Dr Mubashir Hassan's Perpetual Itch to Enforce Article 62 and 63.

2013 - ISLAMABAD: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry resumed hearing the petition filed by Dr Mubashir Hassan against ‘pre-poll rigging’ here on Tuesday. During today’s proceedings, the Chief Justice remarked that the main objective of the petition is to ensure the implementation of Article 62 and 63. The court has already ordered to provide the voters access to the candidates’ data and sought advice over the steps that can be taken in this regard. The CJ continued saying that the court can neither legislate nor can issue SOPs. The court is unaware of the objections that a voter can raise over the candidates. Orders were also issued in the dual nationality case. The condition of holding a degree has also been quashed this time that was mandatory earlier. Azhar Siddique, one of the lawyers representing Dr Musbashir Hassan, said that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is giving false information about the verification of the degrees as revealed by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). On this, the CJ remarked that whether the ECP should conduct elections or attend court proceedings. He asked to identify the persons about who the commission had provided wrong information so that the court could summon them. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry further said that the ECP knows better how to implement Article 62 and 63. Dr Mubashir Hassan’s counsel AJ Dogar contended that the SC, in its July 31 order, had declared November 3 steps taken by former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf as null and void. He violated the constitution but now he is preparing to contest in the elections. On this, the CJ said that objection should be raised from where Musharraf is submitting the nomination papers. The court, then, adjourned the hearing for one week. On Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had remarked that the election process has begun and there should be no interference in it. In his petition‚ Dr Mubashir Hassan had stated that 50 billion rupees are being used to rig the elections. He said that former prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf had used discretionary fund worth 37 billion rupees for the purpose. The petition further contended that the step of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif to regularize 100‚000 contract employees is also pre-poll rigging. The petition sought declaration of the appointments and actions null and void to ensure free and fair election. REFERENCE: Pre-poll rigging: SC hears Dr Mubashir Hassan’s petition March 27, 2013 http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-94070-Pre-poll-rigging:-SC-hears-Dr-Mubashir-Hassans-petition

Dr Mubashir Hassan was performing Fellatio on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto during this:) 

 Two points must be noted. The terms of reference covered the west also, on which the Supplementary Report is totally silent. It was, presumably, dealt with in the Main Report. Secondly, the entire political and military background preceding the surrender in the east and ceasefire in the west is excluded. A lot had happened, diplomatically and militarily since the Pakistan Army's brutal crackdown in Dhaka on March 25, 1971, to go no further. Involved principally were Gen. A.A.K. Niazi, Commander, Eastern Command, as well as the Zonal Martial Law Administrator. Major-General Rao Farman Ali was military adviser to the Governor. Niazi took over the job on April 4, 1971 from Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan who was responsible for the crackdown on March 25. He had repla ced Lt. Gen. Yaqub Khan, who, being this honourable man that he is, had resigned on March 7. Bhutto made Tikka Khan Army Chief shortly after he became President. Farman Ali was reputed to be the brains behind the killing of Bengali intellectuals. He was exonerated by the Commission. So was Tikka Khan. At the apex stood Gen. M. Yahya Khan, the Martial Law Administrator who had staged a coup against Ayub Khan in 1969. Niazi was the last of the POWs to be repatriated to Pakistan on April 30, 1974. The Inqu iry was reopened on May 25. The Commission was headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Hamoodur Rahman. The other members of the Commission were Justice S. Anwarul Haq, Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court, and Justice Tufail Ali Abdur Rahman, Chief Justice of Sind and B aluchistan High Court, Lt. Gen (Retd.) Altaf Qadir and M.A. Latif, Assistance Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Military Adviser and Secretary of the Commission, respectively. The government had decided to repatriate all Bengalis to Bangladesh. Justice Hamoodur Rahman, a Bengali, was spared. Allegedly, his son, a Major in the Army, was not being cleared for repatriation. Anwarul Haq was elevated to the Supreme Court by the tim e the inquiry was reopened in 1974. A.T. Chaudhuri, one of Pakistan's most intrepid journalists, wrote a revealing article on the Commission in Dawn (July 23 and 26, 1986). It was "based on incontrovertible evidence gathered from and corroborated by several sources. The object is to bring out how a democratic regime accountable to the people tried to muzzle and sweep under the carpet the report of a high-powered commission it had itself set up... "One can say, on the authority of unimpeachable sources, that the probe body was specifically told to confine its investigation to the 'military debacle' and not to delve into the 'causes of surrender', notably its political background. Chief Justice Ham oodur Rahman is believed to have pleaded for the enlargement of the terms of reference to enable him to look into the 'totality of the situation' before the traumatic fall of Dhaka. But he was firmly directed not to burn his fingers with the political ne ttle. The implication was clear." The Commission was "saddled with a former Defence Secretary". Lt. Gen. Altaf Qadir and another high-ranking officer who was the author of Pakistan Army and who had close links with the regime in power. Neither Yahya Khan nor Bhutto was examined though the former submitted a written statement to the Commission (Khabrain; July 15-16, 1994). The Supplementary Report reveals that, like the Main Report, it was tailored to Bhutto's needs. "After analysing the evidence brought before the Commission, we came to the conclusion that the process of moral degeneration among the senior ranks of the Ar med Forces was set in motion by their involvement in Martial Law duties in 1958, that these tendencies reappeared and were, in fact, intensified when Martial Law was imposed in the country once again in March 1969 by General Yahya Khan, and that there wa s indeed substance in the allegations that a considerable number of senior Army Officers had not only indulged in large-scale acquisition of lands and houses and other commercial activities, but had also adopted highly immoral and licentious ways of life which seriously affected their professional capabilities and their qualities of leadership." Tikka Khan, "the butcher", was not only exonerated of all charges but was praised: "always willing to redress grievances." Figures of the killings provided by the Army HQs (that is, Tikka Khan) were readily accepted. "Indian infiltrators and members of M ukti Bahini sponsored by the Awami League continue (even after March 25, 1971) to indulge in killings, rape and arson". Read this: "We consider, therefore, that unless the Bangladesh authorities can produce some convincing evidence, it is not possible to record a finding that any intellectuals or professionals were indeed arrested and killed by the Pakistan Army during December 1971." REFERENCE: Lies and war histories A post-script on the Hamoodur Rahman Report. BY A.G. NOORANI Volume 17 - Issue 21, Oct. 14 - 27, 2000 India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1721/17210580.htm

The 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part1.html

 6. High treason. [4A] [(1)Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.] 

 (2) Any person aiding or abetting [4B][or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason. 

 [4C] [(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.] 

