Conversations with Jinnah’s djinn



Once upon a time, there was a Muslim who loved his ham and pork; seldom prayed; had raven hair and was a dandy as a movie star; took his daughter to theatres, who quoted her father as ridiculing Muslims, saying, ‘a Muslim with Rs 10 will buy a headscarf and eat biryani, but a Hindu will save it’; but who ultimately settled for a Muslim nation.

Nationalist poet Sarojini Naidu paints this picture of him:

“Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks, for those who know him, a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman’s, a humour gay and winning as a child’s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man.” (Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity, 1997, Akbar S. Ahmed, Routledge, ISBN: 0-415-14965-7)

That Jinnah, for whom religious identity was the preoccupation of jejune janabs and whose immaculate wardrobe of 200 silk ties was rivaled only by Motilal Nehru’s. That unmentionable name, one that still gives collective anathema and goes on to show how free thought is never a package deal. It does not come free with a free democracy.

Great leaders, as we know, have been men of blatant inconsistencies. Jinnah, not man enough to resist a tenderly fall at the feet of a ravishing Rattanbai (Ruttie) Petit’s feet but the lanky joist who would hold a community up.

On that side of the inevitable border, there is still nobody quite like him; on this side, he continues to be a favourite whipping boy.

As we bicker over Jinnah, we have seldom asked the most vital question. It is not what Jinnah is credited with creating that matters any more, but that what he has left — a state so weak that it would begin to crumble 60 years or so after his death. Qiad-e-Azam (Jinnah’s well-known Urdu-Arabic epithet meaning “great leader”) could not have been aware of the mess he would leave.

One thing about Jinnah and Muslims that ought to be cleared up: post-Independence Indian Muslims have largely ignored him though he strongly upheld the rights of minorities.

Birth pangs are inevitable, but here are a set of my own beliefs: that Partition could have been avoided. That Jinnah did not always have a Muslim state in mind. And as it ought to be, even now, he did look to reconcile Muslim interests in the context of Indian nationalism. And for this view, I too may have to pay a price. It is alright, as long as it is not the label of a ‘Pakistani’, without any prejudice to that country.

But regardless of all this and the price paid, it is a good thing that India was partitioned. Has anybody thought of this yet? Had it not happened, we would have ended up taking the Taliban head on, facing the world’s fiercest insurgency and possibly the ignominy of being Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden’s adopted home.

It is not difficult to guess where I would have chosen to be, had I been born then. On this side. Heartland Muslims, Punjabis and Sindhis included, and tribal Afghans and Pashtuns, without any prejudice to them, have very different DNA-makes. I have never believed that turning towards Mecca for namaz makes for a Muslim monolith.

The Partition could not have been so surgical. Our roots lie strewn across the border. BJP leader L.K. Advani was born in Lahore, erstwhile Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf in Delhi.

India and Pakistan have come far and fanned out into divergent political directions, though aspirations of the common man on either side may be the same: a good life or at least two square meals a day.

Jinnah may have had pulled off the great idea of a separate state but history proves that the idea of India has proved to be more viable, tenable, secure and bigger than the idea of Pakistan.

There is a problem with the study of history. Unless you are a historian yourself, you inevitably have to choose one. Having read her, met her and then interviewed her, I have relied, without any compunction, partly on history professor at Tufts University, Ayesha Jalal, a Pakistani who teaches Indian history, and partly on Harvard historian Sugata Bose.

Between them, the duo has co-authored Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy.  Jalal, along with Bose and Amartya Sen, are also the main movers of Harvard University’s prestigious “South Asia Without Borders Collaborative Research Program”.

History is seldom black and white, has ample shades of grey, and ironically though cast in stone, it never makes full sense until its threads are extrapolated.

Jalal mainly emphasizes two points: Jinnah’s original intentions were not to have a separate state and two, when a separate state became inevitable, he wanted a secular Pakistan.

Jinnah’s crusade for a separate state was not merely the result of a singular need for a separate Muslim homeland. How many kinds of Muslims was he to unite? Dravidians, northeasterners, Punjabis, Gujaratis and Bengalis too. Jinnah never represented all Muslims, of this there is sufficient historical evidence.

Jalal’s book, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and Demand for Pakistan, is a definitive work that traces the circumstances leading to Pakistan’s creation.

From being a champion of “Hindu-Muslim unity” (in Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s words) to his later-life separatist epiphanies, Jinnah did undergo a massive change of heart. What was the trigger? It was his view of Muslim political representation and the way he wanted power for minorities and his deepening suspicion of being marginalized.

Jinnah may have had his pound of flesh, but it is in India that Muslims could unite, flourish and find true cultural and political representation, despite threats from a Hindu Right. In Pakistan, the Balochis, Pashtuns, Turwalis, Kalashis, Burushos, Hindkowans, Brahuis, Kashmiris, Khowars, Ahmediyas and Shinas, and many more, are no more united than North and South Koreans.

