Jinnah's Pakistan?

[The_Jinx]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@IceSoul

First, I forgot about the Caliphate of Imam Hassan, my apologies. However, a few month/years doesn’t make any difference.

You are clearly confused. The Caliphate was first in Saudi Arabia, then shifted to Iraq and finally, as the power of the Turks expanded, to Turkey. That’s like each most powerful Western country adopting the title of Caesar. First in Rome, then the Frankish kingdoms, then Spain, then Britain and finally America. If all these countries called their leaders “Ceaser” at each point in history when they were the most powerful, it could be said that Ceaser has survived for 2000+ years.

Please read some historical literature other than the Punjab Government History textbooks. The Save Khilafat movement was not only a total failure, it had no legitimate base. Muslims in India. Muslims in India were as concerned with the Khilafat as Christains in South America were with the English monarchy. It was a needless and a total waste.

Ata Turk is as revered in Turkey as the Quaid is in Pakistan. Please stop listening to that conspiracy-theory-machine Zaid Hamid and open your eyes. Ata Turk literally salvaged Turkey from the wreckage of World War I.

IceSoul,

First of all, I never went to schools in Punjab so keep your judgments to your ownself. The closest I went to Punjab was when I sit for 45 minutes in PIA aircraft on Lahore airport while in transit.

As I said, we have difference of understanding and opinion; however, distorting facts is sad. Your claim that Caliphate was in Saudi Arabia alone in the beginning is so wrong that one can only laugh. I have heels over head on reading this. Why? Here are my reasons:

1. Saudi Arabia came into existence due to the abolishment of Caliphate.
2. It was called Jazeerat-ul-Arab, which included the whole Arab land.
3. Caliphate expended in Arabia (including Iraq), Iran, Africa and to the borders of Europe by the time of second Calip Umer (RA).
4. The capital of caliphate was moved to Kufa (in Iraq) by the time of 4th Caliph Ali (RA).
5. The empire remained the same but the emperor changed from Arabs to Turks at the time of Salahaudin Ayoobi (Saladin) when Crusades started. Arabs and Turks did not fight for Caliphate but rather came out as one nation, one ummah during those time.
6. Later the capital was shifted to Turkey during the reign of Ottoman Caliphate, which was ruling the land of Arabia as well. Go read some history. The Green dome and two minarets on its side and the inner area of Masjid Nabwi were built when Turk were ruling the land. They were not ruling just the Turkey. It was the same caliphate.

Now coming back to Ata Turk, sure he is considered “Father of the Turks” but the modern Turks. He took some shocking decisions that had disasterous consequences for Turks such as:

1. He put a ban on Arabic Quran.
2. He put a ban on Arabic Azan.
3. He put a ban on performing salah in Arabic.
4. He abolished the Turk alphabetic system and adopted Roman wirting script.

Go and ask Turks of that era, who after Ata Turk’s time, used to get emotional when they used to see Quran in Arabic. Only people who were amused by Ata Turk were those who found Islam a burden on their shoulder.

You should know better that when debating, when you start throwing stuff at the other person which you have no knowledge of, then, you have already lost the debate because you have no better response. Not a Zahid Hamid Fan, that I am. Sorry to burst your bubble

PS, none of this is taught in Pakistani Text books. In fact, Ata Turk has found a favorable place in our official text books. This is history my friend, and the biggest lesson of history is that no one ever learnt a lesson from the history.

[IceSoul]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@The_Jinx

IceSoul,
As I said, we have difference of understanding and opinion; however, distorting facts is sad. Your claim that Caliphate was in Saudi Arabia alone in the beginning is so wrong that one can only laugh. I have heels over head on reading this. Why? Here are my reasons:

OK, what is “Present Day” Saudi Arabia. Or do you deny that Hazrat Muhammad was in Madina (which is in present day Saudi Arabia) and the first Caliphs were there too?

3. Caliphate expended in Arabia (including Iraq), Iran, Africa and to the borders of Europe

The kingdom of Spain was completely independent and paid homage to the Khalifa only in name, much like the Mughals.

