• Accomplished
  • Aggravated
  • Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Anxious
  • Apathetic
  • Artistic
  • Awake
  • Bitchy
  • Blah
  • Blank
  • Bored
  • Bouncy
  • Busy
  • Calm
  • Cheerful
  • Chipper
  • Cold
  • Complacent
  • Confused
  • Contemplative
  • Content
  • Cranky
  • Crappy
  • Crazy
  • Creative
  • Crushed
  • Curious
  • Cynical
  • Depressed
  • Determined
  • Devious
  • Dirty
  • Disappointed
  • Discontent
  • Disgusted
  • Distressed
  • Ditzy
  • Dorky
  • Drained
  • Drunk
  • Ecstatic
  • Embarrassed
  • Energetic
  • Enraged
  • Enthralled
  • Envious
  • Exanimate
  • Excited
  • Exhausted
  • Flirty
  • Frustrated
  • Full
  • Geeky
  • Giddy
  • Giggly
  • Gloomy
  • Good
  • Grateful
  • Groggy
  • Grumpy
  • Guilty
  • Happy
  • High
  • Hopeful
  • Horny
  • Hot
  • Hungry
  • Hyper
  • Impressed
  • Indescribable
  • Indifferent
  • Infuriated
  • Intimidated
  • Irate
  • Irritated
  • Jealous
  • Jubilant
  • Lazy
  • Lethargic
  • Listless
  • Lonely
  • Loved
  • Melancholy
  • Mellow
  • Mischievous
  • Moody
  • Morose
  • Naughty
  • Nauseated
  • Nerdy
  • Nervous
  • Nostalgic
  • Numb
  • Okay
  • Optimistic
  • Pakistan
  • Peaceful
  • Pensive
  • Pessimistic
  • Pissedoff
  • Pleased
  • Predatory
  • Productive
  • Quixotic
  • Recumbent
  • Refreshed
  • Rejected
  • Rejuvenated
  • Relaxed
  • Relieved
  • Restless
  • Rushed
  • Sad
  • Satisfied
  • Scared
  • Shocked
  • Sick
  • Silly
  • Sleepy
  • Sore
  • Stressed
  • Surprised
  • Sympathetic
  • Thankful
  • Thirsty
  • Thoughtful
  • Tired
  • Touched
  • Uncomfortable
  • Weird
  • Working
  • Worried
  • Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
    Results 1 to 18 of 42
    1. #1
      Voice of Your Conscious.
      ----
       

      TARIQ786USA's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 11, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,171
      Jinnah vs Democracy

      August 11, 1947 address of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to the members of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, to the status of a national covenant. That it has taken more than 50 years to reach such a conclusion is indeed most intriguing. In that address the Quaid said, among other things, the following:

      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... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in due course 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.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸



      A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    2. #2
      Senior Member
      ----
       

      Haris's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2, 2003
      Posts
      6,990
      if only his plans and dreams had been implemented, if only he had lived a bit longer...

    3. #3
      Banned
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Apr 15, 2004
      Posts
      2,333
      Quote Originally Posted by TARIQ786USA
      Jinnah vs Democracy

      August 11, 1947 address of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

      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... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in due course 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.
      --------------
      And where did it go wrong? I think he developed no founding stone to achieve this goal.

    4. #4
      Voice of Your Conscious.
      ----
       

      TARIQ786USA's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 11, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,171
      Quote Originally Posted by anjjan
      And where did it go wrong? I think he developed no founding stone to achieve this goal.
      Ajjan,

      I agree,..wish he could have lived little longer,....
      °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸



      A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    5. #5
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Mar 18, 2005
      Posts
      2,140
      Quote Originally Posted by TARIQ786USA
      Jinnah vs Democracy

      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... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in due course 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.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Pakistan Idealogy has been hijacked by the same people who opposed its creation. Had Jinnah's ideals been sacred then this speech should have recieved the status of our Magna carta, our spirit and soul as a nation. Sadly, that was not to happen and we went in the completly opposite direction.