According to Jalal, it was during the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 to discuss the transfer of power from the British to Indians that Jinnah’s resolve for a separate state steeled. Sugata Bose too has toed this line. (Modern South Asia, Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Routledge, 2003).

For better part of his life, Jinnah’s quest was a united India as long as he saw it capable of guaranteeing equal rights to Muslims.

The Muslim majority provinces of the northwest and northeast were to be leveraged for negotiating power. Bose and Jalal’s view is that, during discussions on the Cabinet Mission Plan, the Congress rooted for more central powers while Jinnah rooted for federalism based on grouping of states.

There was to be a three-tier arrangement: a Centre, the groups of provinces and the provinces themselves as the lowest tier. (Modern South Asia, Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Routledge, 2003).

The Congress was against this grouping and that was the ultimate trigger. For Jinnah, this was evidence that Congress was against sharing of power. This is what Jaswant Singh seems to have pointed out in his uproarious book (going by media reports, since I have not read the book yet).

Nehru was right in rooting for a more authoritarian centre. A new-born nation had to coalesce. My wishful thinking is that Jinnah ought to have looked after Muslim interests from the perspective of greater Indian nationalism. It was already a great civilizational cauldron. He got West and East Pakistan. But he got the crumbs. Limbs that are bleeding and trembling, severed from an organic whole. As we know now, it was not worth the fight.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (27 votes, average: 3.96 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • http://ht--------- sanjeev

    I knew Zia will surely come with his next entry on Jinnah

    [Reply]

  • Sam

    What are the questions you are doing to ask to Jinnahs ghost ?

    Why did you not go to jail in the independance day for even a SINGLE day ?
    (when Nehru spent about 14 yrs or more in jail)

    Was there a deal between you and Britishers, that you would not participate in the struggle or they treat you with kid gloves ?

    Why are all the hindu’s eliminated from Pakistan ?

    Why a hindu cannot become the president of current day pakistan ?

    Why are Ahmadiya’s non-muslims ?
    (this is what they do to Nobel prize winning guy).

    Why are shia’s killed in the name of pure islam ?

    Why is woman’s testimony only half of a man in pakistan ?

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    Someone else’s writing on the net.
    I am quite sure that Jinnah was a British agent (or atleast encouraged), as he was not jailed for even a SINGLE day.
    How can that happen, when Gandhi & Nehru had spent several years and were arrested and put in jail repeatedly ?

    “There is a crucial period in Jinnah’s life not researched enough when he returned to Britain (London).During the War (WW2),the Conbgress leaders were imprisoned thus giving Jinnah the time and space to build up the ML and force his demand for Pakistan.What happened in Britain,the discussions that Jinnah had with his Britisdh masters is unknown (probably in some secret file as yet undisclosed),as Jinnah never left a diary of those events.I suggest (without any evidence),that Jinnah was encouraged by the British during his time in London and during the war years when the Congress leaders were not on the scene,perfectly in tune with their divide and rule tactics,to keep fighting for his “rights” as the tallest leader of Hindustan (and we know from even a former RRS chief that he was at one time a devoted nationalist, the equal of any of the Congress leaders) and not to succumb to the diktat and ambitions of other Congress leaders,meaning Nehru of whoim he was very jealous of.”

    [Reply]

  • http://ht--------- sanjeev

    “From being a champion of “Hindu-Muslim unity” (in Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s words) to his later-life separatist epiphanies, Jinnah did undergo a massive change of heart. What was the trigger? ”

    REPLY:

    Jinnah was a typical MUSLIM bigot since the beginning (as most muslims are). He was a thorough professional in his work ( I think that was his only strength ). Just look at his personal life, it will show the true character of this muslim fanatic.

    He eloped with the daughter of his client (Dinshaw Petit)’s daughter-Rittabai Petit( 18 years old ) at the age of 40 years. A typical muslim trait ( an example set by Mohammad ). Not only this he forced her to convert to ISLAM. If he was secular he could have married her while she being a follower of Parsi religion.

    When Dina ( Jinnah’s daughter from Rattanbai petit) expressed her desire to marry a Parsi-born Indian Neville Wadia. Jinnah, tried to dissuade her, but failed. Mahommedali Currim Chagla, who was Jinnah’s assistant at that time, recalls: “Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have anyone she chose”

    It is known that when Dina married Neville, Jinnah said to her that she was not his daughter any more. Jinnah disowned her and the father-daughter relationship became extremely formal after she married.

    This is most common trait of Muslim fanatics that they can marry girls from other religions but cannot allow their own girls to marry to followers to other religion.

    This is height of fanaticism.

    The only thing before 1933 in Jinnah’s life was that the he didn’t reveal hia true colour and teeths, which he did in 1940 and onwards. ITS as simple as that.