5. The empire remained the same but the emperor changed from Arabs to Turks at the time of Salahaudin Ayoobi (Saladin) when Crusades started. Arabs and Turks did not fight for Caliphate but rather came out as one nation, one ummah during those time.

One Ummah? Let alone the Arabs and the Turks, not even the Egyptians and the Turks, both fighting the crusades were united. Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, was initially appointed as the Vizier of Egypt, but siezed power. Read this:

Saladin in Egypt

6. Later the capital was shifted to Turkey during the reign of Ottoman Caliphate, which was ruling the land of Arabia as well. Go read some history. The Green dome and two minarets on its side and the inner area of Masjid Nabwi were built when Turk were ruling the land. They were not ruling just the Turkey. It was the same caliphate.

They had just captured Arabia and named their kingship Caliphate. Much like Charlemagne who attempted (and somewhat succeded) in unifying Western Europe and ruling in the name of God or whatever as Holy Roman emperor.

1. He put a ban on Arabic Quran.
   He said that the PUBLIC reading was to be in Turkish.

2. He put a ban on Arabic Azan.

3. He put a ban on performing salah in Arabic.

How the hell would he do that? How would he know what language someone was praying in? Do

4. He abolished the Turk alphabetic system and adopted Roman wirting script.

Which the entire world was using. The civilized world anyways.

Now let me list some of his reforms:

**Traditional religious schools closed, Sheriat (Islamic Law) abolished.Dervish brotherhoods abolished. Fez outlawed by the Hat Law (November 25). Veiling of women discouraged; Western clothing for men and women encouraged. Western (Gregorian) calendar adopted instead of Islamic calendar.

New civil, commercial, and penal codes based on European models adopted. New civil code ended Islamic polygamy and divorce by renunciation and introduced civil marriage. Millet system ended.

New Turkish alphabet (modified Latin form) adopted. State declared secular (April 10); constitutional provision establishing Islam as official religion deleted.

Islamic call to worship and public readings of the Kuran (Quran) required to be in Turkish rather than Arabic.

Women given the vote and the right to hold office.
**

He knew the world was canging and Turkey would have to change with it. Muslims have always been afraid of change and as I said earlier, they have always paid the price.
**
A GREAD LEADER! MUCH RESPECT!**

%between%

[psyah]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@NomiCA

Which specific islam are you talking about?? whose islam??

Barailvi, deobandi, wahabi, sufi,shia, sunni, ???

Do you honestly believe that there will be a ‘unanimous version of islam’ on which all people in pakistan will agree??

and if its not people, then who is going to decide which version to use??

Peace NomiCA

If you wish to use an argument against the other party first check to see if your own basis is itself not subject to the same argument. This problem of “which version” will occur with every order … “which democracy”, “which party” … etc, etc, just as people are not aligned in religion they are not aligned in politics either … yet it is not considered rocket science to understand that we adopt the approach of “common ground” …

Even in democractic politics people will look at the religious order the politicians follow, they will look at which family line they are from to decide who to vote for …

The question is posed in the attempt to be a show stopper, probably because of your own aversion to Islamic governance. Anyway the question is quite easy to answer.

Appoint a leader - appoint a shura - and let them decide how to implement “Islam” … I believe we need three things for it to work …

a) Wisdom in understanding when to strengthen and relax laws
b) Sincere guidance being sought from the Qur’an and Sunnah
c) Compassionate towards other interpretations of Islam and seek common ground in matters which bear on the community … For example taxation will affect the Shi’a just as much as Sunni so there is no reason why decision on this cannot be unanimous … However if the leader decides that he wants to pass a law that is suitable for Hanafis and no others madhab then shur’a representation should regulate that decision … they will look for clear problems in a given decision and arrive at the best solutions themselves. For example some people consider eating the meat from the West so long as it is not pork as halal, but others do not, hence it would be wiser to adopt the more stringent position in this matter because it satisfies everyone …

You see although there are differing opinions in Islam the tools used to arrive at those opinions are universal … they are scientific methods that are understood by all.

Just like when parliment debates an issue from a conservative angle and the other party debate it from a liberal angle … although they both differ they both respect the manner in which that debate is being done and they both respect the decision made as a result of that decision. The difference in this being a non-secular process is that the religious scriptures and scholars are consulted for guidance in every case where it is necessary - or they have the power to collectively oppose a decision if they unanimously see the decision of the leader as being erroneous.