    6. #6
      Voice of Your Conscious.
      ----
       

      TARIQ786USA's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 11, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,171
      Quote Originally Posted by fartguru
      Pakistan Idealogy has been hijacked by the same people who opposed its creation. Had Jinnah's ideals been sacred then this speech should have recieved the status of our Magna carta, our spirit and soul as a nation. Sadly, that was not to happen and we went in the completly opposite direction.
      I agree 100%
      °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸



      A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    7. #7
      Banned
      ----
       

      shivangi's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 25, 2005
      Location
      gwalior
      Posts
      2,104
      now idealogy of pakistan is hijacked.rewind the events and merge it with india for the the well being of its ppl

    8. #8
      Voice of Your Conscious.
      ----
       

      TARIQ786USA's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 11, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,171
      I think,..the following reasons.....

      1. Military/mullah/beauracracy/feudal nexus is the reason why dictators have been able to rule Pakistan for a long time. But if we analyze other countries, we can see alliances on a similar pattern. For example we see hindutva/BJP alliances. But it has not stopped the progress of India because other stronger groups have been able to counter these negative forces.

      2. Education is the key to break the shackle and strong hold of this alliance. An educated person is able to make a smart decision because he judges the leaders based on facts rather than mere emotions and propaganda. Pakistan is moving towards that direction as education is given central importance.

      3. One very important fact of why the military has been able to dominate the Pakistani politics has been the external factors. India has been a constant threat for Pakistan for a long time and Kashmir has been the core issue between these two countries. All these facts have been manipulated by the military. Secondly, the Afghan-Soviet war also played a huge role in strengthening the hold of military on the establishment. Now that border with Afghanistan is safe and there is a peace process between India and Pakistan, things will change in Pakistan. The military will no longer be able to manipulate the public by citing external threats in the form of India and Afghanistan.

      So things are moving in the positive direction.
      °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸



      A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    9. #9
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Sep 3, 2001
      Posts
      1,235
      i agree with maulana maudidi now that the creation of pakistan was and is and will remain a big mistake. pakistan has become a new idol for its people now. they have made pakistan their own god besides Allah. the nationalism is a new religion now, muhammad ali jinnah is the new prophet, constitution is the new Quran and being pakistani is the new brotherhood. any one who has pride in being pakistani, i would not call him/her my brother/sister in islam. i would not even initiate a salaam to that person. they do not deserve the title of muslim, just pakistani.

    10. #10
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Mar 18, 2005
      Posts
      2,140
      Quote Originally Posted by ThandyMazaq
      i agree with maulana maudidi now that the creation of pakistan was and is and will remain a big mistake. pakistan has become a new idol for its people now. they have made pakistan their own god besides Allah. the nationalism is a new religion now, muhammad ali jinnah is the new prophet, constitution is the new Quran and being pakistani is the new brotherhood. any one who has pride in being pakistani, i would not call him/her my brother/sister in islam. i would not even initiate a salaam to that person. they do not deserve the title of muslim, just pakistani.
      Yet Maududi chose to come to Pakistan (Kafiristan according to him)....So maududi was an hypocrite and so r u....

    11. #11
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Sep 3, 2001
      Posts
      1,235
      Quote Originally Posted by fartguru
      Yet Maududi chose to come to Pakistan (Kafiristan according to him)....So maududi was an hypocrite and so r u....
      the land belongs to allah, muslims can live any where they want. the prophet SAW called quraish of makkah kufffar but lived amongst them for 13 years...would you even dare call him any name? living in kuffar land is not prohibited unless there is an islamic country that you can migrate to. at his time there was no islamic country and thus he chose murtad pakistan over hindu india...and same is situation now, no islamic country so we can live where it is possible for us to live and still practice islam.