    “According to Jalal, it was during the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 to discuss the transfer of power from the British to Indians that Jinnah’s resolve for a separate state steeled. Sugata Bose too has toed this line ”

    Reply:

    Please don’t try to put cart before the Horse. Jinnah had made demand for Pakistan in “Lahore Resolution of 1940″. Was it just a drama ?

    Whatever Ayesha Jalal or Sugata Bose ( I seriously doubt he may be a communist ) may say. But they cann’t change sequence of events.

    about scholar Jalal’s s credibility there is a serious controversy:

    Jalal taught at Columbia University for several years. However, she was denied tenure in 1995 amidst great controversy. This occurred just after Jalal vociferously opposed Columbia accepting a large grant from the powerful Indian business Hinduja Group to establish a research institute for Indic studies (which has since been closed by the university). Jalal alleged that Indian and India-centric faculty “were uncomfortable with a Pakistani woman teaching Indian history” and sued Columbia claiming religious and ethnic discrimination. The District Court of New York dismissed her allegations calling them “thin but suggestive”

    Why so controversy if she is a great scholar ? In fact she is a perfect Pakistani.

    “Jinnah never represented all Muslims, of this there is sufficient historical evidence”

    Reply :
    1. If you are relying on Ayesha Jalal as authentic then her book “The Sole Spokesman ” she mentions that
    ” Jinnah claimed to be the sole spokesman of all Indian Muslims, not only in provinces where they were in a majority but also in the provinces where they were in a minority. Yet given the political geography of the subcontinent it was clear that there would always be as many Muslims outside a specifically Muslim state as inside it ”

    Either your previous(aforesaid argument) blindly believing in Ayesha Jalal’s work is wrong or this one. Which one you will choose ?

    2.This was further substantiated by the fact that 89.2 percent of muslims voted for Muslim League during the 1946 election for central legislature. In these elections the sole agenda of Muslim League under chairmanship of Jinnah was separate state for muslims.

    [Reply]

    Akhilesh Reply:

    To : Sanjeev,
    I must say I am very very impressed by your scholarly reply. The trait of self annointed liberlas is to dismiss all criticism as that of Hindu bigots and thus unworthy of further response.

    The reply by you above, I hope, will dispel some of this notion at least.

    Regards,

    [Reply]

    sanjeev Reply:

    Thanx Akhi Brother

    It must be duty of every educated Indians to expose the hypocrisy of the so-called liberals (leftists, congresswalas and Jaswant Singhs, Mulayams etc.

    Its my pleasure.

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    Zia writing is not any better than a high school student.

    Either he is not spending enough time on the articles, or it is a deliberate propaganda to write his hypotheses as facts.

    Please justify your writings, or put more time and effort to write a scholarly articles.

    Until then, even a tabloid should consider his articles with suspicion as they are so far from truth.

    Just a few true statements, does not hide his ignorance or fawning over Koran and idiotic policies of pre-partition muslim crook politicians.

    Sameer Reply:

    @Zia

    I think you should stop writing about Islam or things related to it , which will result, i guess in total exclusion of your articles. You don’t seem to have any answer to the most of the questions or the counter arguments posed by the readers of your articles. Your knowledge of islam itself seems prejudiced..

    However hard you try portraying yourself as a progressive Muslim, you fail, simply because till now you have not been able to take a critical look at the Islam. Your attempt to present a Muslim viewpoint is respected but, i suppose that does not preclude you from using your common sense acceptable to the contemporary society and intelligentsia.

    I hope kuran does not stop you from using your common sense. i might sound little harsh , but your attempt at presenting muslim view point is failing miserably.

    I think you should have look at it, either you stop writing or take stance which can lead to further discussions or give some perspective to the readers where they can identify with the Islam from humane point of view, other wise you are wasting time of people.

    Sam Reply:

    Dont you understand the game ?

    The so called “progressive” muslims just want to put on a mask of peace/progress to fool the gullible hindus, without giving an “single inch” on the islam’s front.

    They do not want to take any heat by challenging islam (in addition they are just smooth talkers or real believers)

    they measure their success by how many Hindus they fooled…

    (like a butcher has to make sheep believe everything is nice..it makes their work easy).

    sanjeev Reply:

    “i suppose that does not preclude you from using your common sense acceptable to the contemporary society and intelligentsia.”

    I challenge Zia if he can use commonsense at all. He can only say whatever is written in Quran. Just befooling ignorant masses from knowing the true face of Islam (religion of peace ).

    Quran doesn’t leave any scope for using commonsense. Either you reject quran or use reason. I you do first then it is blasphemy and which Zia can’t do, coz then he will have to find some safe haven in Europe to save his life from his brethren.