[The_Jinx]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@IceSoul

OK, what is “Present Day” Saudi Arabia. Or do you deny that Hazrat Muhammad was in Madina (which is in present day Saudi Arabia) and the first Caliphs were there too?

How easily you have ignored the facts I mentioned about expansion of the same Caliphate during the time of Umer (RA). Your question has lost the context since I have already answered that in previous post.

The kingdom of Spain was completely independent and paid homage to the Khalifa only in name, much like the Mughals.

when I said “to the border of europe” I was not talking about spain. clearly not. because spain is not the border of europe. it is part of europe. I was rather talking about muslim expeditions to Qustuntunia (Istanbol) which was the gateway to europe. This was during the time of second rightly guided Caliph Umer (RA). You can go to the city and outside the old time fort of Istanbol, may find the grave of companion of Prophet Abu Ayoob Ansari (RA) who was martyred at that time

One Ummah? Let alone the Arabs and the Turks, not even the Egyptians and the Turks, both fighting the crusades were united. Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, was initially appointed as the Vizier of Egypt, but siezed power. Read this:

Saladin in Egypt - Wikipedia

He was not egyptian. He was kurd, which is part of Iran adjacent to Turkey. His army had mostly Turks who re captured Palestine.

They had just captured Arabia and named their kingship Caliphate. Much like Charlemagne who attempted (and somewhat succeded) in unifying Western Europe and ruling in the name of God or whatever as Holy Roman emperor.

Clearly we have different understanding of this matter.

How the hell would he do that? How would he know what language someone was praying in?

Perhaps I should have spelled it out to you that when I said he put a ban on salah in Arabic, it meant salah in congregation in a mosque. Go read the history.

Now let me list some of his reforms:

**Traditional religious schools closed, Sheriat (Islamic Law) abolished.Dervish brotherhoods abolished. Fez outlawed by the Hat Law (November 25). Veiling of women discouraged; Western clothing for men and women encouraged. Western (Gregorian) calendar adopted instead of Islamic calendar.

New civil, commercial, and penal codes based on European models adopted. New civil code ended Islamic polygamy and divorce by renunciation and introduced civil marriage. Millet system ended.

New Turkish alphabet (modified Latin form) adopted. State declared secular (April 10); constitutional provision establishing Islam as official religion deleted.

Islamic call to worship and public readings of the Kuran (Quran) required to be in Turkish rather than Arabic.

Women given the vote and the right to hold office.
**

He knew the world was canging and Turkey would have to change with it. Muslims have always been afraid of change and as I said earlier, they have always paid the price.
**
A GREAD LEADER! MUCH RESPECT!**

MashaAllah. Rest my case.

PS, I guess we have derailed the discussion. Moderators may want to split it.

[Theorist]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@psyah

Peace NomiCA

If you wish to use an argument against the other party first check to see if your own basis is itself not subject to the same argument. This problem of “which version” will occur with every order … “which democracy”, “which party” … etc, etc, just as people are not aligned in religion they are not aligned in politics either … yet it is not considered rocket science to understand that we adopt the approach of “common ground” …

Even in democractic politics people will look at the religious order the politicians follow, they will look at which family line they are from to decide who to vote for …

The question is posed in the attempt to be a show stopper, probably because of your own aversion to Islamic governance. Anyway the question is quite easy to answer.

Appoint a leader - appoint a shura - and let them decide how to implement “Islam” … I believe we need three things for it to work …

a**) Wisdom in understanding when to strengthen and relax laws
b) Sincere guidance being sought from the Qur’an and Sunnah
c) Compassionate towards other interpretations of Islam and seek common ground in matters which bear on the community … For example taxation will affect the Shi’a just as much as Sunni so there is no reason why decision on this cannot be unanimous … However if the leader decides that he wants to pass a law that is suitable for Hanafis and no others madhab then shur’a representation should regulate that decision … they will look for clear problems in a given decision and arrive at the best solutions themselves. For example some people consider eating the meat from the West so long as it is not pork as halal, but others do not, hence it would be wiser to adopt the more stringent position in this matter because it satisfies everyone …

You see although there are differing opinions in Islam the tools used to arrive at those opinions are universal … they are scientific methods that are understood by all.