 (3) [5] [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

30 Jun 2005 - Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry sworn in as Chief Justice under PCO



Iftikhar Chawdhry taking Oath under PCO by AsiaNewsObserver

July 01, 2005 ISLAMABAD: Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was sworn in as chief justice of Pakistan on Thursday. President Pervez Musharraf administered oath to him at the presidency. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, National Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain, cabinet ministers, chief ministers and other dignitaries including several foreign diplomats attended the ceremony. Justice Iftikhar will serve as chief justice for a record period of eight and half years till December 11, 2013, and almost all serving judges except for Justices Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Nasirul Mulk will retire without having a chance of becoming chief justice. Justice Iftikhar started his professional career in 1974. He was a lawyer for more than 16 years and became a judge of the Balochistan High Court on November 6, 1990. He became chief justice of the Balochistan High Court on April 22, 1999. Later, he was elevated as judge of the Supreme Court on February 4, 2000. He is also the chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council, which issues licenses to lawyers to practice in the Supreme Court. Justice Iftikhar was the most senior judge of the Supreme Court after Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, who retired on June 29. He was designated chief justice by the president by an announcement last month. All bar associations and representatives of other judicial departments have hailed Justice Iftikhar’s appointment for being in consonance with the principles of seniority and merit. Justice Iftikhar has authored several landmark judgements and was a bench member for almost every important case. His fellow judges acknowledge his acumen and prudence in constitutional and statutory matters besides his sagacity in adjudication of public litigation. REFERENCE: Justice Iftikhar sworn in as CJP Friday, July 01, 2005 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg7_6 Five judges elevated to SC 5 February 2000 DAWN WIRE SERVICE http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/05feb00.html#five

IT would seem that regardless of the number of years that have elapsed since the dark shadow of Gen Ziaul Haq’s orthodox version of religion was first cast over the country, the legacy of the military dictator simply refuses to go away. Indeed, in many cases the mindset of religious obscurantism and self-righteousness was translated into hard and unfortunate policy which to this day continues to dominate many of our actions as a nation. What else are we to read into the reports that candidates hopeful of a seat in parliament are being subjected to cross-examination related to their knowledge of Islam? Leave aside for a moment the fact that questions based on religion are hardly an assessment of the decision-making abilities of the people’s future representatives. Focus instead on the distasteful exercise of judging a person’s piety — and it would seem that the underlying assumption is that only the overtly religious ought to run for office, and that the good character of a person is demonstrable not by his record of financial probity or integrity but by his knowledge of faith. It is shocking that the Election Commission of Pakistan has unnecessarily cited constitutional requirements for such an exercise — requirements that apart from being debatable in themselves, should be invoked, if at all, only when a contender’s integrity is challenged by a rival. Even in this case, such requirements carry the risk of making a farce out of the electoral process by going into ever finer detail of who is or is not a practising Muslim. The controversial Article 62(e), which requires that a member of parliament have “adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties”, has remained on the books. And the question to ask is, why despite the many constitutional amendments in the last five years, this clause has been retained, even if for reasons of political expediency. Has Pakistan given up even the pretence of aspiring to be a pluralistic society? The upcoming elections are crucial to the country’s future in more ways than one. It is vital that all actors, from the ECP to the political parties to the caretaker set-ups and all other stakeholders cooperate with each other in the build-up to the polls. The thorough scrutiny of election candidates is an exercise that must be undertaken in an impartial manner if Pakistan is to have legislators with integrity. But questionable practices must not be injected into the process. Reference: The ghost of Zia: Poll scrutiny questions http://dawn.com/2013/04/03/the-ghost-of-zia-poll-scrutiny-questions/

Mr. Fakhruddin G Ebrahim, Election Commission of Pakistan, Chief Justice Supreme Court and several Urdu Language Newspapers particularly Jang Group have made a Joke out of Islam by making an issue out of Article 62 & 63 which if Literally applied then nobody in Pakistan would be able to escape the punishment that includes those who are mentioned above. For example Islamic Sunnah "Beard" http://islamqa.info/en/ref/1189 and Veil (Hijab) http://islamqa.info/en/ref/13998/Hijab Mr. Fakhruddin G Ebrahim and Mehran Bank Money - Cash paid to Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim 2,00,000 [he confirms having received the money from General Beg as fees and expenses for defending him in the contempt of court charge brought against him - PLD 1993 SC310] We never learn from history-2 By Ardeshir Cowasjee 04 August 2002 Sunday 24 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1423 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020804.htm

The 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan: PART III(contd)The Federation of Pakistan Chapter 2. THE MAJLIS-E-SHOORA (Parliament) - [62. Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament): http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part3.ch2.html

(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; 

(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ; 

(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law;

He wanted a secular Pakistan. He vowed to constitute himself as the "Protector-General of the Hindu minority in Pakistan." But "the fanatic tolerated Jinnah till Pakistan was achieved." Time and again he was made aware that he was an outsider." His famous speech of 11 August 1947 was allowed to be published in full only after Dawn's editor, "Altaf Hussain, threatened" those who were trying to tamper with it "to go to Jinnah himself if the press advice was not withdrawn." Dr. Ajeet Jawed's "Secular and Nationalist Jinnah" is another book on the same topic. And, as Singh's book shook the sangh pariwar in India, so Jawed's promises to jolt the rightist Muslims in Pakistan. Consider this sentence for instance: "Jinnah, who ate pork, drank whiskey, seldom entered a mosque, was ignorant of Islamic teachings, did not observe Islamic rituals, could not speak Urdu, wore high-class western suits and had come from Hindu Bhatia family..." But, a change occurred in Jinnah when he found that India would be partitioned on communal basis and to adapt himself to the changed situation, he adopted achkan, pyjama and cap. Reference: The Real Mr. Jinnah Written by S.G.Jilanee Thursday, 11 February 2010 14:09 http://www.saglobalaffairs.com/book-reviews/413-the-real-mr-jinnah.pdf

Barelvi Fatwa Against Jinnah, Allama Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan http://www.scribd.com/doc/100199318/Barelvi-Fatwa-Against-Jinnah-Allama-Iqbal-and-Sir-Syed-Ahmed-Khan

Barelvi Fatwa Against Jinnah, Allama Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan by Aamir Mughal

Ansar Abbasi, Pakistani Zimmis and Lynch Mob.

Lynch mob - a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority - a disorderly crowd of people. Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. Lynching is sometimes mistakenly thought of as an exclusively North American activity, but it is found around the world as vigilantes act to punish people outside the rule of law; indeed, instances of it can found in societies long antedating European settlement of North America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching AND PAKISTAN as well.

March 2013 Lahore, Pakistan - Incident of Attack on Christian Community in Joseph Colony, Badami Bagh Lahore - The tragedy’s roots is said to lie in a quarrel between two friends, Mohammed Imran, a local Muslim barber, and Sahwan Masih, a 28-year-old Christian municipal cleaner, who lived across the road. They were close, by all accounts. “They would sit together, drink together,” said Mr Chand Masih. Earlier in the week, on an afternoon when they were sitting outside Mr Imran’s barber shop, a fight broke out between them. It is not clear what was said, but residents claim sharp words were exchanged about each other’s faiths. By Friday, Mr Imran and another friend, Urf “Chico” Shafiq, told the local Muslims. The colony rests next to Lahore’s steel mills, and the quarrel coincided with local elections for the steel worker’s union. According to residents, the leading candidates decided to make the alleged blasphemy a campaign issue. A crowd - estimated to be more than 3,000 strong - first gathered on Friday. They gathered after Friday prayers, apparently urged on by the local religious leader. The police were there, although in just scores. The next day, the attackers returned to torch the colony. REFERENCE: Neighbours' row ends in a holy war against Christians of Pakistan Muslim mob goes on arson rampage in Lahore after alleged blasphemy by OMAR WARAICH , ANDREW BUNCOMBE LAHORE SUNDAY 10 MARCH 2013 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/neighbours-row-ends-in-a-holy-war-against-christians-of-pakistan-8528231.html

Joseph Colony Arson Attack

Joseph Colony Arson Attack from Saad Sarfraz Sheikh on Vimeo.