    Ashish Reply:

    @Sanjeev,
    Here’s a thought provoking article by AG Noorani; you probably have read this, but just in case you have not.
    http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2217/stories/20050826003003400.htm

    Labeling someone as anything is convenient and sometimes we need to do it when the time available to describe him is not enough and person is small enough to merit dismissal. Like him or hate him, Jinnah left a legacy (if only in the shape of a divided nation and a communal virus infected polity), and I think he needs a little more nuanced treatment.
    All our “great men” in history had feet of clay; many had personal lives that may not bear very close scrutiny. And, Jinnah was not the first man to romance a beautiful girl years his junior; I daresay, he will not be the last.
    Having said all that, let’s just look at Jinnah, in terms of his politics, his evolution as a politician and his impact.
    Noorani does make a compelling case, quoting from authoritative sources that Jinnah till late 1930s was constantly trying to ask for political space for Muslims within a unified India. He was outmanouvered at every step by Gandhi and rebuffed by Nehru.

    We need to examine, why a man who is quoted as having said: “I thoroughly endorse the principle, that while this measure should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bonafide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected” turned into such a monster.

    Quote from Noorani:
    “Most of Jinnah’s friends were non-Muslim and they remembered him affectionately. Kanji Dwarkadas’ two volumes of memoirs, India’s Fight for Freedom and Ten Years to Freedom, are well documented. K.M. Munshi said “Jinnah warned Gandhiji not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders” in the Khilafat movement. He wrote in his Pilgrimage to Freedom (1968): “When Gandhiji forced Jinnah and his followers out of the Home Rule League and later the Congress, we all felt, with Jinnah that a movement of an unconstitutional nature, sponsored by Gandhiji with the tremendous influence he had acquired over the masses, would inevitably result in widespread violence, barring the progressive development of self-governing institutions based on a partnership between educated Hindus and Muslims. To generate coercive power in the masses would only provoke mass conflict between the two communities, as in fact it did. With his keen sense of realities Jinnah firmly set his face against any dialogue with Gandhiji on this point.”

    Even so Jinnah did not part company with him. Three other episodes followed – the Nehru Report, the RTC in London, and the Congress’ arrogance of power (1937-39). He appealed to Gandhi in 1937, through B.G. Kher, to tackle the situation. Jinnah drew a blank.

    Belatedly, on December 6, 1945, Gandhi confided to the Governor of Bengal, R.G. Casey: “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 had done.”
    —- Unquote —-

    How was it, that Jinnah had strong personal and working relations with Malviya, Lajpat Rai et al but never managed to strike a personal equation with Gandhi and Nehru? Was it all his fault?

    However, after the late 1930’s, it is indisputable that Jinnah used the communal card to the hilt and it was definitely cynical power play at its worst. This culminated in the call for Direct Action in which thousands perished; Muslims killed Hindus in Calcutta, Hindus took revenge in Bihar.. and the saga continues till today. While it is simplistic for Jaswant to claim on the basis of a 3 minute speech after Pakistan was already a reality that Jinnah was a secular nationalist; it is also important understand the nature of politics in those days as practiced by Gandhi, Nehru and others which left no room for dissidents.
    Of course, it is not my case that religion could ever be a basis of statehood and I think Pakistan proves us right more than Jinnah. Political Islam has only brought grief, everywhere. Whatever be the personal qualities of Nehru, his actions in refusing to give any space to religion in our body-politic stands vindicated today. For that, Nehru deserves our gratitude.

    [Reply]

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ ashish

    I agree that besides Jinnah other Indian politicians were also responsible for the partition but that is it justifiable that a man who instigated riots through his inflamatory speech deserve to be called “secular” “great nationalist” “great Indian ” etc.

    Btw I am not absolving Gandhi-Nehru-Patel etc. of their role in partition but they struggled to attain freedom for the nation but Jinnah and league after 1933 were busy dreaming for a muslim state and did nothing which can be called trully patriotic.

    Did Jinnah ever go to prison ? No

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ ashish

    I am not maligning him by mentioning his personal life. But, yes if someone preaches something outside and behaves contrary to this in his Home, he can never be called a secular. The appropriate term for this is hypocrite.

    This is similar to Keshab Chandra Sen’s case of advocating abolition of child marriage and marrying his own 11 year old daughter to to Maharaja Nripendra Narayan of Cooch Behar.

    Now accepting whatever he might have said in the beginning of his life but see the height of crookness.

    see a sample of this great, secular, nationalist Jinnah’s true colours in another speech (i m borrowing from another blog). While delivering his presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946 Jinnah said

    “I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it.”

    What followed was an unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata on August 16, 1946. Six thousand killed, twenty thousand raped and maimed ”

    On those two days entire police force was on holiday declared by Muslim League government of Bengal under Suhrawadi. Those muslim morons were mock spectators. and Noakhali…..