**Just like when parliment debates an issue from a conservative angle and the other party debate it from a liberal angle … although they both differ they both respect the manner in which that debate is being done and they both respect the decision made as a result of that decision. The difference in this being a non-secular process is that the religious scriptures and scholars are consulted for guidance in every case where it is necessary - or they have the power to collectively oppose a decision if they unanimously see the decision of the leader as being erroneous.

why does a government have to be based on a religious scripture?
Why can’t we just have law and order like the rest of the world without dragging a holy book into it?
why can’t religion remain for what it is - a faith?
Why should it govern our lives? If it should it should be done in your homes and mosques. it has no place in state affairs.

[IceSoul]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@The_Jinx

How easily you have ignored the facts I mentioned about expansion of the same Caliphate during the time of Umer (RA). Your question has lost the context since I have already answered that in previous post.
when I said “to the border of europe” I was not talking about spain. clearly not. because spain is not the border of europe. it is part of europe. I was rather talking about muslim expeditions to Qustuntunia (Istanbol) which was the gateway to europe. This was during the time of second rightly guided Caliph Umer (RA). You can go to the city and outside the old time fort of Istanbol, may find the grave of companion of Prophet Abu Ayoob Ansari (RA) who was martyred at that time

My apologies; Hazrat Umar indeed extended the Muslim Empire to the borders of Turkey.

The Muslim Empire during the time of Hazrat Umar.

He was not Egyptian. He was Kurd, which is part of Iran adjacent to Turkey. His army had mostly Turks who re captured Palestine.

Doesn’t really matter if he was Kurd or even a Red Indian for that matter. He was Sultan of Egypt and the Commander of the Egyptian armies.

Clearly we have different understanding of this matter.
Perhaps I should have spelled it out to you that when I said he put a ban on salah in Arabic, it meant salah in congregation in a mosque. Go read the history.

Please can you provide your source? I couldn’t find anything about banning congregation

Anyhow, we do have a different opinion. I feel Ata Turk was an exemplary leader who did the right thing for his country. You of course, believe otherwise. We will just agree to disagree…

---

Restored attachments:

[Med911]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@hanibal

So Quaid-e-Azam went ahead founded a country for MUSLIMS but want the same country to be Secular, then why the hell He actually bothered, India was there, constitutionally it is Secular state, so why need a separate state any way…

Why is this so difficult to grasp. Pakistan was meant to be a nation for Muslims, as a social political group, not for Islam. The seperation was for the purpose of ensuring political, social and economic freedom for the Muslim minority of India. It was not a platform for Islam. Everyone understood this, even the Ulema, which is why the opposed Pakistan’s creation.
He was fighting for a Muslim state, not an Islamic state.
He could have had a secular state in India, but Muslims would still be a minority there.

Now you get it?

[Med911]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@hanibal

Arguing about the country ( Pakistan) and can’t really read Urdu… says alot

There are people in Pakistan who argue about the United States, Israel, China, India, the middle East etc etc. And many can barely speak English, none can speak or read Hebrew, Chinese or Sanskrit…

So your line of reasoning is flawed on every level. By your logic, no one in Pakistan should argue over any country whose language they cant read or write.

And if you didnt know, Jinnah wasnt exactly fluent in Urdu either. Even he apparently called his urdu “Tangawala urdu..”

So non Urdu readers and speakers are in good company and are well placed to speak on Jinnah and Pakistan.

[Med911]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@psyah

P

a) Religious people stop involving themselves in worldly matters
b) That the leaders start to consult and act in accordance with the scholars trying to please Allah (SWT)
c) Implement Shari’ah in accordance with the state of the people - ease the conditions slowly towards higher Islamic values and avoid enforcing the laws quickly or in an absolutist manner … rather mould the culture so those values become desirable - through media and education.