    12. #12
      Voice of Your Conscious.
      ----
       

      TARIQ786USA's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 11, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,171
      Quote Originally Posted by ThandyMazaq
      the land belongs to allah, muslims can live any where they want. the prophet SAW called quraish of makkah kufffar but lived amongst them for 13 years...would you even dare call him any name? living in kuffar land is not prohibited unless there is an islamic country that you can migrate to. at his time there was no islamic country and thus he chose murtad pakistan over hindu india...and same is situation now, no islamic country so we can live where it is possible for us to live and still practice islam.
      TM,
      Can you please tell us,..why maulana maudidi was against the creation of Pakistan ?
      °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸



      A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    13. #13
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Sep 3, 2001
      Posts
      1,235
      here is a little part of what he said...i will post some more later inshaAllah
      [thumb=H]hukumut57333_4491310.JPG[/thumb]

    14. #14
      Voice of Your Conscious.
      ----
       

      TARIQ786USA's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 11, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,171
      Quote Originally Posted by ThandyMazaq
      here is a little part of what he said...i will post some more later inshaAllah
      [thumb=H]hukumut57333_4491310.JPG[/thumb]
      TM,
      I shall be waiting for the rest of the material....then I shall be able to give my response. Thanx
      °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸



      A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    15. #15
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Mar 18, 2005
      Posts
      2,140
      Quote Originally Posted by ThandyMazaq
      the land belongs to allah, muslims can live any where they want. the prophet SAW called quraish of makkah kufffar but lived amongst them for 13 years...would you even dare call him any name? living in kuffar land is not prohibited unless there is an islamic country that you can migrate to. at his time there was no islamic country and thus he chose murtad pakistan over hindu india...and same is situation now, no islamic country so we can live where it is possible for us to live and still practice islam.
      TM,
      Did it ever occur to u that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was the chosen prophet of Allah and Maududi is just another Islamic scholar, ordinary human being and yet u have the gall to compare the two, sometime u Jamaatis cross the line by treating Maududi equal to Allah and his Prophet. So there is your answer.

      And when did Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and his Companions ever question any Muslims faith? Its ppl like u who have added your prejuidices and human hatred into religion and then hv the gall to question others faith

      Finally, your reasoning sounds absolutely hypocritical... "land belongs to allah, muslims can live any where they want"..."at his time there was no islamic country and thus he chose murtad pakistan over hindu india"....So its OK for him to side with Hindu dominated Congress, yet he chooses to live in Muslim Pakistan (Murtad accroding to your narrow minded defination)...that sounds very hypocritical by any standards...

      By the way, if anyone is a murtad its ppl like u who so easily brand others non-muslim in clear violation of the Holy Quran and Prophets teachings....

      Lastly, if Pakistan is so bad for you why dont u migrate 2 Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan...Iam sure they wud welcome another of their kind...

    16. #16
      Voice of Your Conscious.
      ----
       

      TARIQ786USA's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 11, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,171
      I can see some Maulana Maudoodi's contradictions already.....but waiting for material from TM...to read...then can give my full response.
      °º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`° ¤ø,¸°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÂ°`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º °`°º¤ø,¸,¸¸,ø¤º° ºÂ¤Ã¸



      A Faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

    17. #17
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Sep 3, 2001
      Posts
      1,235
      Quote Originally Posted by fartguru
      TM,
      Did it ever occur to u that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was the chosen prophet of Allah and Maududi is just another Islamic scholar, ordinary human being and yet u have the gall to compare the two, sometime u Jamaatis cross the line by treating Maududi equal to Allah and his Prophet. So there is your answer.

      And when did Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and his Companions ever question any Muslims faith? Its ppl like u who have added your prejuidices and human hatred into religion and then hv the gall to question others faith

      Finally, your reasoning sounds absolutely hypocritical... "land belongs to allah, muslims can live any where they want"..."at his time there was no islamic country and thus he chose murtad pakistan over hindu india"....So its OK for him to side with Hindu dominated Congress, yet he chooses to live in Muslim Pakistan (Murtad accroding to your narrow minded defination)...that sounds very hypocritical by any standards...

