The J-Man and His Pakistan

I was informed that this article has resulted – to put it euphemistically-  in giving wedgies to quite a few chaddiz over at (as I had predicted in the article).  So I dropped by and just as I predicted… their rear is entirely up in smoke.  And the responses are hilarious.  One genius is suggesting that Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind are “secular” and the Majlis-e-Ahrar were good guys (that they laid the foundation of Anti-Ahmadiyya bigotry and led the movement for Islamization in Pakistan is just an inconvenient side-point for these geniuses).    Mohandas Gandhi- whether someone admits it or not- is the father of politicization of religion.  He brought Mullahs into politics deliberately to sideline the liberals.  Jinnah and his ilk were only using the tools that were left to them.   No wonder Hindu fascist chumps from Bharat Rhakshak think Jamiat-e-ulema-hind were harmless.  The only harm JUH and Deobandi Islam ever did was to Muslims by stifling their progress.   After all the latest edict from the “Secular” Deoband is that banking is haram for Muslims.  Brilliant… what more could Hindu communalists ask for.  

Update:  Responses to Nusrat Pasha’s article confirm the Gandhian mindset amongst Indians and I use the word  Gandhian in the most uncharitable sense of the word.  Gandhi – whatever his intentions-  made a crucial mistake of driving down Muslim liberals and allying himself with Islamo-fascists- same Islamo-fascists who are responsible for much of the problems in the Muslim world.  In the Urdu language,   the word “taya” is used for an uncle who is older than one’s father.   If Gandhiji is estopped from claiming fatherhood of political Islam,  he must surely rank as the taya of political Islam in South Asia.     Same thing is happening today.  Many Indians – who have a vested interest in bolstering liberals – are so seized with nationalist bigotry and hatred that is ingrained in them against Pakistan and Jinnah that they are gleefuly celebrating Pakistan’s descent into chaos.  Well my little short-sighted friends,   if we in Pakistan fall – yes we the liberals you hate so much-   you will be faced with a darkness that you can seldom conceive and which you barely realize at this moment.  Then your little “secular deoband” fantasy will quickly turn into something you have no understanding of.

From Daily Times today

VIEW: The J-man and his Pakistan —Yasser Latif Hamdani

Jinnah was, and remained so, till the end of his life a classical liberal schooled in the Victorian era. His economics and politics was based on liberal and limited government protecting and forwarding the cause of freedom of speech, religion, press and also markets

It has been pointed out, quite justifiably, that most of my articles, if not all, refer to Jinnah and his conception of Pakistan in some form or the other. I can assure you that this reference is quite deliberate on my part for primarily two reasons. The first reason is that Jinnah was, as the Americans would say, the man, indeed our ‘main man’, or as I like to call him affectionately the J-man. Those who have had the opportunity of studying abroad and have read about Jinnah in our college libraries there can seldom recognise the sky blue sherwani topi-clad fellow with a similar name who is found on the walls of our government offices.

The second reason for my doing so is that there are many people who do not quite like it when I mention Jinnah. My mention of Jinnah, therefore, serves as a godsend for the industry that produces Pepto-Bismol for public consumption. These people — who have varying responses to my articles — are themselves derived from varied backgrounds and indeed nationalities. One group consists of rabid Islamists who insist Pakistan was created as some sort of millennial fantasy to create Allah’s kingdom on earth. The second group consists of the pseudo-Left, who want to be cool enough to be called Marxist but shy away from the intellectual rigour that is required for dialectical analysis that is the hallmark of Marxism. The third group is derived from amongst Pakistan’s ethno-nationalists who have an intense dislike for what Jinnah stood for. The fourth group consists of gung-ho ultra Indian nationalist types to whom liberal Pakistan is for some reason more troublesome than the religious theocracy it has increasingly become.

All of these groups, of course, use the same arguments and the same selective quotes out of context from Jinnah. Jinnah’s ambiguous references to Islam, Islamic ideals and Islamic unity are used to demolish his vision of the state which he clearly expressed on — as per last count — at least three dozen occasions. For a politician operating in a charged environment already poisoned by the introduction of religion into politics — by the great Mahatma Gandhi no less — Jinnah, who had warned Gandhi against it when he first started this nasty business, did appeal to the Islamic ideals of unity, equality, fraternity and justice to wean away supporters from Islamist parties like the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar. After all, is that not what we always do when we claim that Islam does not stand for terrorism or that Islam is reasonable and rational and in consonance with the modern world. Jinnah was expounding his classical liberal thought to his followers in terms that were easily comprehensible to them. His was not some crass use of religion and crude communalism. When read in context, each of Jinnah’s speeches — even those flowered with references to Islamic principles — focus on Jinnah’s idea of a state and society that would be impartial, modern, liberal and, I daresay, secular.