This is the Pakistan I would like to see …

Easier said then done…

[The_Jinx]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@IceSoul

Please can you provide your source? I couldn’t find anything about banning congregation

IceSoul, no one talked about banning congregation. I was refering to reading Quran in Congregational prayers. What do you think, public reading of Quran refers to? And I quote from you:

**Islamic call to worship and public readings of the Kuran](The Holy Koran | All About Turkey) (Quran) required to be in Turkish](Turkish Language | All About Turkey) rather than Arabic. **

In fact, the opposition was so strong that in two years (from 1932 to 1934), call to prayers and congrgational prayers were restored to arabic from Turkish.

I agree that we should agree to disagree.
We shall meet again on some other topic.

[The_Jinx]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@Theorist

why does a government have to be based on a religious scripture?
Why can’t we just have law and order like the rest of the world without dragging a holy book into it?
why can’t religion remain for what it is - a faith?
Why should it govern our lives? If it should it should be done in your homes and mosques. it has no place in state affairs.

The problem here lies in lack of knowledge about Islam. True that Islam is a faith just as any other religion, although an argument is presented that Islam is more than rituals and that it is a way of life that governs our day-to-day affairs, whether individual or collective or even social and political.

If you ask Muslims to have a faith in their religion then, you are asking them to have faith in their book/scripture.

If you are asking them to have faith in their scripture, then, you are asking them to follow their scripture.

If you are asking them to follow their scripture, then, you are asking them to follow the commands of the God in the scripture.

If you are asking them to follow the commands of the God in scripture, then, you are asking them to follow all the commands of the God and not only the ones that are addressed to individuals but also the one that are given to the whole community, and that include specific commands for social justice.

Typically, this means the rule of law should be based on that particular scripture.

Makes sense?

[hanibal]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@Med911

There are people in Pakistan who argue about the United States, Israel, China, India, the middle East etc etc. And many can barely speak English, none can speak or read Hebrew, Chinese or Sanskrit...

So your line of reasoning is flawed on every level. By your logic, no one in Pakistan should argue over any country whose language they cant read or write.

And if you didnt know, Jinnah wasnt exactly fluent in Urdu either. Even he apparently called his urdu “Tangawala urdu..”

So non Urdu readers and speakers are in good company and are well placed to speak on Jinnah and Pakistan.

`
But then these people do not discuss founders of US, CHINA, INDIA or name the country you want.. the discussion normally revolves around other issues which are obvious like, US’s economic crisis and double game, China’s friendship and emerging as superpower, hardly i have seen any of these guys talking about the subject like we have at hand.. on the other hand, here we have guys who for some reason never learned URDU and cultural aspects associated with it ( may be the parents won’t able to afford their children to teach one or they simply were ashamed of their language and wanted to cut the cord), comes here and discuss the foundation and formation of Pakistan with having no idea about the cultural differences and ground realities…

I thought i never had to explain this difference to you…

[psyah]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@Theorist

why does a government have to be based on a religious scripture?
Why can’t we just have law and order like the rest of the world without dragging a holy book into it?
why can’t religion remain for what it is - a faith?
Why should it govern our lives? If it should it should be done in your homes and mosques. it has no place in state affairs.

Peace Theorist

Islam is a complete way of life it is not a religion it is a Deen … It is a World Order … a complete framework for the humans - Muslims and non-Muslims, animals, plants and everything else. Muslims have traditionally not been secular and I believe secularism is anti-Islamic.

[psyah]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@Med911

Easier said then done…

Agreed

[hanibal]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@IceSoul

Those who have lived in Russia all their lives.

Your point about the translation is moot. I highly doubt you can learn Arabic EXACTLY as it was during the lifetime of the Prophet PBUH. All languages change.

BUt the ones who lives in USA and are not able to read Russian do not discuss these kind of things with Russians in a manner you are doing??

thats what i said, it would be good if you can have some research on the languages, many languages have died but Arabic Literature has been the same, As a matter of fact, Quran is still the best book ( and i am not saying it because i am muslim, you can verify it with the masters of linguistic issues).