    If still people use ’secular’ word for him then we will have to change the meaning of the word secular.

    I think then Modi qualifies as a much better person than Jinnah, he also has contributed to development of Gujarat, he is considered among the best administrators among all CM’s of India.

    But then my question is why don’t people like Zia (his brethren ) write a blog entry praising Modi, Advani etc. They might also had some personal experiences in their life which might justify their Islamophobia ?

    So its better if we give him the place we have been rightly giving to him so far and let pakistani call him quad-e-azam.

    Ashish Reply:

    @Sanjeev,
    Spot on about Keshub Chandra Sen :-) Yes, hypocricy is a vice that has been practiced by many; the Bhadraloks have been some of the worst offenders. Only notable exceptions like Vidyasagar practiced what they preached.

    My point of highlighting the less discussed phases of Jinnah’s life was to bring in a POV which basically is:
    1. People change; power corrupts. When in sight of power (Nehru) and when deprived of it (Jinnah), they are capable of wreaking havoc.
    2. Gandhi was not one to let grass grow under his feet; “my way or no way”. Subhash Bose was hounded out of the party and so was Jinnah. One left the country; the other partitioned it! Gandhi’s role in the Bhagat SIngh hanging episode is under the scanner in this article,
    http://www.epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/13638.pdf
    The most damning aspect is after having condemned the act of “political violence” on the parts of these supposedly misguided people (Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru), the Congress and Gandhi swiftly moved to appropriate their political legacy. Our school text-books make it appear as if our freedom struggle was all a Congress show led by Gandhi and ably assisted by Nehru and Patel. Everyone else had a bit role.
    But, the same person, Gandhi, had formidable personal courage and went around, unescorted, without security (no black cats!) to calm rioting mobs. I mention this, just to make the point that people are rarely one-dimensional.
    Nothing can justify post-1933 Jinnah; his past experience at the hands of Gandhi, Nehru can explain but not justify. An account by Margaret Bourke (famour photographer) for his call for direct action from the lawns of his house in Bombay makes for chilling reading.
    I find it fascinating though that someone who was warning Gandhi in 1920s against indulging the Muslim religious leaders and did not support the Khilafat (my historian friends of course point to a Shia-Sunni divide behind that one; don’t know myself), could have turned into what he did.
    Our penchant for calling people Mahatma, Netaji, Quaid e- azam, Chacha.. stops us from a searing evaluation of their entire life, in the proper historical context and gaining insights into how, we, Indians turned out the way we did.

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Ashish

    I agree that Gandhi’s views on relgion and politics and relationship between them were far from pragmatic.

    Another fault of Gandhi’s philosophy was related to his support for caste system

    I agree that gandhi and Nehru had all serious short commings in their style of working and philosophical ideals.

    But I have serious objection if someone calls Jinnah a secular or great India etc.

    Obviously he was a good leader or messiha for Muslims. That is his biggest contribution. So people like Zia and Pakistanis( some muslims Indians ) can rejoice over his achievements,. But any true Indian should not praise this achievement.

    The present distrust among Hindus- Muslims is Jinnah (infact partition )’ s legacy. This will haunt people for many decades more.

    Regards

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Ashish

    Thanxf or you referneces to the aforesaid article.

    Prof. Chaman lal’s views I had heard in a discussion in JNU also.

    Thanx very much

    Jay Reply:

    Analyzing history always has its pitfalls and since 60 years have gone by India can afford to do post partition studies of the event. My own opinion is that the great leaders of that time had grown weary of the struggle and wanted to see the fruits come about in their life time. Secondly, the geopolitics was also an important factor and was an important reason which has not been highlighted in the current debate. It remains a very important reason in the present day friction too.
    Maybe our founding fathers should have been more farsighted.

  • Sam

    Why did you not go to jail in the independance struggle for even a SINGLE day ?
    (when Nehru spent about 14 yrs or more in jail)

    I will say to Jinnah, you are nothing but a spoiler or someone who wants to grab the cake after someone bakes it.

    On your own, you have contributed nothing substantial towards independance struggle.

    [Reply]

  • http://ht--------- sanjeev

    @ Zia

    “That Jinnah did not always have a Muslim state in mind. And as it ought to be, even now, he did look to reconcile Muslim interests in the context of Indian nationalism ”

    Reply:

    Did muslims had separate interests as that of Indian Nationalism ?

    If yes then’

    what about the separate nationalism interests of Sikhs, Budhists, Jainism, Christians etc. or you can take region wise ( Bengalis, Tamils, NE etc. )

    Why don’t u say that you Mullahs always want to subjugate followers of other religions. Those are your true interests which could be fullfilled only in a Islamic state.