Jinnah was, and remained so, till the end of his life a classical liberal schooled in the Victorian era. His economics and politics, as his 37-year long career as a legislator showed, was based on liberal and limited government protecting and forwarding the cause of freedom of speech, religion, press and also markets. On freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so strong were Jinnah’s views that he cautioned the legislature and posterity against misuse of 295 A — a law criminalising freedom of speech deemed as offending to people of different religions. What indeed would Jinnah think of 295 B, 295 C as well as 298 B and 298 C of our penal code? This is a question best left unanswered lest the state of Pakistan be forced try its founder posthumously.

I hate to break it to the ‘Pakistan was founded for Islam’ group that in J-man’s vision of statehood, religion had little or no role whatsoever. Indeed any form of religious tyranny was an anathema to him. These are not myths ladies and gentlemen. Jinnah’s 37-year long career as a legislator in the central legislature of India is not a myth. That he was willing to negotiate on the basis of united India till the very end is a fact now well established as a consensus amongst historians studying partition whether in the West or in South Asia. The fact that Jinnah vetoed numerous resolutions calling to commit Pakistan to Islam within the Muslim League, famously describing one such attempt as nothing less than “censure on every leaguer” is not a myth. The August 11 speech, delivered to the constituent assembly, which did not mention the word ‘Islam’ once and which spoke not just of freedom of religion but equality of citizenship and status of religion as personal faith with which the state would be completely unconcerned is not a myth.

When asked about Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La Ilaha illallah, J-man responded that he had never allowed such a resolution to be passed in the Muslim League and that the person in question might have done so to “catch a few votes”. Was this lawyerly talk or naivety of British India’s most eminent brown sahib? Either way, the founder of this state of ours never envisaged Pakistan to be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission. He had always had a visceral dislike for the clergy.

The reason why Pakistan could not be an ‘Islamic state’ or harbour any fantasies about role of religion in state was perhaps best explained by Jinnah himself when he told Raja of Mahmudabad to distance himself from the League. He asked the impetuous Raja to tell him whose shariah would Pakistan follow? Even more forthright is the version transmitted to us by Iskandar Mirza who quoted Jinnah as saying, “Shariah? Whose shariah? No. I shall have a modern state.”

If the Pakistani state cannot reinvent itself along the lines given by Jinnah, perhaps the state should think about distancing itself from Jinnah and letting him rest in peace.

Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer. He also blogs at and can be reached at

PS: Here is Jinnah playing with his dogs – especially for Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui of Jamaat-e-Islami:



Filed under Pakistan

67 responses to “The J-Man and His Pakistan

  1. kashifiat

    YLH ! Its your one of classic,typical, stereotype “Choro” article. Calling QA as Secular & liberal is nothing else than his insult, which is basically a “Gali” for a great leader, might be he had few ideas in 1930-ies But after passing Pakistan resolution he was clear about Islam & its integral role in affairs of Govt.

    You are nothing other than a member of psychological ill & ideological corrupt clan of fascists liberals which has verbal diarrhea

  2. An ordinary man

    You are a typical reflection of those who would tweak history in order for it to suit their interests and leaders.

    If Jinnah was such a religious person, why the hell your spiritual father Maududi and his bunch kept calling him Kafir and called Pakistan a prostitute even after it was born?

    Why not condemn Maududi and fellows for their acts. I shout for Maududi and Ahrars and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and hope you will follow: “Shame… Shame…. Shame….” Do I hear you!

  3. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashifiat… you and Bharat Rhakshak folk have a lot in common…

    One of those things is denial of history…

    Let me remind you of what yourMaududi said about Jinnah.

    But I’ll tell you another thing… Jinnah was a pork-eating, whisky-drinking liberal. Take that and shove it up where the sun don’t shine.

    Even Ishtiaq Ahmed – who you posted with such glee- admits grudgingly that Jinnah was a secular liberal. I dare you to post his article in Daily Times today.

  4. kashifiat

    YLH ! What a third class mentality you have just like Mustafa Kamal Pasha of Tutkey – A garbage center

    What you want to show, by posting pic of QA with dogs. This is the same message which was conveyed by your mentor Mush who released his pic with dogs.

    What QA did with his daughter in a decision, when she show her secular mentality. See how QA passed his 10 years of life.

    See my blog you will find there 🙂

  5. yasserlatifhamdani

    Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah called Mustapha Kemal Ataturk”The greatest Musalman of the age and one of the great men to ever live”. Chew on that.

    As for what Jinnah said to his daughter… yes Bharat Rhakshak and their champoos like you (Traitors of Pakistan) have invented many lies. However… Jinnah’s relations with Dina Wadia remained cordial… and Patrick French’s book “Liberty or Death” makes it plain that the Dina Wadia issue is merely a myth.

    Jinnah had an objection to Dina’s wedding to Neville Wadia… primarily because Neville was not a good match according to Jinnah in terms of character… (something which was proved when Dina and Neville separated in 1944)… the rest is all mythology…. there is not a single letter or written statement or anything public that shows that Jinnah “disowned” his daughter. On the contrary, Bombay High Court has already taken up this case and held that Dina Wadia is the legal heir to Jinnah.

