Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
Very interesting indeed. I like his distinction between religious and communal and democracy vs fascism. Just one question, if Muslim league was a communalist/fascist (Like RSS) party and Jinnah was an Atheist/fascist, how come the second head of the Ahmadiyya movement supported Jinnah and Muslim league? Ahmadiyya movement was the only religious movement that supported the formation of Pakistan. Sir Zafarullah khan drafted the Lahore resolution in 1940….. and much more…..
I would like to be enlightened.
Assalam-o-alaikum Janab Alim sb.
I do not entirely agree or disagree with Javed Akhtar.
As for your question: Allahu A’alamu. This is something even i am not clear. Neither do many Pakistani Ahmadi friends with whom i have interacted on the subject. Below is something i got from an Anti-Ahmadiyya blogger. Not sure if it can be helpful.
http://www.thecult.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1667
Also, i hve downloaded ‘Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyya’ to read and figure out what exactly happened. May be our elders can enlighten us with some references. May be Alim sb. you can help us in our search??
We should be cautious when we say that it was Ahmadiyyas who created Pakistan. Reason being last two paragraphs of below article. Else, enlighten us on possible answers to these allegations raised. I am very keen to be informed about it.
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/9hio7liyOKlmsTRe8qbRrN/The-apostates-of-Pakistan.html?facet=print
About Muslim league being a communalist/fascist (Like RSS), it is clear that people died as a result of communal speach instigated by ML leaders. And i do not think that Muslim League was abiding by any Islamic teachings when it instigated violent mobs to create disorder. There is little to no difference between RSS and Muslim League when it comes to means they adopt their agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noakhali_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day
And currently the nature and methods used against our people in Pakistan is quite the same.
Please suggest your thoughts on this.
Jazakh Allah Khair
Sorry for the typing errors. These should be
“Also, I have”
“Communal speech”
Dear Alim and Haque
First of all, congratulation on writing, posting and distributing and choosing an idiotic headline on such a piece of journalistic crap. If you did a bit of research on Indian history, you will find out that the idea of Pakistan as a homeland for the oppressed Muslims of India -who first were sidelined by the British with Hindu collaboration ( Please Mountbatten’s Autobiography for the clear view) and then were afraid to be a minority under Gandhi’s Hindu nationalistic thinking – came at a later stage. Any student of elementary school will tell you that Muslims have been ruling the Indian sub-continent for 1000 years, first by force and later by political marriages. Unfortunately, the congress leadership, whose chairman was Quaid-e-Azam at the time of Gandhi’s arrival from South Africa but still they were acutely aware of the consequences of living under those who have been ruled by them.
Javed Akhtar and many other Congress affiliated Muslims including Maulana Azad were against the creation of Pakistan because they belonged to the tiny elite who did well and who had no understanding of the socio-economic situation of the poor Muslims of India, especially Bihar, Bengal, Punjab, Gujrat and Sind. Even in those areas, where they were majority, the Hindus controlled the businesses and the money.
Anyhow, I come back to the intentions of the Muslim Times staff to bash Pakistan, which gave them education, passport and a living standard, which they would have never attained in India. It is a shame that in the last few month’s reading this newspaper on Line, I have not read one article and I repeat, one article, which is not biased towards Pakistan and which does not feel gleeful in demonizing the entire Pakistani people and Pakistani state. I find it disturbing not towards Pakistan because it will survive such tiny onslaught but I am worried for the future of Ahmediya communities in Pakistan, which include many of my own maternal relatives. They would suffer more because of such relentless anti-Pakistan propaganda by Desi journalists who sit in their cosy places outside Pakistan and throw stones.
As far as, “Ahmadiyyas creating Pakistan” tirade, I am old enough o know that such claim is forwarded by everyone. I have heard it from Agha Khanis, Bangla Deshis and other minorities.
Mr. Haq, if you really want to know about Jinnah’s political work and why he was forced to demand the partition of India, please get hold of a neutral book and you will find the truth.
Here is one book, I can suggest. It will open your eyes.
Jinnah of Pakistan by Professor Stanely Wolpoer. It is published by Oxford Press
Thanks Mr. Qureshi and Haque Sahib. It is always a pleasure to read opinions of others and how they make sense of history and life around them.
Many thanks for these posts. I learn something new everyday and like all learners I struggle to reconcile different historical accounts with my own understanding and identity as a Pakistani Ahmadi Muslim.
First, yes the headline could have been better. Second, I will post some links to articles that I have posted especially by Yasser Latif Hamdani, a lawyer scholar from Pakistan, who I have found has one of the most logical and understable position on Jinnah and the conception of Pakistan. In most part I entirely agree with him and in some sense it relieves me of my own confusions. I will list them later, so that Mr. Qureshi can rest easy that we do take both sides seriously and also do positive posts on Pakistan.
