjabi University in Patiala and the Guru Nanak University in Amritsar, set up to preserve Panjabi, and to limit the Arya Samaji influences of Panjab University (Chandigarh) ended up following Government of India’s lead in cleansing Arabic/Persian terminology from official Punjabi. Indian Punjabi is not significantly different. It is quite the same I dare say, as the Pakistani version. What differs is the way media channels follow Government Panjabi.
    Some decade and a half ago on a visit to Pakistan I spoke in Punjabi to many Pakistanis and there was not one word spoken that ws foreign to my ears. I was particularly pleased to converse with an Executive Engineer with a pronounced Majhail accent who used the identical idiom still prevalent in Amritsar.
    One of our interlocutors was vehement in expressing his anger that mitha Majha was in India. He was referring to the saline underground water in the Pakistani Majha. Even in Potohar the speech was reminiscent of the Punjabi spoken by refugees now resident in Delhi.
    Culture is probably as much evolved as imposed.

  97. Mustafa Shaban


    I am Khoja Ithna Asheri Shia, you should have asked because I am not Ismaili, though they are very nice and intellegent people.

    You completely misunderstand IK. What he says is that there are 30 different groups of people who call themselves Taliban and have no connection with one another. There are people who are tribal people and other people who have the wrong idea that Pakistan is fighting American hence you should target Pakistan. IK says we should separate the groups and separate the negotiablee people from the real terrorists who are just foriegn jihadis, takfiris and those who are backed by foreign powers. This will make it easier to defeat TTP. Also IK says that the TTP are not muslim and they are not even human beings bt savage beasts who need to be brought to justice. Though there are some eleements who are not savage and are only fighting Army and so we should separate them from the real terrorists.

    Also I am not confused. I do not endorse the Talibans version of Islam and niether do most people including IK. You are confused about what I am saying and what IK is saying. You need to look more closely.

    And it dusnt matter what kind of shia or muslim or what religion you belong to. Everybody has the capability to understnd and we cannnot classify one sect to be confused or foolish. This is a big sin.

    Hope you understand me now.

  98. PMA

    Hayyer (December 31, 2009 at 11:04 pm):

    Cleansing of Arabic/Persian/Turkish words from Indian languages in India, and of Hindi/Sanskrit words from Pakistani languages in Pakistan is an ongoing process. Some of it is deliberate when some of it is due to the lack of contact between the two people from these two countries. Also having two different scripts does not help either. The linguistic trajectory in the two countries is on two very different paths. In the last sixty years in Pakistan use of Arabic and English words has increased while use of Hindi words, Hindu references and phrases have gradually disappeared. In Pakistan traditional Urdu that once heavily carried Turko-Persian words is now being gradually replaced by an ‘Arabized’ and ‘Anglicized’ Urdu (and Punjabi). Similarly there is no teaching, reading or writing of Punjabi language anywhere in Pakistan. The younger generation in Pakistan simultaneously converses in three languages, although without perfection in any of the three.

  99. Hayyer

    You are right I’m sure about the diverging language of the two countries. One would think that visual media and films would ensure mutual intelligibility of ordinary spoken language. Unfortunately Pakistani TV and Pakistani films are not aired in India; so it is probable that you understand our speech better than we understand yours. Urdu is a step child in Indian official circles and therefore excluded from common speech except among Muslims. It has almost disappeared from Indian Punjab.

  100. AZW

    @ Mustafa Shaban:

    I will not repeat any of the arguments previously repeated on many threads at PTH. I remembered once I asked you a few questions about who are “us”, who are “them (the enemies)” and what do “they” want. Your answer then, and subsequent comments elsewhere on PTH seemed almost too childish to respond. You can have your opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. Please make an effort to not bend the world to suit your opinions. Because as you grow older, you will find yourself descending into the hateful abyss where the other characters like Ummi, Jawwad and their folks reside. World is a lot more different, a lot more complex than their simple religious tinted glasses make it out to be. This makes them angry, spiteful and at the end they drag the others around them into the cycle of violence that is the only way their understanding makes out the solution to be.

    You are however still young, and though your mind is full of conspiracy theories and blind hero worshipping traits, you are respectful to people who challenge you at PTH. There is a certain humility that makes us appreciate that you have the guts to accept the reality that we won’t be right all the times and that we will only grow by learning and willing to correct ourselves. The rest is up to you.