      By the way, if anyone is a murtad its ppl like u who so easily brand others non-muslim in clear violation of the Holy Quran and Prophets teachings....

      Lastly, if Pakistan is so bad for you why dont u migrate 2 Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan...Iam sure they wud welcome another of their kind...
      i m not jamati, i consider voting as kufr and parliments as gods besides Allah, so there you go, i m the very anti thesis of jamat e islami. the comparison to the prophet SAW was raised because his actions are the sunnah and it shows us how to live our lives according to quran. it shows us that if prophet SAW did it, then it is permissable.
      any wayz, i do not know the whole story about maududi's collaboration with congress, so i cant comment. but he was human being, i just liked his writing about islamic style of government and i posted it. if he did mistakes i am free from them and ask allah to guide me.
      and saudi arabia? you must be kidding me, that is one of the worst murtad countries in the muslim area. their rulers are one of the despicable leaders. they have a fascade of islam around themselves but are actually nothing but stooges of america. afghanistan is ruled by american puppet aswell, so there is no islamic country in the world.
      and
      tariq there are so much info to post, can i just link it? i hate to save each page and then upload it and all...let me know if it is acceptable to link to the website for you to read em. otherwise i will be left with no option but to save them all and post the images here...

    18. #18
      Senior Member
      ----
       

      Silly Billy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 9, 2005
      Posts
      3,410
      http://www.jamaat.org/fifty/movement.html

      Pakistan Movement and Jamaat-e-Islami

      Certain quarters try to make an impression that Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Jamaat-e-Islami had opposed the creation of Pakistan. Though it is a lie and, therefore, not worh-talking, it is necessary to present facts for setting the record straight.

      Sayyid Maududi was primarily a thinker, a scholar and a social reformer. He was not a "politician" in the currently understood sense. Even Jamaat-e-Islami began to take part in politics only after the adoption of the Objectives Resolution in March, 1949. Maulana Maududi was not involved in active politics in the pre-independence era. During that period his contribution was in the field of reconstruction of Islamic thought, analysis of the malaise that plagued the Muslim Ummah and spelling out a strategy for their revival through an Islamic revolutionary movement. Second, it may also be stated as a matter of fact that Maulana Maududi neither opposed Pakistan Movement nor did he practically participate in it. He had his differences with the way the Muslim League had organized the movement. He developed his own distinct approach to the challenge faced by the Muslim Ummah. One has every right to differ from his approach, but it is unfair to distort or misrepresent his position.

      The intellectual and ideological foundations of the Pakistan Movement were:

      (1) Islam is a complete way of life, a Din which provides guidance for all walks of individual and collective life and it is a demand of our faith to strive to establish Islamic society, state and civilization.