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that it was a criminal negligence to bring changes in the documents like Objectives Resolution as former president General (retd) Zia ul Haq tampered with the Constitution in 1985 however, the sitting parliament had done a good job by undoing this tampering. At one point Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the word ‘freely’ was omitted from the Objectives Resolution in 1985 by a dictator, which was an act of criminal negligence, but the then parliament surprisingly didn’t take notice of it. He said the Constitution is a sacred document and no person can tamper with it. The chief justice said credit must go to the present parliament, which after 25 years took notice of the brazen act of removing the word relating to the minorities’ rights, and restored the word ‘freely’ in the Objectives Resolution, which had always been part of the Constitution. The chief justice further said that the court is protecting the fundamental rights of the minorities and the government after the Gojra incident has provided full protection to the minorities. “We are bound to protect their rights as a nation but there are some individual who create trouble.” - DAILY TIMES - ISLAMABAD: Heading a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry termed as criminal negligence the deletion of a word about the rights of minorities from the Objectives Resolution during the regime of General Ziaul Haq in 1985. Ziaul Haq had omitted the word “freely” from the Objectives Resolution, which was made substantive part of the 1973 Constitution under the Revival of Constitutional Order No. 14. The clause of Objectives Resolution before deletion of the word ‘freely’ read, “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to ‘freely’ profess and practice their religions and develop their culture.” DAILY DAWN - ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday praised the parliament for undoing a wrong done by the legislature in 1985 (through a constitutional amendment) when it removed the word ‘freely’ from a clause of the Objectives Resolution that upheld the minorities’ right to practise their religion. The word “freely” was deleted from the Objectives Resolution when parliament passed the 8th Amendment after indemnifying all orders introduced through the President’s Order No 14 of 1985 and actions, including the July 1977 military takeover by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and extending discretion of dissolving the National Assembly, by invoking Article 58(2)b of the Constitution. After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Objectives Resolution now reads: “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their culture.” The CJ said: “Credit goes to the sitting parliament that they reinserted the word back to the Objectives Resolution.” He said that nobody realised the blunder right from 1985 till the 18th Amendment was passed, even though the Objectives Resolution was a preamble to the Constitution even at the time when RCO (Revival of Constitution Order) was promulgated. REFERENCES: CJ lauds parliament for correcting historic wrong By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 09 Jun, 2010  http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32657   - CJP raps change in Objectives Resolution * Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry says deletion of clause on rights of minorities was ‘criminal negligence’ * Appreciates incumbent parliament for taking notice of removal of clause by Gen Zia’s govt in 1985 By Masood Rehman Wednesday, June 09, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201069\story_9-6-2010_pg1_1  CJ lauds parliament for undoing changes in Objectives Resolution Wednesday, June 09, 2010 Says minorities’ rights have to be protected; Hamid says parliament should have no role in judges’ appointment By Sohail Khan http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=29367&Cat=13&dt=6/10/2010

Please keep in mind that Zimmis are those Non-Muslims who seek protection after Muslim Defeat them in the Battle and Pakistani Non-Muslims cannot be called "Zimmis" they should be equal to Pakistani Muslim Citizens which they are not since the tinkering of Objective Resolution which was "wrongly" introduced by one of the Alleged Founding Father amongst many Fathers of Pakistan i.e. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Jang Group's Rent a Mufti Ansar Abbasi is trying his level best to distort not only the History but also tinkering with the Islamic interpretation of Zimmis. Jizya from the Linguistic Perspective: "Jizya" is derived from the root "Jaza" or "compensate". Arabs usually say the phrase "Jaza, yajzi" which means "compensate" or 'reward" if a person rewards another for the service rendered by the latter. "Jizya" is a derived term in the form of "ficla" from "Mujazã" which is the noun "compensation", meaning "a sum of money given in return for protection". Ibn Al-Mutaraz said: "It is derived from "’idjzã" or "substitute" or "sufficiency" because it suffices as a substitute for the "dhimmi's embracement of Islam" REFERENCE: Jizya in Islam by Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar Ph.D in Christian Doctrines and Scripture, Faculty of Usul-al-Din, Umm al-Qura, Saudi Arabia. Translated by Hayam Elisawy, Edited by Mohammad Elfie Nieshaem Juferi. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/background-of-zimmis-and-jizya.html

“Pakistan desires to show a beacon of light to the world, which has been caught in the vortex of materialism and has lost its way in the darkness of atheism and agnosticism,” thundered Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani as the first Constituent Assembly listened attentively. He was speaking in support of the Objectives Resolution presented in the House two days ago, on 7 March 1949, by Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. It is believed that the resolution was drafted by the Maulana. His words were music to the ears of many sitting in the Assembly Chamber in Karachi. There was more than one reason for them to celebrate this turn in the region’s political discourse. Pakistan Resolution was presented nine years ago. During the period between the Pakistan Resolution and the Objectives Resolution, the world went through the frenzy of World War II; the bloodiest event of mankind’s history which took tens of millions of life all across the globe, most of them in horrid ways. Standing at the fag end of this event, you did not need arguments to convince a new state that an option other than the greedy capitalism is worth a try. But probably the honorable members were not as much concerned about the horrors of capitalism as they were about the “excesses” of communism that were purportedly advancing from the western side. “Islam has no truck with capitalism. The Islamic State brings about an equitable distribution of wealth by employing methods peculiar to it and distinct from communistic practices.” So the Islam was the panacea, the antidote to the ills of the two systems of governance that the world had known thus far. Members of the Constituent Assembly cheered over the passage of the resolution. It elated them. Most of the members boasted of a glorious past and the resolution reassured that the return of greatness was at hand and a matter of few years. On a more pragmatic note, however, they rejoiced over the other more handy feature — the “Islamic State”. It seemed to be a perfect tool to fix “the problem of cultural diversity” that they saw as an obstacle in the way of building a nation for this country. The problem originated from the fact that the new country had at least five distinct languages and cultures. Sindhi was Greek to a Pakhtun and Bengali Latin for a Punjabi and, more importantly, one of these was separated from the others by a thousand miles stretch of enemy territory. The problem had two dimensions. One, what will serve as the uniting element, the binding force. No one in power echelons had the capacity, courage and foresight to pursue the nation building as a humane and democratic process. They were desperate for quick fixes even if these required blatant use of force. REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Mar2013-weekly/nos-10-03-2013/dia.htm#4 Ansar Abbasi on Pakistani Zimmis Daily Jang March 11, 2013 http://jang.com.pk/jang/mar2013-daily/11-03-2013/col14.htm

In case people forget "Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan etc. were all Zimmis.