    There are many myths that Muslims have circulated… but the truth is that letters between Dina Wadia and Jinnah are a matter of record and show very clearly that Jinnah and Dina were not estranged at all.

    Secondly these personal matters don’t have any effect… most parsis for example don’t allow marriage outside the faith. Does that mean they don’t believe in secular statehood? Communal and personal law is a different issue than the issue of the principles by which a state is governed.

    So keep going in circles… but you won’t be able to make Jinnah grow a beard… I guarantee that.

    Your mentor GENERAL ZIA was a liar and a kutay ka bacha…. and you are his carbon copy.

  6. yasserlatifhamdani

    Another Bharatrhakshak warrior-genius called “Sudhir Singh” has sent the following email to me:

    “For your knowledge it was Jinnah who dismissed a popularly elected governor of NWFP immediately after birth of Pakistan and instead of calling fresh elections nominated new governor”


    To this day … I didn’t know Sir Olaf Caroe was popularly elected and Sir George Cunningham was merely nominated… whoa!

    Only geniuses from or NJ’s Arun Gupta Clan can come up with such brilliance…

    And this from someone whose country’s first Prime Minister (Nehru) and his daughter (Indira) hold the world record for most state government and legislature dismissals! Brilliant…

    Get a life Bharatrhakshak losers.

  7. yasserlatifhamdani

    This takes the cake… the Bharatrhakshak hero mentioned above has now sent me this email to prove his claim above:

    you may also read “The solo spokes person” by ayesha jalal to get your facts a bit better and let me tell you as per Ayesha those who supported Jinnah for creation of Pakistan were on the wrong side of history,

    When he says “Solo Spokesperson” he means “Sole Spokesman” I am assuming… Somebody please inform Arun Gupta clan… that they are fighting the wrong demon i.e. Ayesha Jalal. She is secretly on Indian side according to Bharat Rhakshak genius Sudhir Singh.

  8. yasserlatifhamdani

    And utter genius:

    you have pretty strong color on eyes but the fact remains the concept of pakistan has gone awfully wrong

    unforutnately I am not educated in one of your madrassa to understand your viewpoint and to serve the whole world with terrror made in Pakistan … I am an engineer (DU) and an MBA and CFA (both from USA) and work for KPMG in M&A advisory

    Sudhir Singh ladies and gentlemen… I applaud Shining India and its articulate young middle class.

  9. AZW


    I am willing to bet some US dollars with Mr. Sudhir Singh that he is not a CFA charterholder. What gives is the fact that anyone willing to flaunt their degrees in any argument shows the following instantaneous traits:

    1) The argument itself is not cutting it, hence pile in some degrees to help the cause.

    2) Most of the people I have met in person or online who try to flaunt their degrees turn out not to have them. What is intriguing about Mr. Sudhir Singh’s degrees is his mention of being a CFA from USA. While the parent body of CFA is based in the good ol’ USofA, the exam is taken across the globe and a CFA charterholder is an equal CFA charterholder everywhere in the world. MBA from USA is probably fine (though there are quite good MBA schools across the world, and quite ordinary ones in the USA), but “CFA from USA” term will not be used by any one who has given at least three years of his life to attain that certification.

    Bottomline 1, our dear Sudhir Singh is probably a wannabe analyst, MBA, CFA, has quite a poor grasp on Jinnah and the events leading up to 1947. He will be a honorary member of the truth-is-what-I-like-to-believe band, which boasts of membership across the geographical divide. Let Messers Kashifiat, Sudhir Singh, Guptas and others revel in their black and white world where only saints or sinners live. Small details be damned; let them be merry in if it makes me feel better this is how it happened in 1940s.

    Bottomline 2: these wannabes are absolutely not worth your time.

  10. karaya


    Jinnah, who had warned Gandhi against it when he first started this nasty business, did appeal to the Islamic ideals of unity, equality, fraternity and justice to wean away supporters from Islamist parties like the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar.

    This is why Gandhi was such a fascinating man and this is why he strode across the Indian political landscape like a colossus (and apparently still affects the politics in Pakistan): he understood what drove India/Pakistan–religion.

    Jinnah got onto the bandwagon a bit late; indeed, one might argue he never really got on it fully, which is why the man, for most of his career, was hardly a popular politician.

    Well my little short-sighted friends, if we in Pakistan fall – yes we the liberals you hate so much- you will be faced with a darkness that you can seldom conceive and which you barely realize at this moment. Then your little “secular deoband” fantasy will quickly turn into something you have no understanding of.

    What you say might be true, however, as of now the blowback had helped India immensely. And while glee is a ugly (like international political power play, I guess), the respite that the Indian state has got in Kashmir, as Pakistan battles itself would be a welcome state of being.