My own understanding of reasons of partition are completely non communal and non sectarian although one cannot rule them out completely. Having read Ayesha Jalal and Jaswant Singh (and yes Stanley Wolport is a good reference), I have come to the conclusion that the debate between Jinnah and Nehru/Gandhi was more about nature of representation and State in Post British United India. Having a soft spot for minorities and having observed how congress majority ministeries had operated earlier in 1937, Jinnah had proposed and insisted on proportional representation in the new set up(which gave more space to minority groups – not just to Muslims but also Dalits and Christians) and a loose confederation (3 dominions for 10 years to start with). Nehru was more of a federalist and wanted simple majority vote within a strong federation (this could have led to an overwhelming Hindu majority).
Even up until 1946 Jinnah and Muslim leauge accepted the cabinet mission recommendations which would have allowed India to stay together as a loose confederation. The 1940 resolution drafted by Sir Zafarullah did not even have the name of Pakistan and consisted of the same idea. It was Congress which declined the Cabinet Commission recomomendations based on the above and paved the way for separation. The second head of the Ahmadiyya movement was keenly aware of these political dynamics and had seen that Jinnah’s vision of a loose confederation with proportional representation was pragmatic and more just due to safe guards that would have helped the minorities in India. It was only when repeated attempts by Jinnah failed to convince Congress that partition happened as it did. In other words, Muslims were pushed out by the majority.
And yes the “tirade” of Ahmadiyya, Bangladeshis and Aga Khanis is correct in thier prominent role in formation of Pakistan. A good reference to read would be the auto biography of Sir Zafarullah Khan, one of the closest associate of Jinnah. Sir Agha Khan was President of Muslim League for a subsantial amount of time. Sirs Zafarullah and Fazle Hussain played a major role in convincing Sardar Shaukat Hayat of Unionist Party to abdicate Punjab in favor of Muslim League. Moulvi Fazle Haq, a Bengali actually presented the Lahore Resolution which formed the basis of Pakistan.
Highligting actual problems in Pakistan or for that matter in India is niether Pakistan bashing or India bashing. I do not have a Indo centric view of Pakistan nor do I expect Indians to have a Pakistan centric view of India. Each must be judged on its own merit, now that both are independent states. Highligting what is going wrong in Pakistan is done with the intention of awareness raising and alerting people to reflect and resort to better sense. I deeply love Pakistan despite how I was and many of my Ahmadiyya brethren have been and are being treated there. Abdus Salam, the only Muslim nobel laureate from Pakistan never gave up his Pakistani nationality. Despite having the option, I have not surrendered or taken any other passports other than Pakistan. I have done this because our beloved Imam teaches us that loving your homeland is part of one’s faith. I get up early in the hours of the morning to pray for the country and its people.
Nothing is dearer to us than the safety of our communities in Pakistan. You may have your views but leave it to us to decide how best to safe guard the interets of our people. You are terribly mistaken if you think that what is being done to Ahmadies in Pakistan and our protestations and highlighting it is a “tiny onslaught”. It is niether tiny nor an onslaught – it is a part of larger destiny that Allah has ordained for People who follow Prophets and reformers of their age. And when that Great and Mighty Being moves than nothing will stand in its way.
I would love to see articles from you Mr. Qureshi which are positive about Pakistan and will can also help to safe guard the interet of Ahmadiyya in Pakistan. Please guide us in how we can do that.
So the truth dear friends is much deeper and much more profound. We all deserve each others respect in this journey of finding it and we must not surrender to the easy way of dis-regarding different perceptions/versions of reality in order to make ourselves comfortable.
Will send links in the next comment.
May Allah be with all of us in the search of Truth.
I am educated by the comments above. I did not know so much of history about the creation of Pakistan. I worry about the course Pakistan is taking and of course worry about the plight of the Ahmadi Muslims there specially.
In USA, after independence there was a constant debate between the Federalists and their opposition, but, we saw something positive come out of the debate, which everyone could buy in. It was through this debate that amendments for individual rights came about.
Let me ask our dear brother Bashy Quraishy to educate us, how some separation of Mosque-Church and State can be achieved in Pakistan, otherwise the theocracy, which is shaping up will destroy everything good about the country. Additionally, how the situation of Ahmadiyya Community can improve some, so that they can continue to buy in without extreme sacrifice and self-hating.
Looking forward to your kind advice.
Dear brother Muhammad and Dear Qureshi Sahib:
Pakistan in Perspective: A series of discussions on MTA about political history and recent developments in Pakistan.
http://www.alislam.org/v/5532.html
Eye on history: Jinnah revisited — Yasser Latif Hamdani: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2012/06/jinnah-revisited-yasser-latif-hamdani.html
Jinnah Was The Most Secular Statesman Produced By The Muslim World: http://pakteahouse.net/2010/03/28/jinnah-was-the-most-secular-statesman-produced-by-the-muslim-world/
More later
Janab Alim sb.
It does not answer my question though. I am looking for some references from old textbooks of jamat which we can use not just for us. But for propagating to ‘others’ in case need arises. If i may request, can Shahid Parvez sb. help us on this?
@Bashy we are waiting for your possible response to Zia sb. break your silence, else i will think you are a follower of Gandhi, who used to take ‘fast of slience’ when approached for critical issues.