Barelvi Fatwa Against Jinnah, Allama Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan http://www.scribd.com/doc/100199318/Barelvi-Fatwa-Against-Jinnah-Allama-Iqbal-and-Sir-Syed-Ahmed-Khan

Barelvi Fatwa Against Jinnah, Allama Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan by Aamir Mughal

The other aspect of the problem was more worrisome — how would the ruling elite maintain its hegemony over this country where they had no cultural or political constituency. The Pakistani elite at that time was composed mainly of Urdu-speaking migrants from northern India. Their language and culture were not indigenous to the areas that formed Pakistan. Urdu had a hold in Punjab even before Partition but not in other parts of the country and certainly not in Bengal. A nation built on indigenous identities and democratic principles offered no place to this elite, not at least the top and the most powerful one. The most important of the interpretations of the Objectives Resolution thus was that it required all to abandon their languages and cultures and adopt the one ordained as Islamic by the ruling class. Baba-i-Urdu Molvi Abdul Haq is on record to have said that all languages of the subcontinent, except Urdu, are languages of kafirs and thus have no place in this Islamic country. The lofty Islamic ideals belittled and demeaned all things local. “Provincialism” was propagated as a scourge and “lisani” (linguistic) labelled an evil. Unlike the western provinces, Bengal in 1947 had a fully grown and thriving middle class. It was educated and trained in its mother tongue that was used in all walks of life in that vast area. Again unlike the languages of the western provinces, Bangla had a distinct script of its own, developed and in vogue since centuries. On the western side, only Sindhi had a script and a print media. The decision to abolish Bengali language from official use through a notification was arbitrary, naive and callous. It implied overnight disempowerment of the biggest section of the middle class of the country. Such a brazen act of omission was bound to meet stiff resistance. The decision sparked a movement in East Bengal that pitched mother tongue against the state narrative of nationhood. It started as early as December 1947 and spread far and wide. There were frequent street protests in 1948 led fervently by Dhaka University students. In one of those, the former prime minister of united Bengal AK Fazalul Haq, was hurt in a scuffle with police. He was the Bengali leader whom Quaid-e-Azam had chosen to present the Pakistan Resolution to the Muslim League meeting of 1940 in Lahore. The movement got its first martyrs in 1952 when on February 21 four of the protesting students died as the police opened fire to break the crowd. The language movement of Bengal was the first tussle between the two paradigms of identity, one based itself on all things indigenous and the other derived a whole array of cultural symbols from a particular interpretation of Islam or borrowed these from various chapters of the history of different Muslim societies. While the Islamic one attempted to unite distinct ethnic groups on the basis of faith, the cultural recipe supported unity among believers of diverse religions. Islam suited the ruling elite of Pakistan as it not only offered return of the glory, it also supported the status quo — the continued dominance of Urdu speaking elite. Bengalis, however, won the first round. They successfully checked the onslaught of this elite. The national language status for Bangla was one of the 21 points on the basis of which the United Front made the Muslim League bite the dust in the landmark elections of 1954. The Bengalis had by now grown weary and were apprehensive about the intentions of the ruling coterie at Karachi. They pressed forcefully for their democratic rights and again Islam was used to silence, subdue and coerce them. The Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) led the cause of Islam-based identity in both the wings of the country. In East Bengal, it secured 6.1 per cent of the votes in the 1970 elections while Awami League swept with 75.1 per cent of votes, bagging a whooping 160 of total 162 seats of that province. The language based narrative of nationalism defeated the supra-cultural Islamic state ideal on all possible avenues — on the streets, in the campuses and at the polling stations. It however did not soften the other party that instead further stiffened. It ended up as a bloody clash that reached its zenith in the spring of 1971. The nationalists came well-prepared and won on this front too, though only after a lot of bloodletting. REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Mar2013-weekly/nos-10-03-2013/dia.htm#4

In case people forget Jinnah and even any other practicing Muslim who was not in Jamat-e-Islami was also declared Apostate, Heathen, Polytheist, Zimmis by Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami Leaders like Manzoor Nomani

Real Face of Mawdudi and Jamat e Islami by Maulana Manzoor Naimani http://www.scribd.com/doc/99196269/Real-Face-of-Mawdudi-and-Jamat-e-Islami-by-Maulana-Manzoor-Naimani

Real Face of Mawdudi and Jamat e Islami by Maulana Manzoor Naimani by Aamir Mughal

The Islamists stood defeated completely and thoroughly. This had cleared the way for the triumphant Bengali nationalists to pursue the state formation on the basis of their secular and culture-based ideals. Did they? No, they did not. The violent campaign against the nationalists was spearheaded by the Pakistan Army as the Jamaat (JI) people served as their point-men. With the benefit of hindsight, it now seems that probably the Pakistan Army was serving as the front-men of Jamaat. The real owner of the Islamic state narrative is the Jamaat and the state of Pakistan was just one of its franchises. Pakistan and its army became irrelevant to the politics of Bangladesh after 1971. But Jamaat-i-Islami survived. In the 1970 elections, there was one Jamaat voter for every 12 of Awami League and this is not negligible especially when you factor in the level of organisation in the Jamaat. The Jamaat kept its ideals, of basing national identity on Islam, alive in Bangladesh and found new allies within the new country’s middle class and its military establishment. Bangladesh’s original constitution of 1972 had declared it a secular state but the later military rulers amended it to ward off democracy and they never forgot to play up Islam to compensate for the shortfall in democracy. The 8th Amendment, effected by General Ershad in 1988, declared Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh. The Awami League, though champions of secularism but like any other political party involved in the power games, does not hesitate using the religion card. The government of the four-party alliance (2001-2006) led by Bangladesh Nationalist Party and including Jamaat-i-Islami had banned Ahemdi literature through an executive order. The Awami League could ill-afford losing the Islamic constituency to its arch rivals, it thus joined hands in 2006 with another Islamic party, Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish, on the promise that it would extend the definition of state religion to include the belief in the finality of Prophet Muhammad which by implication would have declared Ahemdis as non-Muslims. Similarly, a Bangladesh High Court had declared in 2010 the constitutional amendment that had changed the country’s secular status to that of an Islamic state as having been done without lawful authority. It laid the legal ground for the government to revert to the secular state status but despite enjoying the required majority in the parliament it did not dare. It is against this background that the current Shahbag movement should be seen. The Bangladeshi youth has gathered in a Dhaka city compound in droves and continues to do so since the past few weeks. Their apparent demand is from the International Crimes Tribunal that is set up by the present Awami League government to try those accused of committing war crimes in 1971. Most of them are members of Jamaat-i-Islami. The protest gathering started on February 5, 2013, in reaction to a “lenient” sentence of life-imprisonment awarded to a Jamaat member. The youth instead demands “exemplary punishment”. This youth does not want Islam to be a determinant in matters of government, the biggest proponent of which is Jamaat and 1971 is its soft belly. A surprising aspect of the protest is that it has ‘pardoned’ Pakistan even before the country could tender a formal apology. Pakistan is conspicuously missing from the list of those accused of crimes of 1971. It is solely focused on Jamaat men. In Shahbag, there has not been even a meek demand to ‘try’ Pakistan as well. Pakistan and its army are a distant historical entity for the youth born much after those events. Jamaat, however, is an alive phenomenon — omnipresent and overbearing. They experience their suffocating presence on a daily basis. A blogger who was part of the Shahbag movement and is accused of being an atheist was stabbed to death, allegedly by members of Jamaat. On the other hand, the Jamaat is avenging the sentencing of its leaders by attacking the Hindu neighbourhoods and by vandalising their places of worship. They believe that it is the presence of the Hindus that has made the “Muslim brothers” fight each other. The Islamisation campaigns in Bangladesh have been invariably targeted against local Hindus. They were 15.6 per cent of the country’s population in 1975 and by 2010 were reduced to 9.6 per cent. Political parties in the Muslim countries over the past half century have either actively pursued the idea of an Islamic State or have silently witnessed the politics go that way. Even those who profess secular ideals have not dared take a diversion. It is the default position of all and a nugget of common political wisdom that any act being done in the name of Islam enjoys unflinching public support and thus must be supported at all costs. Shahbag is the first time in the recent history that the youth of a Muslim society has come out in such numbers and with such fervour and zeal to oppose something that is cloaked in a sacred robe. Maulana Osmani was a great orator and he had the skills to spell bind the Muslim elite sitting in the Assembly Chamber in Karachi. Can the screaming youth of Shahbag break that spell? REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Mar2013-weekly/nos-10-03-2013/dia.htm#4

Jinnah & Organized Shia Killings in Pakistan.