    Anyway, most Indians have a much distorted Attenborough-ish view of the G-man akin to him being the second coming of Jesus. Official history writing even portrays him as secular (a nonsensical qualifier when used for most popular South Asian politicians), which is a bit ahistorical.

  11. Ummi

    “But I’ll tell you another thing… Jinnah was a pork-eating, whisky-drinking liberal. Take that and shove it up where the sun don’t shine.”

    and that sums up that both Mullahs and liberals crooks like YLH considered Jinnah as “Kaafir-e-azam”

  12. yasserlatifhamdani

    Does eating pork make Jinnah kafir e azam?

    I don’t think so. Do you Ummi?

  13. A.A Khalid

    Muhammad Khalid Masud one of this nation’s pre-eminent progressive religious thinkers once wrote:

    ‘’ The term “secularism”, in its semantic journey, has grown in association with ideas of modernity, humanism, rationalism and democracy. It has acquired diverse meanings in this process. It is significant that the trajectory of this semantic journey differs from country to country and culture to culture.’’

    And sadly as Edward Said the American-Arab intellectual noted aswell:

    ”One of the major failures of most Arab and Western intellectuals today is that they have accepted without debate or rigorous scrutiny terms like secularism and democracy,as if everyone knew what these words mean”.

    Hence secularity is a heterogenous phenomenon.

    I think in the most basic sense in political theory secularism is an arragement or a pardigm of Church-State relations. The problem of using this type of pardigmatic analysis with Islam, is that there is no Church in Islam i.e. in the same context as Roman Catholicism.

    Historically in Islam religious authority has been decentralised and maintained some autonomy and independence from temporal authority particularly in the pre-modern period.

    Hence what Jinnah argued for is not entirely new. It is what some conservative political theologians are arguing for which is new and unprecedented in the form of the Sharia State, where there is no institutional divide between religious and temporal authority.

    I do not want to use the word ”secular” in the context of moral theory and ethics, hence this futile debate about Jinnah’s personal conduct is petty and should not really influence our political notions of secularism which is distinct from ethical theory.

    I personally would advise to use the objective and subjective usages of secularism as advocated in the writings of Bellah, Berger, Cassanova, Berger and Soroush. Objective secularism is to see a pardigm of religion-state relations whereas subjective secularism is more personal and views the effects of religion on the public sphere, metaphysical debates and psychological framework of a nation.

    Many see Jinnah as a secular in the French tradition. Personally, I think politically speaking of course Jinnah was a secularist. But in the American, Madisonian tradition. If one compares Jinnah’s Presidential Address:

    And to Madison’s masterpiece of religious liberty, Memorial and Remonstrance:

    There are some noteable similarities.

    I think like some of the American founding fathers Jinnah recognized religion must not have a monpoloy on the coercive authority the State can yield.

    But I think Jinnah recognized religion cannot be excluded from the public sphere i.e. in the French lacite tradition. The State and the public sphere are different, this is a crucial distinction.

    Jinnah recognized the cultural, civilizational and overarching values of Islam which would operate in public discourse.

    Jinnah saw Islam as a means of Guidance in the public sphere, not as a mean of Governance used in a top-down coercive manner most Islamists have in mind (maybe a Shariah state, which is an unprecedented political construct in Muslim history which I see as a response to modernity by Islamists).

    Islam as Guidance not Islam as Governance, is this expression we can drawn from the objective secularism Jinnah espoused.

  14. Shahd

    Kashifiyat and Religious Fundo Ideology:-

    I reject your reality and substitute my own. I never wanted Pakistan, yet I am here to live and hijack its ideology. I am here to claim it as the “Fortress of Islam” when infact we had declared it repugnant to teachings of Islam. I and everybody in my right-wing fundo party are nothing more than two bit scoundrels who work for a bit of dollars (Maududi-USIS Office Wireless link in ’77) and will hijack the state for our uses.

  15. Jasleen

    EDITED. {{YLH’s response: I have written more about the injustice to Ahmadis than anyone else in Pakistan. My record speaks for itself. Atleast research a person before making such stupid and idiotic claims}}

  16. yasserlatifhamdani

    Jasleen should have sent the memo about me to jamaat ahmadiyya then. They used my second amendment article as part of their report that they circulated globally.

  17. P. Vengaayam

    The reason why separation of “church” and state is an important and necessary ingredient for a secular state is because “church” (which means “religion” in this context, not literally a “central authority that Islam does not possess”) usually defines faith as an important parameter of a person’s worth. This directly stands in contradiction with principles of equality of all humankind that is the cornerstone of enlightened constitutions. Edward said is full of it when he pretends that secularism’s definition is fuzzy, and confuses the issues mostly because of his own inability to differentiate between the fundamental differences between an enlightened constitution and religious texts.