    “But regardless of all this and the price paid, it is a good thing that India was partitioned. Has anybody thought of this yet? Had it not happened, we would have ended up taking the Taliban head on, facing the world’s fiercest insurgency and possibly the ignominy of being Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden’s adopted home ”

    Reply:

    1. If you hold this view, then it legitimises claims of many people (like me ) that India would have been a peacefull society if all muslims would have gone to their dream land “Pakistan”. We would not have to see 26/11, Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad etc. blasts. DO you agree with my view ? I am sure if you have any brain you can’t say ‘NO’ as all these are acts of Muslims.

    2. We are still facing insurgency from Islamists despite partition, from Mullah’s like you (misleading people ). Are we not facing Islamic militancy now?

    “Great leaders, as we know, have been men of blatant inconsistencies. Jinnah, not man enough to resist a tenderly fall at the feet of a ravishing Rattanbai (Ruttie) ”

    Reply:

    What is your critierion of greatness ?

    Do any of them contribute to greatness?

    1. Flirting of 16 year old girl by a man of 38 years, and that too daughter of his client and friend?

    2. Instigating Fanatics to kill innocent Hindus to achieve his political aim (direct action day of 16 august 1946, when 10000 Hindus were killed by his followers in Kolkata and other parts of Bengal). Then why you people cry against Modi? He becomes a great man according to your standards

    “It is not difficult to guess where I would have chosen to be, had I been born then”

    Reply:

    Its very unfortunate that you will choose for India.

    “The Partition could not have been so surgical. Our roots lie strewn across the border ”

    Reply:

    Your true roots lie in Soudi Arabian Desert. Go there and enjoy eternal bliss of 72

    [Reply]

  • Sam

    Sajeev–
    You should write a column in any major publication.

    You have a wealth of knowledge and very clear and precise writing style..

    [Reply]

    sanjeev Reply:

    ha ha is it sarcasm Sam

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    I meant it seriously.

    there is no sarcasm.

    i fully agree with most of your replies and want to see them on a wider platform.
    Here you are limited by some readers.

    These thoughts (&facts) need to reach a wider audience to bring rational fact based writings.
    Your writings will dispel ignorance and lack of understanding about political islam and self delusion most hindus are in.

    [Reply]

    sanjeev Reply:

    Thanx Sam

    Its my pleasure that you find my logic convincing.

    Hope i will show light to more people in this direction

    Regards

    Sam Reply:

    Sajeev,

    Can you find out more details if Jinnah was a secret British agent.

    This is my hypothesis and belief.

    ==============================================================
    How come Jinnah did not go to the jail for even a SINGLE day ?
    When Gandhi and Nehru were repeatedly jailed and spent jail time many many years.

    It could have only happened with Jinnah making a secret deal with Britishers to take the role of a mole and spoiler.

    He is a British agent in my opinion.

    Jinnah is just a sold out guy built up by Britishers, just to prolong India’s suffering at Britishers hands.

    He is another Mir Jaffar of Epic proportion.

    He only fights with Congress, while conniving with Britishers.

    ==============================================================

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Sam

    lol

    Its Difficult task. But one can certainly look at this direction only

    I will have to take help of FBI, lol

    Thanx buddy

    Sam Reply:

    After German reunification, they made public of some records of who was spying for the secret agency.

    Similarly there could be records in England (which could be public in 50-100yrs) which could be made public.

    Assuming Jinnah became a British a puppet in 1930’s, and even if they are to be classified for 100yrs, it coming close now.

    I do not know that British rules for making the previously state secret files public.

    If some can investigate and prove that Jinnah is another Mir Jaffar, that will put to rest all this ****.

    even if there is smoke, someone should publish a book about it.

    after Stasi records were made public, they discovered so many spies among day-to-day life.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Sam

    I am still a research student and busy with my PhD work.

    Btw history is not by field but its rural development.

    But yes I like reading historical records.

    Hope someday we will look into these issues also.

    But unfortunately all our history books have been distorted by the puppets of Congress and leftist ideoloques like Bipin Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee etc.

    Its is very difficult for the present generations to know the truth. Further there are preachers like Zia who keep on showing humane face of Islam.

    Regards
    sanjeev

    sanjeev256@gmail.com

  • Sam

    Zia before praising Jinnah, please tell us why he did not go to jail even for a single day during independance struggle.

    He is closer to a crook, or a cry baby as he is not getting attention.
    Almost all parents know what kids do to get attention.

    He has used the classical thinking of “Islam in Danger” and ignorance of muslim masses to build a theocratic state.
    He is no different from ruthless raider of muslim religion who used the same underlying thinking to raid Somnath temple, kill millions of HIndus in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India and plunder India.

    He belongs to the same category as Hitler, however polished he may be.
    Both of them hated other religious people and actively sought/used the power of the state to exterminate others.

    [Reply]

    Hindustani Reply:

    Some people really make Indians look so stupid. I quite resent it. Can you please stop.