Islamic scholars of Ahle Hadees faith here on Wednesday accused their Pakistani counterpart representing the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and its parent body Markaz Dawa-al-Irshad of being part of a global conspiracy to malign Islam. The Markazi Jamiat Ahle-e-Hadees, which is hosting the Imam of Holy shrine of Islam in Makkah, Dr Saud Bin Ibrahim Al Shoraim, here on March 2-3, said their faith even does not recognise street protests, and strongly denounces hijacking, bombing, or suicide missions. The main feature of two conferences of Markazi Jamiat Ahle-e-Hadees would be the presence of Imam-e-Kaaba Dr Alsharami. The Saudi Islamic scholar is also travelling to world famous Islamic seminary Deoband on Saturday. The organisers are expecting Shankaracharia Swami Adokshanand and some Buddhist leaders also to join the Imam of Kaaba at the Ramlila grounds on Friday. Often labeled as ‘Wahabis’ and accused of promoting radical brand of Islam, secretary general of the host organisation Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mahdi Salfi said suicide bombing and terrorism has done a great harm to Islam. “Even logically if a Palestinian bomber kills four or five Israeli Jews, the cost of retaliation is too heavy. Israelis in retaliation kills many more or arrest hundreds of Palestinians. There is no incentive. Even against oppression, there is need to continue peaceful struggle and create international awareness,” said the Maulana. “We believe Hafiz Mohamamd Sayeed, the chief of LeT, is a Khawarij (seceder or the rebel) and needs to be punished under the book,” he said. The Ahle Hadees sect often comes under attack in India for sharing ideology with the LeT or Dawa al Irshad headed by Hafiz Mohammad Sayeed. Clarifying his stance, Maulana Salfi said both Hafiz Sayeed and Taliban were part of an international conspiracy. He called these groups marauders and said their struggle was nowhere near ‘jihad’. He pointed out how America promoted these very groups when they were aligning with it to fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Claiming that a majority of Ahle Hadees followers in Pakistan were also up in arms against Hafiz Sayeed for taking over their mosques and establishments, Maulana said Islam does not believe taking extreme lines. REFERENCE: Taliban, LeT maligning Islam: Scholars Published: Thursday, Mar 1, 2012, 9:00 IST By DNA Correspondent | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_taliban-let-maligning-islam-scholars_1656913

Masjid Al-Haram (Makkah's Grand Mosque) Imam Sheikh Dr Saud Al-Shuraim Leading Prayers in India (Courtesy Daily Dawn Dated 3 March 2012)

Ahmed Ludhiyanvi's Fatwa of Apostasy Against Pakistani Shia Community

Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith's Protest Against Lashkar-e-Tayiba/Jamatud Dawa (Nov 14, 2011 Islamabad)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHf743jCcWs

In a television programme aired recently, former chief of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and an important leader of Difa-e-Pakistan Council (DPC) General (retd) Hamid Gul cast doubts over the authenticity of a picture run by the website of The Express Tribune. The picture in question was that of Malik Ishaq, commander of the banned outfit Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), who was shown to be in attendance at the DPC meeting in Multan – a meeting also attended and addressed by General Gul. During a talk show on Aaj TV, host Wajahat S Khan showed Gul the picture on The Express Tribune’s website as evidence of Ishaq’s attendance – in response to which the retired general alleged that the photo had been doctored. When he was further challenged by the show’s host, Gul resorted to questioning the reporter of the story. The Express Tribune takes strong exception to General Gul’s allegations and contends that the picture is authentic. It was taken by our photographer, who was assigned to cover the gathering. In fact, the picture was also run by other newspapers. If Gul has the slightest doubt regarding the authenticity of the photograph, we ask him to take the matter to court. Express Media Group Published in The Express Tribune, February 16th, 2012. REFERENCE: Notice: A note to Hamid Gul Published: February 16, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/337252/notice-a-note-to-hamid-gul/ Difa-e-Pakistan: Malik Ishaq out to 'defend' Pakistan http://tribune.com.pk/multimedia/slideshows/329282/

Malik Ishaq attended Multan rally: Jamaatud Dawa

LAHORE: Chief of banned militant outfit Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Malik Ishaq was in attendance at the Difa-e-Pakistan Council rally in Multan, a spokesperson for the council’s member organisation Jamaatud Dawa has said. “General (retd) Hamid Gul was wrong in denying Ishaq’s presence at the rally. He was present on stage,” said Yahya Mujahid, a spokesperson for Islamic chairty, which is blacklisted by the United Nations  for its alleged ties to LeJ but not by the Pakistan government. Gul, in an interview with Express News television channel, had categorically denied that Ishaq was present at the rally. “It was DPC’s unanimous decision that Ishaq will not address the rally,” Mujahid told The Express Tribune on Friday. “It’s a simple rule that whoever addresses the people from stage at a DPC rally cannot be a member of a banned militant outfit.” Mujahid was attending an emergency protest, called by the JuD outside their main mosque Jamia Qudsia in Lahore under the DPC’s banner, against resumption of Nato supply routes and trade talks with India. The council has also called a meeting of heads of member parties on February 19 in Islamabad.

Apology to media

He also apologised for statements made against the media at the council’s Karachi rally. “The statements should be condemned in the strongest terms. I, as a representative of JuD, have written letters of apology to media organisations.”

Funding

The spokesperson said that the DPC is an organised platform. “Funding [for the organisation] is provided by member parties while host parties for different rallies fund events in their own cities,” he explained. For instance, he said, JuD hosted the Lahore rally, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat organised the one in Multan, Sheikh Rasheed hosted the Rawalpindi event and Jamat-e-Islami hosted the Karachi rally. “The nationwide networks of all member parties provide support in organisational procedures.”

In defence of Hafiz Saeed

Amir Hamza, a senior leader of the JuD, said that the reason the US is against JuD chief Hafiz Saeed is because he speaks out about human rights violations by US allied forces in the region. He also blamed former president Pervez Musharraf for joining hands with the US in the ‘war on terror’ and the Balochistan crisis. CORRECTION: Former president Pervez Musharraf’s name was erroneously written as Pervez Sharif. The error is regretted. REFERENCE: Malik Ishaq attended Multan rally: Jamaatud Dawa By Rabia Mehmood Published: February 17, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/337998/malik-ishaq-attended-multan-rally-jamaatud-dawa/