    The French revolutionaries who figured all this out a few centuries ago were no dummies, and they saw the evils of combining religion and governance first hand. Basically, if religion says “you are a bad person if you do not follow this “One True God” and the constitution states that “There is only one true religion that is the official religion of the state”, then such a constitution is just a piece of garbage that reinforces religious prejudices instead of ensuring that all citizens of the state are treated equally.

    Any consitution that does not reinforce ideas of the equality of mankind in the real sense is not worth the paper it is written on, as it will be unable to protect the integrity of the state in the long run. This is because the contradiction of mixing state and religion will ensure that some subgroup of citizens are at the losing end. Ahmadis in Pakistan are an example of this corruption of the Pakistani constitution.

  18. Bin Ismail

    @Ummi (June 29, 2010 at 11:20 pm)

    “…..and that sums up that both Mullahs and liberals crooks like YLH considered Jinnah as “Kaafir-e-azam”…..”

    This constitutes your confession, on behalf of the ‘mullahs’, that you do consider Jinnah as kafir-e azam. On behalf of the ‘others’, YLH has squarely rejected any such fatwa. That sums up everything.

  19. yasserlatifhamdani

    Ha ha. Now that is called inversion. Bharat Rhakshak wallahs are truly Black Knights of the Monty Python variety.

  20. yasserlatifhamdani

    Excuse me. I have never posted as pakistanijeet and never supported the Taliban ever … Not once.

    I have always posted YLH.

  21. yasserlatifhamdani

    Any inaccurate portrayal hurts. I have written more about ahmadis than anyone else.

  22. messaih

    YLH mian, you are showing your true colors as the true inheritor of the Jinnah mantle. You have become abusive, and paranoid. Your language is so paki-elite. The ordinary paki-abdul on the street would no use such language.

    Finally your true colors are showing

  23. yasserlatifhamdani

    My true colors were showing when I buggered your family thoroughly.

  24. D_a_n

    July 4, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Ha ha. Now that is called inversion. Bharat Rhakshak wallahs are truly Black Knights of the Monty Python variety.

    and just to drive the point home to the Bharat Rakshak crowd…here’s what the MP black knight looks like. Enjoy

  25. Raj

    India has no use of Muslim liberals in Pakistan. Relations between India and Pakistan will only improve when the confused lot called liberals in Pakistan make way for the true representatives of Islam.

    The Pakistani Muslim liberal has no anchor whatsoever on which to build his ideology. He tries to do it on the shoulders of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, but he was simply a man, without ideology who managed to do great deeds using ideology.

    Jinnah has given you a Country, but instead of being thankful, you demand more of him, than he has given, or could give. You demand the right to be like him, to live like him, in his Country but that is not part of the bargain.

    The only option on the table is that you become true ‘pak’ Muslims, a privilege he himself could not partake of, or …. you break the table.

  26. Naradar

    Slay me with a khukri – a rational, articulate, sensible and progressive Pakistani bunch!!!

    One oxymoron annihilated.

    I actually stumbled on your site from the mouth frothing Hindoo talibanis of Bharat Rakshak and was pleasantly surprised.

    But alas I am after all a sacred thread wearing, pedigree South Indian Iyer – the purest of Brahmins. I will take a bath and sprinkle Ganga water drops on myself I preserve for such occcasions.
    After which I will watch the world cup finals with grilled pork chops, chilled beer and root for Spain. Still have a mental block against eating the sacred cow though.

    On a more serious note – you guys should examine the scenario of an imploding Pakistan. My tax money ( I am a US citizen) supports the state of Pakistan. All my American right wing acquaintances say Pakistan is a lost cause – perpetually required to be propped up Western munificence and slowly disintegrating into medieval tribal enclaves.

    Can the cerebral elite of Pakistan stop Pakistan from self-destructing?

    I gamble – horses, cockfighting are my favorites. Because I can see the adversaries. With Pakistan, I am still ambivalent.

  27. Abdullah

    May Allah free the subcontinent from the evil ways of jinnah and the secularist movement.

    Stop worshipping Jinnah, he is a false idol worshipped beside Allah

  28. YLH

    Too bad I choose Jinnah!

  29. Abdullah

    You will be with those you love on day of judgment

  30. YLH


  31. YLH

    “You will be with those you love on day of judgment”

    Thank you. And I suppose that is a bad thing?

    Would you want to be people you hate instead?

  32. Abdullah

    Well if they burning in Hell, you don’t want to be too near them. Atheism is not going to save you.

  33. YLH

    Well I’d rather burn in hell with people I love than enjoy heaven with crooks and wehshi mullahs like you!

    But have you thought of the possibility that you might have it wrong completely.

  34. Abdullah

    No there is no doubt YLH, I don’t doubt in Allah and the last day. As for atheists, when the time comes, call out to the God they supposedly disbelieve in. As doubt still harbours in their hearts.