    It is common knowledge that Jinnah did not go to prison ‘for even a single day’ because his entire politics was that of a constitutional lawyer, not popularist. This is why he left Congress, and was not involved in the Khalifat movement.

    Indeed, looking at his one ‘extra-constitutional’ move – the 1946 day of direct action, and the carnage that resulted, we should probably be grateful that that was his policy!

    That is the third time I have read that comment on this message board an i’m not even half way down.

    Please read a book.
    Regards.

    [Reply]

  • Amy

    Why is anyone or for that matter the writer of this blog answerable to ur question ,go ask a teacher if ur so illiterate ,instead of throwing ur venom around coz it wont change anything to ur way.If u had the guts u should have understood the topic instead of ranting as usual on the old foolish lines.

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    Amy,
    Where is the venom ?

    Can zia ask Jihnah’s ghost, how come he did not go to the jail for even a SINGLE day ?

    It is a very legitimate question, when Gandhi and Nehru were repeatedly jailed and spent jail time many many years.

    It could have only happened with Jinnah making a secret deal with Britishers to take the role of a mole and spoiler.

    He is a British agent in my opinion.

    Jinnah is just a sold out guy built up by Britishers, just to prolong India’s suffering at Britishers hands.

    He is another Mir Jaffar of Epic proportion.

    He only fights with Congress, while conniving with Britishers.

    [Reply]

    Sameer Reply:

    Amy,

    I don’t understand how can u show such anger and petulance on such simple matters, like seeking explanation on particular stand, that too on the holy month of Ramadan.

    I guess u still have long way to go in understanding religion or your religion is devoid of it.

    [Reply]

    Mitra Reply:

    Really! After spending time on Zia’s website- reading hateful bigots like you and Sanjeev, we are not supposed to loose our temper and not supposed to fear for the future of the country. Your kids will be brought up to hate 150 million Indians and thats bad enough. The gratuitous reference to Ramadan while responding to Amy shows how completely you lack class. But you guys lack one more thing that is FAR more important- BASIC HUMAN DECENCY.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    It’s funny when muslims talk about decency.

    Was it decent for mohammad to ask his son to divorce his wife so he can bed with her?

    All this Ramadhan is BS because you people eat like pigs during Ramadhan, muslim shopkeepers jack up prices and loot muslims. After the Ramadhan, you people queue up outside cinema halls like entertainment starved people, you go around in public transports touching women (all this I have witnessed myself).

    You ramadhan BS is big joke.

    Sam Reply:

    Mitra,
    It is a classic, that muslims threaten that they are going to lose temper.

    Why dont you show how some people’s opinions are wrong or incorrect ?

    There are so many questions which people do not want to answer, like

    1. Is Jinnah a British agent, as he was never in prison even for a single day during independance struggle ?

    How can it be ? unless he is paid by Britishers in some way or the other ?

    Sam Reply:

    Mitra,
    Earlier Jinnah was paid to be a puppet of British.
    Now people like you maybe paid by Saudi Arabia to be a Wahhabi puppet.

    How come you dont talk about HUMAN DECENY in your holy lands ?

    Do you know a Hindu woman is treated a 1/33 of a Muslim man (for blood money purposes) ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyya

    In Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[7]:

    * 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
    * 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
    * 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
    * 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
    * 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
    * 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

    So if you really care about Human deceny, go argue with your financial supporter.

    Sameer Reply:

    @Mitra

    I didn;t know that just to seek some common sense and logic in Islam and its practices will lead to such a vituperation of hatred from people like you. Deep down inside you seems to be apologetic of your religion (By the way who wouldn’t be by going through koran and personel life of Mohammad ) , so instead of arguing you are attacking.

    All the religions are based on certain ideals and philosophy so is Islam, unfortunately it preaches ideals of hatred and divisiveness in major parts. unlike other religions.

    And leadership of muslim world in current state is utterly incapable of reforming Islam so, they are breeding terrorist and bigots like you.

    But remember one thing, times have changed. people have seen through Islam and ready to take on it (verbally & physically). So, pray that you will given chance by some other religion for your spiritual liberation and societal acceptance, if you are good human being. Otherwise, you better go to some place like saudi Arabia or Pakistan….its nobodies loss. least of India

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Mitra

    Please stop your preachings.

    We are also educated and know morality.

    It is upto us what to teach to our kids.

    Better you protect your own kids from ISLAMIC militants.

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Sam

    Please Don’t be equal to the barbarins like Amy and Mitra (i hope he/she is an ilegal bangladeshi resident in India).

    We have some values.

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Mitra

    Thanx for calling me bigot.

    I am one but I am not communist and muslim. Its a complement for me.

    Come out of the jholawala’s politics of muslim appeasement.

    If you have intellectual level respond to my previous queries to Zia.

    I challenge you.