MANSEHRA: Gunmen in military uniform forced people going from Rawalpindi to Gilgit to disembark from buses in Kohistan’s Harban area on Tuesday and gunned down 16 of them after checking their names on their ID cards which invoked protests all over the country. “Sixteen people were killed in the incident. The bodies were handed over to the deputy commissioner of Chilas after autopsy at Shitial hospital,” Mohammad Ilyas, district police officer, Kohistan, told reporters. According to foreign news agencies, this was a sectarian attack as confirmed by a man claiming to be spokesman for the Jandullah faction of Taliban. He said the 16 were killed by ‘Mujahideen’ because they were Shias. A large number of people came out on roads in protest against the killings. They burned tyres at different chowks. Shops and markets were closed. The district administration imposed Section 144 in Gilgit city and announced closure of offices and schools for three days. According to officials, the attackers intercepted four buses on the Karakoram Highway, asked the passengers to get off, shot 16 people dead after checking their ID cards and escaped. DPO Mohammad Ilyas said 117 passengers were on the buses. Police took the bodies to the hospital. Harban is about four kilometres from Tangier and Darail areas where security forces have been attacked for several times in recent past. MPA Abdul Sattar Khan, who belongs to Dasso tehsil, said the carnage was apparently related to recent sectarian clashes in Gilgit. Senior officials of the Kohistan district administration were tight lipped about the nature of the killings. “We have registered an FIR and started investigation and everything will be clear after completion of preliminary investigation,” Mr Ilyas said. Farman Ali Baltistani adds from Skardu: Seven victims were from Baltistan division, four from Nagar, two from Astore and one from Gilgit. The bodies of the other two could not be identified. Meanwhile, two people were injured in incidents of firing in Sakwar village. They were identified as Zulfiqar and Abdul Mannan, residents of Gilgit. Gilgit-Baltistan Governor Pir Karam Ali Shah and Chief Minister Syed Mehdi Shah condemned the Harban killings. They said the culprits would soon be arrested. REFERENCES: Passengers hauled off buses and gunned down:16 killed in Kohistan sectarian attackNisar Ahmad Khan http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/29/passengers-hauled-off-buses-and-gunned-down-16-killed-in-kohistan-sectarian-attack.html Sectarian violence: Jundallah claims responsibility for Kohistan bus attack By Web Desk / Agencies / Farman Ali Published: February 28, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/342909/18-dead-in-bus-ambush-on-karakoram-highway-police/

18 killed in Kohistan bus attack (GEO TV 28 Feb 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEQp6q-s6k

Our correspondent adds from Shangla: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ameer Haider Khan Hoti called Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Minister Syed Mehdi Shah and condemned the incident. He termed it a cowardly and brutal act and said the elements involved would be brought to book whether they belonged to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Gilgit-Baltistan. AP adds: According to lawmaker Abdul Sattar the victims were Shias. He said eight gunmen were involved in the ambush, and all were wearing military uniforms, presumably to make it easier to stop the buses. Officials initially said 18 people had been killed and that just one bus was involved. Mr Sattar and Sher Khan, an official at the Rawalpindi bus station, said attacks had been feared on travellers after an incident last month in which an unknown number of Sunnis were killed in the Gilgit region. Sher Khan said buses were travelling in convoy as a security measure. Aamir Yasin adds from Rawalpindi: Private transporters running buses from Rawalpindi to Gilgit-Baltistan suspended operation after the incident. More than 50 buses for Gilgit and Skardu run on the route. Due to insecurity, people mostly use air route to go to Gilgit. The transporters said they would not resume the bus service unless the government took adequate security measures and ensure safety of passengers. “The government should take serious steps to stop such attacks,” said Nisar Ali, the owner of Mashabroom Tour Operators. He said that most of the passengers on the buses were pilgrims returning from Iran and some army officers and personnel. “Luckily, 47 pilgrims remained safe because their bus had departed one hour late,” he said. REFERENCES: Passengers hauled off buses and gunned down:16 killed in Kohistan sectarian attackNisar Ahmad Khan http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/29/passengers-hauled-off-buses-and-gunned-down-16-killed-in-kohistan-sectarian-attack.html Sectarian violence: Jundallah claims responsibility for Kohistan bus attack By Web Desk / Agencies / Farman Ali Published: February 28, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/342909/18-dead-in-bus-ambush-on-karakoram-highway-police/

Ayesha Siddiqa on Shia target killing in Kohistan 28 Feb 2012 (BBC URDU)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odmpIZHI4BA

شاید اب ہوش آجائے‘

آخری وقت اشاعت: منگل 28 فروری 2012 ,‭ 15:54 GMT 20:54 PST

ہر حادثے پر گماں ہوتا ہے کہ شاید اب ہوش آ جائے انٹرویو ڈاکٹر عائشہ صدیقہ

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2012/02/120228_interview_aiyshah_fz.shtml?bw=bb&mp=wm&bbcws=1&news=1

After 1947, Pakistan adopted the position of denying that the population of the country was divided between Shias and Sunnis, among others. The census that followed took account of Muslims and non-Muslims but ignored the sects: it was also an indirect pledge of the state that it would not discriminate on the basis of sect. The founder of the state, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, although himself a Twelver Shia after conversion from the Ismaili sect, was wont to describe himself in public as neither a Shia nor a Sunni. His stock answer to a query about his sect was: was Muhammad the Prophet [pbuh] a Shia or a Sunni? Yet when he died in 1948, it was necessary for his sister Miss Fatima Jinnah to declare him a Shia in order to inherit his property as per Jinnah’s will. (Sunni law partially rejects the will while Shia law does not.) She filed an affidavit, jointly signed with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, at the Sindh High Court, describing Jinnah as ‘Shia Khoja Mohamedan’ and praying that his will may be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. The court accepted the petition. But on 6 February 1968, after Miss Jinnah’s demise the previous year, her sister Shirin Bai, moved an application at the High Court claiming Miss Jinnah’s property under the Shia inheritance law on the ground that the deceased was a Shia.

Given the prestige of Miss Jinnah, she was allowed to dispose of all the property of her brother (as a Sunni she would have title to only one-half) and continued to do so till her death. After her death her sister Shirin Bai arrived in Karachi from Bombay, converted from Ismailism to Twelver Shiism, and laid claim to Jinnah’s property. It is at this point that the rest of Jinnah’s clan, still following the Ismaili faith, decided to challenge the authenticity of Jinnah’s Shia faith. The High Court, which had earlier accepted Miss Jinnah’s petition, now balked at the prospect of declaring the Father of the Nation a Shia. Needless to say, the case is still pending in Karachi. But Miss Jinnah’s conduct showed that she was an observing Shia and took her brother’s conversion to Twelver Shiism seriously. Why had Jinnah converted? It develops that he did it on his secular principle of freedom of religion. According to court’s witness, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Jinnah broke from the Ismaili faith in 1901 after his two sisters, Rehmat Bai and Maryam Bai, were married into Sunni Muslim families. It appears that this happened because the Ismaili community objected to these marriages. It also appears that the conversion to Isna-Ashari (Twelver) Shiism happened in Jinnah’s immediate family, and not in the families of his two paternal uncles, Walji and Nathoo.

The court proceedings bear evidence of the last rites observed by Miss Jinnah immediately after her brother’s death. Witness Syed Anisul Hasnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the ghusl (last bath) of Jinnah on the instructions of Miss Jinnah. He led his namaz-e janaza (funeral prayer) in a room of the GovernorGeneral’s House at which such Shia luminaries as Yusuf Haroon, Hashim Raza and Aftab Hatim Alavi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan, a Sunni, waited outside the room. After the Shia ritual, the body was handed over to the state, and Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a breakaway alim of the Deobandi school of thought who supported Jinnah’s Pakistan Movement but had recently apostatised the Shias, led his janaza (funeral) according to the Sunni ritual at the ground where a grand mausoleum was later constructed. Other witnesses confirmed that after the demise of Miss Fatima Jinnah, clam and panja (two Shia symbols) were discovered at Mohatta Palace, her residence.