  35. YLH

    Come now. Yes you do doubt if you have it right. Otherwise you won’t be posting here like an insecure fanatic?

  36. Abdullah

    I am fine, its your demented posts that show you don’t know what your talking about.

    Thinking Jinnah is the great shows you are not very good with history. Jinnah at one point was for hindu-muslim unity, then calling for pakistan. Was not very sure of himself, and you think hes the great. Typical lame secularist who hid behind Islam, misguiding the masses with his kufr.

  37. Abdullah

    By the way past 100 years, how come you secularists have not done much. You have to oppress the masses to keep your rule.

    You harp on about progress, but what progress has your filth known as secularism brought in the Muslim world.

    Your icons of secularism in the middle east, usurping power and money, and keeping the Muslims down.

  38. Abdullah

    You have had secularism and democracy in pakistan in the past however many years, how come you still keeping it backward.

    Jinnah, liaquat ali khan, ayub khan, benazir, nawaz, musharraf zardari etc a bunch of secularists who have brought failure.

  39. YLH

    Where have we had secularism and democracy in Pakistan. Not only are you are crazy fanatic but you are an idiot too.

  40. Abdullah

    You have had secularism and democracy in pakistan. It might not be to your taste, or the communists, however you have secularism and democracy, stop trying to change history.

    After all these decades in pakistan of secularism and democracy, its been kept backward. The politicians, army have usurped while the guy on the street been tread on. Not mentioning all the crime which is rampant or other host of issues in pakistan. You don’t want to admit it, as this would show up your web of deceit.

  41. skarlok

    @ abdullah

    Mullaism is what has kept Pakistan backward. Bhutto and Zia alliance with the mullas and bringing them to power is what f***ed pakistan. Every day people are being brainwashed to blow themselves up and go to heaven.

  42. Abdullah


    haha hilarious, thats the problem with you secularists, your living in an alternative universe of your minds. The bad language does not show well, but not surprise from no hopers who think secularism is going to save them.

    But back on topic lets get this straight it is your filthy creed as espoused by Jinnah which is promoted and pushed in pakistan for the past 6 decades.

    Unless afcourse someone delusional like yourself who considers that Jinnah, Liaquat ali khan, ayub khan to musharraf etc were some kind of people calling for Islamic law.

    Reality check they were all a bunch of secularists, their use of Islam was only used as a way to win votes. There was no mullahism, pakistan is a secular state, what do you think the 1861 pakistani penal code was taken from the Qur’an and Sunnah, NO! Find out where you kufr constitution comes from before you start your veiled attacks on Islam.

    You secularists can keep dreaming even after all these years you have to lie to others to push your lame agenda.

  43. tilsim1

    Where are the kavay… when you need them?

  44. YLH

    Now I am a communist ? Wah!

    The problem with these fucking activists from Harami-ut-tahrir or Hizb-ut-terror is that they can’t fucking make sense if their life depended on it.

  45. tilsim1

    @ Abdullah

    And you think secularism is THE problem. I suspect that you live in the West so you should know better. I think this one is for you. This is what happens when you hold the wrong end of the stick:

    “What’s front page news in Saudi Arabia?

    It never fails to amaze me how in a country where women are only seen covered head to toe in black and get educated and work in mostly gender segregated institutes, and yet men are completely obsessed with them. The latest is a fatwa that originated in Egypt and was recently renewed by Shiekh Al Obiekan in a TV interview. He was asked if it was alright to breastfeed a grown man in order to be able to raise the segregation rule between a man and a woman and he replied with a yes! This was given major coverage in both AlWatan Newspaper and AlRiyadh Newspaper. But before I go into the details of the fatwa, some background information:

    Breastfeeding is encouraged in Islam up to the age of two, after which the child has to be weaned. If a woman breastfeeds a child that is not her own, that child becomes her son by breastmilk and she and her daughters do not have to cover from him when he becomes an adult. However she has to breastfeed him before he turns two and it has to be five separate fulfilling sessions of breastfeeding. This is popular in Saudi Arabia especially among sisters because then they won’t have to worry about segregating their kids later. The cousins would be considered as “breastmilk siblings”.

    It all began in May 2007 when an Egyptian Sheikh called Mohammed Atiya came out with a fatwa advising women to breastfeed their male coworkers if their job entails spending time alone together. Shiekh Atiya was quickly fired from his post at the Azhar University and the whole thing was swept under the rug. Until this week when Shiekh Al Obiekan, a royal judicial consultant at the Saudi Ministry of Justice renewed it all by replying to a question on a TV interview. He stated that in cases where a household needs an unrelated man like a driver to repeatedly visit the house, it is allowed for the woman of the household to breastfeed the stranger so he becomes a relative! The shiekh’s only condition is that the man does not drink directly from the woman’s breast but that the milk be pumped and then offered to the man in a glass. But this condition was revoked by another sheikh, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, who insists that the breastmilk must be sucked by the man directly from the breast!”

    source: saudiwoman’s blog

  46. YLH

    All I can say is this fellow is a fucking idiot and nothing else.