    Happy 2010 to you and everyone at PTH.

  101. Milind Kher


    When talking about people like the ones you mentioned, there is one painful fact to be understood. The voice of one militant person is equivalent to that of 10 peaceful ones.

    That is the reason why moderate voices are drowned, and people consider the militant voices to be truly representative of a community or a country, as the case may be.

  102. Mustafa Shaban

    @AZW: I do not try to bend the world to my opinion. I am also very open to the other side as you have seen. Thnx for your compliments.

  103. rex minor

    I suspect that many of you were not even born when the refrendum was conducted to partition the country. It does not matter what Mr Jinnah genuinely wanted, the important thing is what the little men,that you guys always seem to ignore, voted for,when they took part in the refrendum.
    I do not see any serious differences between various opinions expressed on this subject. As a lawyer, and I note there are quite a few among you, mr YLH would be ready to convince even Mr Jinnah what he wanted, if he was to suddenly reappear in person. The facts are that neither Mr Jinnah nor any other leader from the muslim league imagined the aftermath of the partition. No one ever contemplated the departure of non-muslims! Therefore,it goes without saying that the intended republic( Islamic or muslim) was to guarantee equal rights and privileges to all its citizens regardless of their ethnic and religion background.
    what has become of this super vision is a different story. The country also inherited great many leaders from India. The only army Pakistan had to defend its borders was the Pashtoons, yes sir, the Pashtoons. The armies of Frontier Force, khyber Rifles andthose from Swat(yousafzais, mohmands9 and waziristan(wazirs, massouds) etc. were the only one with nothing more than light weaponry. The readers should recall this period of history when they observe Pakistan modern armies current campaign in the Pashtoon territories.
    The political leaders of Pakistan have time and again proven themselves as the most incompetant and out of touch with the society. Every now and then they requested the military for intervention, thereby compelling the military takeover. I am sorry I am only an observer, today the country is worst than in previous years, no obvious oncept or vision. How long the army will keep on playing the role of a policeman to protect Zardari and co? As long as the Americans pay the dollero, this is what they have been all the time. Saudi money poured in with conditions to make the country strictly Islamic. This was not the intention of Mr Jinnah or anyone. He did not have the slightest idea of running a country. The Hindus in today’s Pakistan were the business magnets and money experts and when they left? Well they had to wait for the migration of the muslim business people from india. mr jinnah offered not to take any salary. He probably imagined that no Govt. leader would demand a salary, and that the military would bring their own weaponry and horses to make infantry and cavalry units. Perhaps he thought that the Colonialists would pay the state enough finances to pay for the police and the civil servants. Well, this did not happen. The Saudis did, and slowly the country shaped the society as one finds it today. No one should have the illusuion that the country is likely to exist with deja vu policy. Reforms are needed in militry and other avenues of the Govt. to make it a Modern State. But first and foremost the anarchy and the killing of the citizens must stop!

  104. Ali Raza

    What the hell you Pakistan fellow students are thinking. For God sake it is not the time to waste time in such useless debates and the words written above are not authentic at all haj i and all other members are working for their personal interests come on Muslims work hard and make this nation an Islamic nation remember your forefathers who scarified everything just for us to give us a platform and we got Pakistan as a platform work hard on this platform and just rule the world come on stop messing release what the threats we are facing unite as a nation and work together come on we have good experience of ruling we ruled over sub-continent for centuries that inshallah we will do it again.

  105. Rafi

    Unless you understand the difference between DEEN and religion, Quaid’s vision of an Islamic nation can never be understood. Today we use ‘secular’ as opposed to religious. The true Islamic concept means the implementation of Islamic social system in which all can live peacefully without prejudice. The Quaid was opposed to Theocracy or the rule of the Mullahs. Those interested should read saleena Karim’s book SECULAR JINAH…MUNIR’S BIG HOAX EXPOSED. Its Pakistani edition will be out on the 25th Dec.m, 2010 at the International Book fair to be held in Karachi. The book will be available at Paramoubnt and other book stores. At the moment it is available at Amazon

  106. YLH

    Saleena kareem’s book is pretty ridiculous.