Anyway, in trying to prove me wrong, you have actually said that Language of Quran is changed hence whatever is there is Quran is either an olllllllllld language which can’t be understood by masses or it is simply outdated…

Back to the point, if the person is not even capable of reading the language of the country he is talking about then he shouldn’t be talking about foundation and formation of the country…

It is like somebody is trying to discuss IRR while he have no idea how NPV and PV are driven..

[IceSoul]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@The_Jinx

IceSoul, no one talked about banning congregation. I was refering to reading Quran in Congregational prayers. What do you think, public reading of Quran refers to? And I quote from you:

In fact, the opposition was so strong that in two years (from 1932 to 1934), call to prayers and congrgational prayers were restored to arabic from Turkish.

I agree that we should agree to disagree.
We shall meet again on some other topic.

Oh! The term “salah” and “congregation” confused me. I thought you were referring to Namaz.

I said he put a ban on salah in Arabic, it meant salah in congregation in a mosque.

[hanibal]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@yazdi

I don’t think Jinnah wanted to impose Islamic Shariah in United India when he conceded the demand for a separate country. You may say what he wanted was not against some interpretation of Islamic Shariah. Jinnah wanted coexistence without exploitation, and was resisting Nehru to become an Indian Stalin..

Islamic Shariah didn’t have many interpretation, but the funniest part is, that it is made believe that Islamic Shariah have many interpretation and each of this is contradictory to other…

Anyway, it is matter of looking at the certain point of view, from your side, it may look the way you have said it here but from my side it translates into what i believe… and the best thing is, result for the both is same… a better form of govt for the people…

[IceSoul]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@hanibal

BUt the ones who lives in USA and are not able to read Russian do not discuss these kind of things with Russians in a manner you are doing??

I live in Pakistan. Anyways, having run out of legitimate points, you have now turned to arguing just for the sake of arguing as is shown by your obsession with this urdu thing.

BTW, I’ve spent half my life in Quetta and while I’m not fluent in either, I do know some Pushto and Balochi. If you know neither, I advise that you refrain from commenting on any threads related to Balochistan. Plus, if you haven’t lived there for many years there, then you do not understand Balochistan and have no right to comment on the Quetta bomb blasts.

[hanibal]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@NomiCA

Which specific islam are you talking about?? whose islam??

Barailvi, deobandi, wahabi, sufi,shia, sunni, ???

Do you honestly believe that there will be a ‘unanimous version of islam’ on which all people in pakistan will agree??

and if its not people, then who is going to decide which version to use??

The most funny thing is, none of these cult existed 200+ odd years ago, there were Sunni and Shias, yes Emperor Akbar tried something in the name of deen-e-illahi but face severe resistance by the Aalim and Sufis of that time…

All these emerged when Muslims as nation lost their moral values, they tried to find easy ways to satisfy their lust and interests.. Raza Ahmed Khan Brailvei, did nothing extraordinary but declared everyone not following him as Kafir, Deaobandies, followed the suit, Ahl-e-Hadees made their own school and most interesting part is, none of them was against the English but were Against the Like so Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Illama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam, and good part his, these three and many like them never cared what these have to say.. and Allah have blessed all three of them… whereas, the followers of the above have not only gained nothing but have lost what little values they had…

Same applies to the Followers of Abdul Wahab of Arabia, i am sure in the history of Islam, he would be classified with one of the top ranking Ghadaars who created divisions and sided the crusaders against the Muslim Turks,…

As for Applying the Shairah, it is not the will of people of Pakistan to live with peace and Justice, the day they have this urge in them, the Shariah would be implemented, today, we all define and agree for the justice which benefit us and we call any decision which is not in our favor INJUST…

[hanibal]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@IceSoul

I live in Pakistan. Anyways, having run out of legitimate points, you have now turned to arguing just for the sake of arguing as is shown by your obsession with this urdu thing.

BTW, I’ve spent half my life in Quetta and while I’m not fluent in either, I do know some Pushto and Balochi. If you know neither, I advise that you refrain from commenting on any threads related to Balochistan. Plus, if you haven’t lived there for many years there, then you do not understand Balochistan and have no right to comment on the Quetta bomb blasts.

Lived half of your life in Quetta still not fluent with Pashto or Balochi, should i need to say more..

and funny you said that… because it was you who got obsessed with my one line remark…