      (2) In view of this distinct approach, Muslims cannot be clubbed together with non-Muslims as one nation. This concept of territorial nationalism is alien to Islam. The two-nation theory simply meant that Muslims are a separate nation because of their distinct faith, culture and history. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni and some other ulema subscribed to the nationalist theory of the Congress. Maulana Maududi opposed it and expounded with great intellectual vigor and moral force the two-nation theory, which was the basis for the demand of Pakistan. In support of this thesis we may quote the late Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, a leading historian and a leader of the Muslim League (He served in the federal cabinet formed by the founding fathers of Pakistan). Dr. Qureshi in his book Ulema in Politics (Karachi: Maarif Ltd., 2nd edition, 1974) says: "Maulana Abul Ala Maududis writings played an important role in molding the opinions of religious minded sections" (p. 330). Dr. Qureshi summarizes Maulana Maududis attack on the philosophy and strategy of the Indian National Congress and on the ulema who supported it: "Maulana Abul Ala Maududis comments had the nationalist ulema in view, when he wrote you raised hell on Shraddhanandas Shuddhi Movement: Jawahar Lal Nehrus Shuddhi movement you are swallowing with relish like sherbet. His [Maududis] analysis was that the attack was three pronged. The Muslim idea that they were a separate community was the first target because, so long as they felt that the followers of Islam form an entity, they would refuse to be absorbed into the Indian nation, hence they were being told that the Muslims did not form a community. Then, because they possessed a separate culture which marked them out as a separate people, the Congress propagandists belittled the importance of the Muslim culture and told them they had no separate culture. And the third attack was upon the Muslim society to break it up into mutually hostile classes and groups. He pointed out that the Indian National Congress was not a communist organization and that it frowned upon the infiltration of the communists and admonished them not to carry out their activities within its ranks, but they encouraged them to work among the Muslims. When the Muslim masses disintegrate into mere individuals and begin progressively to discard their culture and cut themselves off from the Muslim middle classes to join the non-Muslims of their own class, the process of their shuddhi would have started and they would be assimilated into Hindu society as a lump of salt is slowly dissolved if placed in water. And he reminds those Muslims who persevere in resisting the pattern of the new society, of two statements made by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru saying that those political or cultural institutions that stand in the way of the proposed change should be obliterated, and that when the majority decides to change the social order, it is not necessary that it should consult the minority. On the other hand, effective pressure should be exercised upon it and even compulsion and coercion should be used. Democratic government means in fact that the majority should control the minority though threats and fear." (P. 336-337)

      "Maulana Abul Ala Maududi exposed the fallacy in such arguments quite convincingly." (p. 337).

      "After a careful analysis of all the issues involved and the policies pursued by the Indian National Congress, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi reached the conclusion that the Muslims and the Congress movement had no interests in common. Our death is its life, its death is our life. Not only is there no common ground between its principles, objects and methods of work and ours, but in fact they are totally opposed. The difference is of such magnitude that they and we do not converge on any point, the differences (in its aims and goals and ours) are like the difference in the cardinal points of the East and the West, one cannot go in one direction without turning ones back on the other." (P. 337-338).

      "Maulana Abul Ala Maududis careful analysis of the policies of the Indian National Congress opened many eyes" (p. 339).

      Discussing Maulana Maududis critique of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madnis book Muttahidah Qaumiyat aur Islam (united nationhood and Islam), published in 1939, Dr. Qureshi writes:

      "It received a full dress rebuttal from Maulana Abul Ala Maududi. It is strange, therefore, that it was claimed that all the ulema had accepted the truth of Maulana Hussain Ahmads arguments as valid and that not a single authoritative or reliable scholar had countered it." (P. 351).

      In fact Maulana Maududis rejoinder was so logical, authoritative, polite and devastating that it was beyond the capacity of any supporter of a united nationhood to counter. Maulana Maududi pointed out that Maulana Hussain Ahmad has been carried away by his hatred of the British and had twisted history and facts. Are nations really created by political boundaries? If they are, why are ethnical, cultural and religious conflicts endemic in many states including the European countries? Maulana Hussain Ahmad had indulged in willful distortions of the Arabic dictionary and even the meaning of the verses of the Quran. He had no business to use a well known world like nation in any sense except the one internationally assigned to it. The Muslims and the Jews of Madina did not form a single nation even after the Prophet had brought about an alliance between them for a short while after his migration from Makkah to that city. The guarantee of fundamental rights and the assurance to safeguard Muslim personal law did not ensure continued immunity from non-Muslim influences and corrosion of Muslim entity and culture. Maulana Maududi then exposed Maulana Hussain Ahmads ignorance of the real meaning of legal terms like personal law and fundamental rights and their scope and working in a modern state.