Witnesses appearing at the Sindh High Court in 1968 to affirm Jinnah’s sect were Mr I.H. Ispahani, a family friend of Jinnah and his honorary secretary in 1936, and Mr Matloobul Hassan Syed, the Quaid’s private secretary from 1940 to 1944. Mr Ispahani revealed that Jinnah had himself told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted to Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai, the daughter of a Parsi businessman according to the Shia ritual during which she was represented by a Shia scholar of Bombay, and Jinnah was represented by his Shia friend, Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad. (Raja Sahib was a close friend of Jinnah but differed completely from him in his belief. He was a devout follower of the Twelver Shia faith and ultimately chose to migrate from an independent India to Najaf in Iraq. His friendship with Jinnah has puzzled many. Apparently, the only bond they had was of the Shia faith.) He, however, conceded that Jinnah was opposed in the Bombay elections by a Shia Conference candidate. Ispahani was present when Miss Fatima Jinnah died in Karachi in 1967. He himself arranged the ghusl and janaza for her at Mohatta Palace according to the Shia ritual before handing over the body to the state. Her Sunni namaz-e janaza was held later at the Polo Ground, after which she was buried next to her brother at a spot chosen by Ispahani inside the mausoleum. Ritualistic Shia talgin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talgin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929).

Fatima Jinnah’s own funeral became something of a theatre of the absurd after her friends had given her a Shia funeral before the state could give her a Sunni one. Field Marshal Ayub Khan writes in his Diaries:

11 July 1967: Major General Rafi, my military secretary, returned from Karachi. He had gone there to represent me at Miss Jinnah’s funeral. He said that sensible people were happy that the government had given her so much recognition, but generally the people behaved very badly. There was an initial namaz-e janaza at her residence in Mohatta Palace in accordance, presumably, with Shia rites. Then there was to be namaz-e janaza for the public in the Polo Ground. There an argument developed whether this should be led by a Shia or a Sunni. Eventually, Badayuni was put forward to lead the prayer. As soon as he uttered the first sentence the crowd broke in the rear. Thereupon he and the rest ran leaving the coffin high and dry. It was with some difficulty that the coffin was put on a vehicle and taken to the compound of the Quaid’s mazar, where she was to be buried. There a large crowd had gathered and demanded to converge on the place of burial. This obviously could not be allowed for lack of space. Thereupon, the students and the goonda elements started pelting stones on the police. They had to resort to lathi charge and tear gas attack. The compound of the mazar was apparently littered with stones, Look at the bestiality and irresponsibility of the people. Even a place like this could not be free of vandalism. REFERENCE: Was Jinnah a Shia or a Sunni? Khaled Ahmed December 24-30, 2010 - Vol. XXII, No. 45 http://www.thefridaytimes.com/24122010/page27.shtml 

In my opinion Pakistan can only be run peacefully if it is to be run et all then it must be run through an Strictly Secular Constitutional System otherwise be prepare for another Yugoslavia of 90s, Lebanon of 70s and 80s or latest Iraq. Those who claim that Jinnah wanted an Islamic State should know about Jinnah that he was an Ismaili [in his early life as per the record of Bombay High Court] and then converted to Shiaism [as per Sindh High Court Record more references are given at the end with excerpts from a books]. - Just assume that Pakistan is going to be an Islamic State [in a literal and real sense] then what School of thought will govern the country [just imagine the mess Deobandis hates Barelvis, Shia and Wahaabis, Wahaabis hate Deobandis, Barelvis, Shias, Barelvis hates Deobandis, Wahaabis but they dont hate Shia as much above all if Jamat-e-Islami is allowed to run then all those mentioned above hate Jamat-e-Islami to extreme].

We are in a soup for big time. Assume that Jinnah wanted Theocratic Country then it would have been a Rafizi Pakistan. I am posting the entire history below read and you all decide tha should Pakistan be run on Secular Ideology or Islamic Ideology? I vote for Strictly and Pure Secular Pakistan.

LATE. MR JINNAH’S RELIGION:

On 24 September 1948, after the demise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatimah Jinnah and the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, submitted a jointly signed petition at the Karachi High Court, describing Jinnah as ‘Shia Khoja Mohamedan’ and praying that his will may be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On 6 February, 1968 after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah'’ demise the previous year, her sister Shirin Bai, moved an application at the High Court claiming Fatimah Jinnah’s property under the Shia inheritance law on grounds that the deceased was a Shia. As per Mr. I. H. Ispahani who was a family friend of Jinnah, revealed that Jinnah had himself told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted to Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai according to the Shia ritual during which she was represented by a Shia scholar of Bombay, and Jinnah was represented by his Shia friend, Raja Sahib of Mehmoodabad. He however conceded that Jinnah was opposed in Bombay elections by a Shia Conference canditate. Ispahani was present when Miss Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He himself arranged the Ghusl and Janaza {Funeral Bath and Funeral} for her at Mohatta Palace according to the Shia Ritual before handing over the body to the state. Her Sunni Namaz-e-Janaza was held later at Polo Ground, Karachi after which she was buried next to her brother at a spot chosen by Ispahani inside the mausoleum. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her dead body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Allama Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the gusl of the Quaid on the instructions of Miss Fatimah Jinah. He led his Namaz-e-Janaza in a room of the Governor General’s House at which such luminaries as Yousuf Haroon, Hashim Raza, and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside the room. After the Shia ritual, the body was handed over to the state and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, an alim belonging to Deoband school of thought known for its anti-Shia belief, read his Janaza according the Sunni ritual at the ground where the mausoleum was later constructed. Other witnesses confirmed that after the demise of Miss Fatimah Jinnah, alam and panja (two Shia symbols) were discovered from her residence, Mohatta Palace. Despite all this Jinnah kept himself away from Shia politics. He was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni; he was simply a Muslim.

Pakistan came into being through a Horse !  Allama Zamir Akhtar Naqvi - Zuljinah and Father of Nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Founder of Pakistan)

Leader of Nation “Liaquat Ali Khan” too was a "Shia" ! Allama Zamir Akhtar Naqvi

Funeral (Janaza) of Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Under The “ALAM” of Ghazi Maula Abbass (Prince of Princes)

[PAKISTAN: Behind the Ideological Mask (Facts About Great Men We Don’t Want to Know) by Khaled Ahmed, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. The Murder of History: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan by K.K. Aziz, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad].

Three months before the partition of the subcontinent, in an interview with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Jinnah firmly stated: "The new state will be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed." He repeated this on August 11, 1947, whilst addressing the members of his Constituent Assembly, making it doubly clear to them that religion is not the business of the state. He told them: "You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places 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."

On August 11, 1947, before the flag of Pakistan had even been unfurled, Jinnah told his people and their future legislators:

"You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places 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.

Jinnah addressed his Constituent Assembly at Karachi. He told the future legislators :

". . . . . . . 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.

"Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play without any, as is put in political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and cooperation I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world."

Indian Congresswoman and poet, Mrs Sarojini Naidu, after meeting Jinnah for the first time at the 1906 annual session of Congress held at Calcutta.

Now to what Mohammed Ali Jinnah had to say on the future constitution of Pakistan in his broadcast to the American people in February 1948: "The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.

"Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught the equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims - Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan. "

Jinnah's views against mixing religion with politics

"Jinnah left the Home Rule League and the Congress after Gandhi took them over because he (Jinnah) strongly disapproved of the introduction of religion into politics by Gandhi, and because he disapproved equally strongly of unconstitutional means to secure swaraj." H.M. Seervai -- Legend and Reality, p.169

"Jinnah had told him that he (Gandhi) had ruined politics in India by dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements in Indian life and giving them political prominence, that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he (Gandhi) had done." Transfer of Power Documents, Vol.VI, p. 617

"Jinnah, however, warned Gandhiji not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers. Indeed, he was not the only person who foresaw danger in the Khilafat Movement." K.M. Munshi, Pilgrimage to Freedom -- p. 22

"Jinnah made it clear, however, that he had no intention of playing the role of an Islamic Khalifah. As Pakistan's Governor-General, he intended to see to it that all its citizens, irrespective of religious or cultural orientation, were, politically and before the law, similar and equal." The Pakistan in the Twentieth Century -- A Political History by Lawrence Ziring - pp. 66, 67

"Jinnah's insistence on balance and fairness to all, irrespective of religious persuasion or cultural identity, projected a secular approach that was now obscured in the Muslim League's struggle to achieve parity with the Congress." Ibid, p. 39

"Jinnah, the 'ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity', had worked hard to get the Congress and the League to co-operate and deplored the opportunistic alliance between the Mahatma and the Khilafat Muslims." The Sole Spokesman -- Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the Demand for Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal -- pp. 8, 9

Quaid-e-Azam never referred to Pakistan as "Islamic Republic" but as the "State of Pakistan," "Sovereign State of Pakistan," "Dominion of Pakistan" or "Federal Republic of Pakistan".

Pakistan not to be a theocratic state

"Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state? You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means." Jinnah's press conference in New Delhi on July 14, 1947, Jinnah -- Speeches and Statements 1947-1949, Oxford University Press, p.15

"But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it..." Jinnah's address to the people of Australia on Feb. 19,1948 -- Ibid, p.118

"In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State--to be ruled by priests with a divine mission." Jinnah's address to the people of the United States of America in February 1948, Ibid, p.125

Equal status, and rights, and protection to minorities

"Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed". Jinnah's press conference in New Delhi on 14th July 1947, Ibid, p. 13

"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". Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly on Aug.11, 1947.

"Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and 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." Ibid.

"We have many non-Muslims- Hindus, Christians, and Parsis--but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." Jinnah's address to the people of the United States on February 1948, p.125

Almost all authors of the books on the Quaid-e-Azam, including Stanley Wolpert, Lawrence Ziring, Ayesha Jalal, H.M. Seervai and K.M. Munshi, substantiate and support the view that the Quaid was himself secular and always wanted Pakistan to be a secular state.

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent --Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami [1]-- were politically very active during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they supported the CongressParty' s idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema's concept of nationalism as well as the Muslim League's demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.

The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership came almost entirely from the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim state. As a consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over.[2]

The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life. It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth century.

It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox and traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought, barred them from creative thinking and properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]

The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of Muslims -- was virtually a secular campaign led by men of politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema.

Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with Congress orientation. They stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through the establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to accept under any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed out to the students of the Muslim University Union: "What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other, but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social but also political." [4]

The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.

The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came to a head during the struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him, faced the opposition of the Ulema.

The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar – seldom mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as "palidistan" . The authorship of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading personality of the Ahrar:

Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora

Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam. [6]

(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman [7], he is a great leader or a great non-believer)

During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the leading personalities of the Muslim League and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in their dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam but an enemy of it.

After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organization and advising the Muslims to accept Maulana Azad as their leader and join the Congress Party.[8]


The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure).

In none of the writings of the Jama'at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:

"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]

Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: "Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path." [10]

Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: "Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work."[11]

He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941).[12]

However, Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed [13] at that critical moment.

The Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam." [14] He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma).

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that he did not accept Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the sub-continent with safeguards for minorities. [17] He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema that their interests would be better safeguarded under a united India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism. However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis (judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]

In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups as the Momins and the Shia Conference.[ 19]

Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their continued existence. This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -- was organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. [20]

Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve the real difficulties of the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress. The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among the Muslim masses by carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the Muslim League. [21] However, this Muslim mass contact movement failed.

It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the demand for Pakistan.

Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was worried that the end of British domination should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived through the past experience that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within the same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept the political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent. [22]

The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election.[24]

The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life.[25]

Notes:

1. After independence "some of the Ulema decided to stay in India, others hastened to Pakistan to lend a helping hand. If they had not been able to save the Muslims from Pakistan they must now save Pakistan from the Muslims. Among them was Maulana Abul Aala Maududi, head of the Jamat-i-Islami, who had been bitterly opposed to Pakistan." Mohammad Ayub Khan, Friends not
Masters, P-202

2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State in Pakistan, p-66

3. Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, p79-80

4. Speech on Feb. 5, 1938

5 Afzal Iqbal, Islamization of Pakistan, p-28

6. Ibid. p-54

7. Alluding to Quadi-i-Azam' s marriage to a Parsi girl.

8. Munir Report, p-256

9. Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25

10. The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37

11. Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23

12. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p-368

13. Ibid., p-368

14. Zamzam 17.7.1938 cited by Pakistan Struggle and Pervez, Tulu-e-Islam Trust, Lahore, p-614

15. Ibid. p-314

16. Hasan (rose) from Basrah, Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Rome, Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what monstrosity is this? He chanted from the pulpit that nations are created by countries, What an ignoramus regarding the position of Muhammad! Take thyself to Muhammad, because he is the totality of Faith, And if thou does not reach him, all (thy knowledge) is Bu Lahaism.

17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that "it would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition." H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-162

18. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, op. cit., p-328

19. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p-237

20. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics p-334

21. Justice Sayed Shameem Hussain Kadri - Creation of
Pakistan - Army Book Club, Rawalpindi ,1983 -- p-414

22. Ayub Khan, op. cit., p-200

23. According to Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, the present state of affairs of the Moslem world. Dr. Iqbal said: "It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting the social horizon of its members." (Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p-159) Dr. Iqbal had apparently in mind the following verse from the Holy Quran: O Mankind ! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. (49:13)

24. Qureshi, op. cit., p-378

25. Afzal Iqbal, Islamization in Pakistan, p-26

26. Ayub Khan, op. cit.,p-202

27. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Modern Islam in India, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1963, p-173

28. Afzal Iqbal, op. cit., p-29

29. Qureshi, op. cit., p-383

30. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in History, p-215

31. Munir Report, p-205

32. Ibid. p-218

33. Ibid. p-219

34. Anita M. Weiss, Reassertion of Islam in Pakistan, p-2

35. Leonard Binder, Islam and Politics in Pakistan, University of California Press, 1961, p-29

36. Anita M. Weiss, p-21

37. Ibid. p-21

38. When Pakistan appeared on the map, they (Ulema) found no place for themselves in India and they all came to Pakistan and brought with them the curse of Takfir (calling one another infidel). Munir, From Jinnah to Zia, p-38

39. Prof. Rafi-ullah Shehab - The Quaid-e-Azam and the Ulema - The Pakistan Times, Islamabad 25.12.1986.

40. Ahmad Bashir, Islam, Shariat and the Holy Ghost, Frontier Post, Peshawar, 9.5.1991

41. Ibid.

Courtesy: ISLAMIC PAKISTAN: ILLUSIONS & REALITY Abdus Sattar Ghazali Chapter II Ulema and Pakistan Movement Page 1 http://www.ghazali.net/book1/index.htm http://www.ghazali.net/book1/chapter_2.htm