    The reason why Pakistan is in the pits is because unlike India we have always put our feet in two boats…one of which is imaginary… India has had its feet firmly in the boat of British institutions, democracy and secularism atleast legally. Thus India has fared better.

    If Pakistan had followed Jinnah’s advice it might have done better too.

    But if we follow Abdullah’s prescription Pakistan would be worse than Afghanistan.

    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  47. skarlok

    July 24, 2010 at 5:06 am

    My use of censured bad language was to demonstrate to you the state Pakistan is currently in. Maybe you are in denial about that. Corrupt politicians + Mullahs = Current Pakistan

  48. An Ahmadi Muslim

    My posts are being banned altogether. Looks like, freedom of speech was let go ..

  49. YLH

    There might be a technical glitch.

  50. An Ahmadi Muslim

    Well, this post worked .. I wonder why my comments were not showing yesterday . Thanks to whoever and what ever resolved the issue.

  51. Hayyer


    “…..thats the problem with you secularists, your living in an alternative universe of your minds.”

    That description applies to you better than it does to secularists, religiously inclined or atheist.

    There is a real world that we encounter through our senses, or through instruments and mathematics when the real world is too large or small for the senses. This world is a falsifiable one. It is not a palpable one.

    Your world on the other hand is the alternate one existing in your mind-not real and therefore not falsifiable. People can believe anything as long as they don’t harm others. If you think we are all going to hell, whatever that is, you are entitled to that view but please don’t get angry if others don’t agree with you.

  52. Abdullah


    I didn’t say you are a communist, don’t non-existent claims. As far as ht are concerned, I am not with them. It looks like your bad manners are bad like your ability to read properly.

    However pakistan has been down jinnah’s path, if your secularist friends from yesteryear used islam as a vehicle for power, that is no different to Jinnah.

    The afghanistan your alluding to had decades of war followed by boycott, however they still managed to have sense of security and eliminated opium crops. Unlike in the secular state of pakistan, with no security and the drug problem rampant.


    Yes secularism is the problem, something you and others are not acknowledging has been in pakistan.

    More like corrupt politicians and army = pakistan. Was za bhutto as an example using islam? Now thats your politicians for you(and in other countries) who use Islam to further their gains. When in fact they are enemies of Islam.


    I am not saying you or anyone else on here will definitely going to hell, just that if you die upon this path. Allah knows best whether you will change and become Muslim.

    Also the reality exists, reading on here a lot of what is written from the secularists etc is trying to change history, or give a false slant to the reality.

    You can not argue pakistan is not a secular, when it clearly is and has been

  53. Abdullah

    continued @ylh from above * I didn’t say you are a communist, don’t make non-existent claims

  54. YLH

    Abdullah you are an idiot if you think Afghanistan is better than Pakistan.

    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  55. Abdullah


    You have comprehension problems. Its funny how you have had to compare the secular state of pakistan to one ravaged by war. And yes it was better in the sense I was talking.

    And lets be frank those few years of taliban rule did assert security as opposed to the crime ridden society of the secular state of pakistan. By the way your buddy karzai is in charge, you not happy with his rule?

  56. YLH

    Abdullah it might come as a surprise to you but Karzai is not a secularist.

    And Pakistan is not secular state. If Pakistan was a secular state, it would have been much better.

  57. Bin Ismail

    @tilsim1 (July 24, 2010 at 7:50 am)

    “… Egyptian Sheikh called Mohammed Atiya came out with a fatwa advising women to breastfeed their male coworkers if their job entails spending time alone together…..another sheikh, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, who insists that the breastmilk must be sucked by the man directly from the breast…..”

    One sheikh/mulla/maulvi from Egypt and the other from Saudi Arabia – when it comes to stuff like this, there’s complete accord – otherwise when one goes East the other goes West.

    @Hayyer (July 24, 2010 at 9:59 am)

    “…..If you think we are all going to hell, whatever that is…..”

    It is a place where this world’s clergy will assemble in the next – which of course, then will be palpable. Trust me, you don’t want to be there.

  58. Humane

    Pakistan was born a secular state but then mullahs hijacked it promising to implement the sharia…..

    All these Mullahs ever did was to destroy Pakistan…

    Emotionally charged people of Pakistan cannot handle the sharia law and ended up making legislations as Ahmadi-kafir and now possiby shia-kafir.

    Jinnah realized this and created a ‘state for the Muslims’
    and not an ‘Islamic state’ as some people believe.

  59. Bin Ismail

    @ Humane (July 25, 2010 at 2:20 am)

    “…..Emotionally charged people of Pakistan cannot handle the sharia law and ended up making legislations as Ahmadi-kafir and now possiby shia-kafir…..”

