As most of you may know the history of subcontinent and creation of Pakistan in 1947. Now here is the scenario…
There were two type of muslims in subcontinent, one who wanted independant muslim state in subcontinent, and others who wanted to live in a united India. Both schools of thought had large following and they had very valid reasons to support their POV. To cut the story short, Both parties wanted better secure future for the next generations of Indian muslims.
Now at one time some (united India )activists of one group known as ‘Khaksaar Tehreek’ tried to Assassinate Mr. Jinnah (Quaid-e-Azam) but failed.
These activists had absolute conviction that what they are doing is in the best interest of Islam and Muslims of Subcontinent.
Now Questions :
If they had succeeded in killing Mr Jinnah before creation of Pakistan , what in your opinion what would have been the resultant change in the future events ?
Purely from Islamic POV, Which group was on the right path, and why ?
If there was a clash between two groups and some people died, which one of these you will call martyrs and why ? Please keep in mind, both groups are sincere for Islam and Muslim of Subcontinent. Thanks
Ps. please avoid copy paste and lenthy details. thanks
Before Allah, there are no IFs and there are no BUTs
Allah declares Himself as the Best planner of all. He:swt: makes people and cirumstances as means to carry out His commands, so that we as His creations can have some logical explanations of events in our lives; nonetheless, these means and sources are not His requirements. He can make things happen without a use of any logical explanation.
Allah declares Himself as the Best planner of all. He:swt: makes people and cirumstances as means to carry out His commands, so that we as His creations can have some logical explanations of events in our lives; nonetheless, these means and sources are not His requirements. He can make things happen without a use of any logical explanation.
I agree wholeheartidly.
The first question is hypothetical, any answer will not change the reality at all.
would you like to shed some light on second question ?
Now at one time some (united India )activists of one group known as 'Khaksaar Tehreek' tried to Assassinate Mr. Jinnah (Quaid-e-Azam) but failed.
These activists had absolute conviction that what they are doing is in the best interest of Islam and Muslims of Subcontinent.
I do not know much about partision history, but it is clear that the above group "Khaksaar Tehreek", were in error. *** Killing without a just cause is as if you have killed a whole human kind **. ** A believer who kills another Believer, Shall not enter paradise***.
Lets be clear about one thing from the onset, Khaskars were fascists unlike Jinnah who was a democrat to the core. Had the Khaskars succeeded then iam afraid history wud have been very different for millions of muslims, it was God's blessings which saved Jinnah from the murdering fascists.
You present this case as the battle of Siffin, when Hazrat Ali was pitted against Hazrat Amir Mahwiyya. There is no comparison here. Jinnah was the rightfully, elected representative of the Muslim majority which is evidently clear from election results, whereas the khaskars were disgruntled bunch of loosers who wished to impose their minority opinion on the majority.
Clealry, you need to read more books on Sub-Continent, creation of Pakistan and post creation events. Had you done your homework properly you wud npt have made the improper assumption that Khaskars had a "large" following or were on the "right" path. On both accounts you are mistaken and shows your blinded biases in favor of extremist, fascist organizations such as the infamous khaskars.
You present this case as the battle of Siffin, when Hazrat Ali was pitted against Hazrat Amir Mahwiyya. There is no comparison here. Jinnah was the rightfully, elected representative of the Muslim majority which is evidently clear from election results, whereas the khaskars were disgruntled bunch of loosers who wished to impose their minority opinion on the majority.
.
and you need to study more about islamic history before making such assumptions
If two such groups would fight ??? A strange question.
At the first place Jamate Islami was against dividing united India. But After it was divided they all supported Pakistan *and migrated to Pakistan. *
So I do not think those who were with Qaide Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah(R) and Jamate Islami people have any differences now.
U may ask someone, that in the iran Iraq war on bothside shias were **MADE **to fight or shias from iran and sunnis from iraq were fighting; both were killed in huge numbers.
" to whom would you say shaheed and to whom you would say are killed"?
By the way now after the iraq war has started; in iraq:-
** if muslims kill muslims,** even if muslims kill young small children muslims;
muslim media say to them **" **today 27 school children are killed by a succide attack"
But if america attacks; the muslim media says" today so many are shaheed"
So it is easy to know what media would say to both muslim parties, if they fight and are killed. Because we have made a preceeding already as for iraq--a muslim country without doubt. We would consider them they are killed only no shahadat.
Some time ago, people at our local masjid thought of installing Air conditioners in order to make its atmosphere pleasent during harsh summers. (Some rich Namazi offered to provide funds )
Some people supported the idea, so people should pray in pleasent atmosphere (we call them group A)
Others argued that it will be waste of money instead that money should be spent on extending the area of masjid so more namazi could pray there, as the covered area of masjid is not enough to catter growing number of Namazis (this is group B )
Now both group are in opposition
*Question : *
Which group (A or B) is sincere with muslims of the area ?
Purely from Islamic POV, which group has the right stance ?
Some time ago, people at our local masjid thought of installing Air conditioners in order to make its atmosphere pleasent during harsh summers. (Some rich Namazi offered to provide funds )
Some people supported the idea, so people should pray in pleasent atmosphere (we call them group A)
Others argued that it will be waste of money instead that money should be spent on extending the area of masjid so more namazi could pray there, as the covered area of masjid is not enough to catter growing number of Namazis (this is group B )
Now both group are in opposition
*Question : *
Which group (A or B) is sincere with muslims of the area ?
Purely from Islamic POV, which group has the right stance ?
Group B...
Air conditioners are a frill...Expansion is a necessity to accomodate more people...
If number of namazies have already increased to a number that without extention of place namazies have to sit in sun and heat; then in that case group B is correct.
But if the room is capable of accomodating all namazies, but people stand out side and prefer sun's heat instead of safocating themselves in the heat of hot room then, after making it comfortable and chilled all people would be in the room and would be comfortable, then group A is correct . We must provide comfort to our namazies to the extend we can.