      "Maulana Maududis superior scholarship, his telling arguments, his cold logic and his knowledge of modern concepts in political science and law made it impossible for the Jamiat group to answer his contentions. In fact Mufti Kifayat-ullah who was a faqih (a jurist) and, therefore, more cognizant of the demands of logic and academic debate, advised his colleagues against any attempt to continue the discussion, because he opined that Maulana Maududi was in the right and there was no point in attempting to defend the indefensible." (pp. 351-352). Dr. Qureshi, while fully acknowledging Maududis contribution, presents his position on the Pakistan movement in an objective manner. He says: "Maulana Abul Ala Maududis contribution in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims has been mentioned. The logical corollary of this stand appeared to many the acceptance of Pakistan as the sole goal of the Muslims of the Subcontinent; but Maulana Maududis reaction was more complex and needs a somewhat detailed discussion in the context of this book and the controversy that it has created in contemporary politics. 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. And mere belief was ineffective unless it led to individual and social and corporate action. Such a body did not exist and had to be created. It would be brought into existence by presenting Islam as a dynamic movement and not merely as an institutionalized and traditional religion. Hence he founded the Jamaat-e-Islami. He did not oppose the Muslim League, but he felt that it had accommodated within its fold heterogeneous elements, consisting of communists, secularists, Muslim nationalists, believers in Islam and non-believers, practicing Muslim and those who did believe but their belief seldom expressed itself in practice or action. How could such a body, he argued, bring about the kind of Islamic renaissance that he thought should be the goal of all Muslim effort in this age when the beliefs of all religions and Islam in particular were under assault. Islam was under pressure from foreign influences as well as internal ills. Even well established Muslim nations had betrayed strong tendencies to stray away from Islam. Therefore, Muslim nationalism was not enough, the struggle should be given another dimension as well. When asked to cooperate with the 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." (pp. 367-368).

      This is an objective evaluation of the position and contribution of Maulana Maududi. Those who try to put him in the anti-Pakistan camp are unfair not only to him but to the nation as well. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada was Secretary to Quaid-e-Azam and has compiled major documents about the freedom movement. In his book Evolution of Pakistan (Lahore: All Pakistan Legal Decisions, 1963), he says about Maulana Maududi:

      "In a series of articles in the Tarjumanul Quran, in 1938 and 1939, Maududi unmasked the Congress and warned the Muslims. He related the history of the Muslims of the Sub-continent, debunked Congress secularism and showed the unsuitability of India for democratic rule as there would be only one Muslim vote against four Hindu votes. He condemned the national imperialism of the Hindus and opined that separate electorates, weighage in Assembly seats and reservation of proportion in services could not solve the political problems of the Muslim nation. His proposals embodied three alternatives:

      a. An international federation which should be a State of Federated Nations wherein each nation should be sovereign and should enjoy cultural autonomy;

      b. The scheme envisaged in the Cultural Future of India prepared by Dr. Latif should be implemented and separate regions should be demarcated for establishment of autonomous States of respective nationalities. The Centre should retain minimum subjects. A period of 25 years should be provided for exchange of population between them. East Bengal, Hyderabad, Bhopal, Junagarh, Chendra, Tonk, Ajmer, Delhi, Oudh, North-West Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan should be assigned to the Muslims. Separate regions should be allocated to the Sikhs and the Depressed Classes if they so desire; or

      c. If the first two alternatives are not acceptable, then there should be separate National Federal States of Hindus and Muslims respectively with a confederacy between the two. There should be a pact or treaty between the Federation regarding Defense, Communication and Trade and Commerce." (P. 191, 192).
      Putting things in perspective, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, in his final summing up says: "The schemes and suggestions of Sir Abdullah Haroon, Dr. Latif, Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, a Punjabi, Sayed Zafarul Hasan and Dr. Qadri, Maulana Maududi, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, Maulana Abdul Wadood Khan and the Punjab Muslim Students Federation were in a sense milestones on the road to Pakistan." (P. 258, emphasis added).