    While I would agree with the rest of your comment, there was hardly anything emotional about the anti-Ahmadi 2nd amendment. This was a premeditated and cold-blooded act.

  60. Abdullah

    Lets make a list for you and everyone harping on about “Mullahs” being the rulers of Pakistan

    pakistani leaders in history

    Mohammad Ali Jinnah
    Khwaja Nazimaddin
    Ghulam Mohammad

    Iskander Ali Mirza
    Ayub Khan
    Yahya Khan
    ZA Bhutto
    Fazal Elahi Chaudry
    Ghulam Ishaq Khan
    Wasim Sajjad

    Liaquat ali khan
    khwaja nazimuddin
    muhammad ali bogra
    za bhutto
    benazir bhutto
    nawaz sharif
    shaukat aziz

    you guys dont even know your own history, or just shows how secularists have harmed pakistan and other muslim countries with their evi oppressive filth

  61. Abdullah

    Qadianis are disbelievers irrespective of any human made constitution.

  62. Abdullah

    Apparently I read the real “TEA HOUSE” in lahore was closed, due to lack of business. Does not seem like people are swarming to secularism in their droves.

    Bad manners not surprised from someone like yourself, when person can’t discuss. Shows your weak arguments and mind

  63. YLH

    Dear idiot,

    1. Pakistan used to be a much better place when it secularists still had some say. That people are not swarming for places like PTH shows the social and moral and ideological decay into a violent Islamist dystopia. It happened due to that cock-sucker Zia ul haq who also thought he was on God’s mission like you.

    2. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you and I are in some kind of a debate. Debate is between equals and you and your arguments if you can call them that don’t deserve a rebuttal. I am merely engaging you to abuse you and your family because I consider you and the idiots who reproduced you worthy of contempt of the worst kind.

    3. Grow up and realize that the “arguments” you are putting forth don’t need to be refuted …they can only be enjoyed as one enjoys the village clown.

  64. Tilsim

    @ Abdullah

    You listed a set of names of leaders. What does that have to do with secular? Would your list rather read?

    Maulana Maududi
    Mian Tufail Ahmad
    Azam Tariq
    Mulla Fazlar Rahman
    Qazi Hussein Ahmed
    Mullah Rashid Ghazi
    Mullah Abdul Aziz Ghazi
    Mullah FM Radio
    General Hameed Gul
    Zaid Hamid
    General Mahmood Ahmed

    If Pakistan is secular, how do you explain the

    1) state religion: Islam
    2) Islamic Republic of Pakistan
    3) No law in contradiction to Islam
    4) Federal Shariat courts
    5) the hudood ordinance
    6) the ordinance declaring ahmedis non-muslims
    7) Blasphemy laws

    as well as many other provisions specifically catering to one group of people who live in Pakistan i.e Muslims (or are they all kafir by your definition?)

    You say that you reject the constitution of Pakistan. This constitution was unanimously approved by all political forces in parliament in 1973 including the Islamic parties.

    Islam is not about laws. As you know laws don’t change society. It’s about what’s inside you and the sort of the person and community you are. If you have no goodness inside you then your religion won’t change anything. If one is a hateful, intolerant and violent person, one will remain so even though he may wear the cloak of religiousity. Focus on an inner transformation if you want to transform those around you for the sake of God and yourself.

  65. Bin Ismail

    @ Abdullah (July 25, 2010 at 6:45 pm)

    “…..Qadianis are disbelievers irrespective of any human made constitution…..”

    And you, Sir, I believe are the author of the God-made constitution.

  66. mubarak

    @ tilsim
    “Islam is not about laws. As you know laws don’t change society. It’s about what’s inside you and the sort of the person and community you are. If you have no goodness inside you then your religion won’t change anything. If one is a hateful, intolerant and violent person, one will remain so even though he may wear the cloak of religiousity. Focus on an inner transformation if you want to transform those around you for the sake of God and yourself.”

    very well said sir, religion can be thought of as a tool for people who want to be good become better.

    who is Mullah FM radio by the way?

  67. Tilsim

    @ Mubarak

    Thanks. Mullah FM is Mullah Fazlullah erstwhile of Malakand and now reportedly in Nuristan. He used to have an FM radio station where he gave his jihadi broadcasts. He took over Swat and tried to enforce his version shariah which was banning TV, video, cd, computers (enforced by burning shops), female education (enforced by blowing up schools), polio vaccination (by beating up WHO workers), against female’s participation in politics, justification of suicide bombings.

    Some of his choice statements.

    1. Kafir means Kafir Police, Kafir Fauj.

    2. Momin means Momin Taliban

    3. Wazir-e-Azam is Kharr-e-Azam, Wazir-e-Aala is Kharr-e-Aala

    4. Appreciation of the ‘beautiful’ scenes of slaughtering of the kuffar

    5. Good news: So many soldiers killed in India, Mubarak (congratulations); so many Shia killed in D.I. Khan, Mubarak.