      The opponents of Maulana Maududi base their case on his book Musalman aur Maujuda Siyasi Kashmakash vol. III. The references made from this book are mostly selective, out-of-context and misrepresent Maududis actual position. His criticism over the methodology of the Muslim League is presented as opposition to the idea of Pakistan. Reference to separate homeland for Muslim majority has been totally distorted. Maulana Maududi was emphasizing that the real issue was systemic and not merely of land. In the same context, he wrote: "This country (British India) remains one or is divided in ten thousand units is not my primary concern. He who regards territory as an idol may groan and cry if this idol is broken. If I could get even one square mile of land on which real sovereignty of Allah alone is established I would prefer that little piece to the whole length and breadth of India."

      Non-participation in the 1946 elections has been projected as "forbidding" his followers to vote for Pakistan. The fact is that in the pre-independence era the Jamaat members in principle did not avail of the entire system of the colonial rule, including judiciary, election, etc. A statement of Maulana Maududi about the referendum in the NWFP makes his position crystal clear: "Referendum is cardinally different from ordinary voting in elections to legislative assemblies (under Islamic rule). Referendum is about which of the two countries -- India or Pakistan -- this area is to be a part. Voting in such a referendum is not repugnant to Shariah. As such wherever referendum is being held the members of the Jamaat are free to vote in this referendum. Members are free to vote according to their own conscience. However, I can say in my personal capacity that if I were a resident of the NWFP province my vote in the referendum would have been in favor of PAKISTAN. As the division of the country is taking place on the basis of Hindu and Muslim nationalism, all these areas where Muslims are in a majority should go with the country which symbolizes Muslim nationalism" (Kausar, 5th July, 1947, Tahrik-e Azadi aur Musalman, vol. II, pp. 287-288).

      Maulana Maududi never used the world traitor the Quaid-e-Azam. He held him in great esteem. For instance, see the following note he wrote on Quaids death in Tarjumanul Quran:"This month Muslims had to face two calamities causing great shock to them. ... The first one is the death of the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. For the last ten or twelve years, his personality had served as the focal point of the Muslims, corporate existence. After him, there is none among us, neither as an individual nor even as a group, who could draw peoples love and command their respect, whose sincerity, wisdom, courage and fortitude could be banked upon and whose charisma could have pulled together the disparate elements of our national fabric. Whatever image and name Pakistan had inside and outside owed to his tested statesmanship. For the world, his death may be the passing of a great man and a leader. But for us, it is a national calamity, for in his death our fledging state has suffered beyond redemption, which only Allah the Most Merciful can compensate."

      In brief, blaming Maulana Maududi and Jamaat-e-Islami for opposing the idea and creation of Pakistan is totally unwarranted and biased. It is unfair to attribute things to a person or a party that have neither been said or done nor do they fit into the overall pattern of thought and behavior of that person or party.

    Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
    visitors found this page by using these recent terms: jinnah speech 11 august 1947,  quaid e azam 11 august speech,  quaid e azam speech 1947,  11 august speech of quaid-e-azam,  14 august 1947 speech in english,  quaid e azam speech,  speech on 14 august 1947 in english,  quaid e azam first speech,  quaid azam speech 1947,  quaid e azam 11 august 1947 speech,  speech of quaid-e-azam on 11th august 1947,  quaid e azam speech 11 august 1947,  speech on quaid e azam in english,  quaid e azam speech 14 august 1947,  first speech of quaid-e-azam,  quaid e azam speech of 11 august 1947,  11 august 1947 speech of quaid-e-azam,  11 august 1947 speech of jinnah,  speech of quaid-e-azam on 11 august 1947,  quaid e azam address on 11 august 1947,  quaid e azam speech 11 september 1947,  quaid-e-azam speech of 11 august,  http:www.paklinks.comgspakistan-affairs183184-quaid-e-azam-mohd-ali-jinnahs-speech-on-august-11-1947-a.html,  mohammad ali jinnahs 11th august speech,  quaid e azam speech on education