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Sam bhai

    Thoda cool down yaar.

    We can counter them peacefully and logically. They don’t have anything to reply and thats why they are trying to provoke you.

    Please, its my humble request

    Sam Reply:

    Mitra–watch out for your kids (or other muslim kids) who may turn out to be terrorists.

    They are fed the Wahabbi propaganda to kill all Kuffar Hindu’s in India and make it Darul Islam..

    Rajeev Reply:

    Sanjeev/Sam,
    It is very difficult to argue with muslims because they are brilliant in co-ordinated lying. There are three kinds of muslims-
    1. Hard terrorists: Who actually carry out massacre of innocent waving pages of Quran.
    2. Soft terrorists: Who keep inventing excuses to justify actions of hard terrorists.
    3. Pretenders: These people keep mum and occassionally blurt out fake and hollow statements condemning Hard terrorists. These people convince non-muslims that peace can only be achieved if grievances of 1 and 2 are taken care of. These are the most dangerous lot. These people mix among us and use all kinds of twisted logic to preach us morality.

    The ultimate aim of every muslim from Mohammad-Qasim-Ghori-Osama-Jinnah-Zia Haq-Amy-Mitra is total dominance of islam over all other religion.

    Islam is a political ideology that wears camouflage of religion.

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Rajeev

    I agree with your views. When it comes to counter the Mullahs the so called Muslim liberal faces like Javed Akhtar- Azmi-Imtiaz Ahmed- Mushirul Hassan type hide their faces behinds their desks. This is the biggest dilemma. The same happened during Shah Bano case, the Mullahs overtook.

    I agree that one is part of the crime if He is a mock spectator at the venue of crime.

    These so-liberals and intellectauls among muslims are the biggest crooks. If their is some terrorist act then they will show their face and say we strongly condemn terrorism. Thats all but they never ask govt to close down madrasas and take action against potential terrorists.

    Muslims are biggest hypocrites.

  • Raj

    Dear Zia,

    Factual error: Mr. Advani was born in Karachi and not in Lahore as claimed by you.

    [Reply]

    Zia Haq Reply:

    Yes. My apologies.

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    Why do muslims do not have freedom to leave Islam ?

    As per Sharia, they can be killed ?

    This is the law in Malaysia
    “For example, a Muslim who converts from Islam is guilty of apostasy under Shariah laws — punishable by jail and fine — even though freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution.

    The two legal systems have also conflicted over custody cases, where a father converted to Islam and wanted the children to do the same. In other disputes, Islamic authorities have forcibly taken for burial the bodies of people who secretly converted to Islam before their death.”

    [Reply]

  • http://hindblogger.wordpress.com hindblogger

    I do not think that there is any point in scanning post 1947. Life has gone too far from 47′ decade and a generation is almost near to end which has gone through all that which could have been averted but lust to throne…was reason for pain and blood of millions…and this is time we should move on.

    Nothing has changes the way life used to exist in British ERA or post British …

    1. Still, Delhi is making fool of people and they are ruling on us , treating us like animals. This is why ministers can slap us, their kids can kill and rape, and ministers can tell lies in public and there is no accountabilities. Where is damn DEMOCRACY, we happen to boast about ?

    2. Still, Muslims in India are treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and they were never treated and taken at par like Indians. This is why you do not see much muslims in Indian Army, State Police and various central agencies.
    3. I do not want to debate on that counter issue of India and Pakistan…both had played their games according to best of their interest but what was the outcome. Pakistan is having upper hand because it can tease India after openly behaving like a BANDIT BOSS. India seems to be on receiving end because it is begging for action and that too only ONE PERSON is asked for whole 26/11 show.

    Wait for more drama to come…one thing is sure…mumbai attack has been forgotten by everyone in Delhi- what you see is time-pass game which was ON from day ONE.

    [Reply]

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Hindblogger

    1. What do you mean by second class citizen ship ?

    Are they not eligible for holding highest constitutional posts ?

    Let me give you some examples of what is second class citizenship:

    a. non muslims can’t be head of state in Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
    b. non muslims can’t be a witness against muslims in Pakistan.
    c. four women are needed to be witness whereas only two men suffice in Pakistan.

    What are these ?

    Is army the only measurement of determining whether a community enjoys second class citizens. Then none of the Islamic republics have any officer from minority in key posts of their security forces. Why don’t you cry about that.

    Second, Muslims are less in army because they don’t have appropriate educational standards for recruitment as officers and for soldier entry the system is corrupt where only with some army background are able to make it into.

    Even army has less of officers from South India as compared to states like Punjab, Haryana Rajasthan, Uttarakhand. In these states there is long tradition of joining army since british times. In these states people still have it as a rule to send atleast one person from family to army.

    There is strong regional disparity in recruitment for army, In last few years there have been attempts to make it even distribution for whole India. Thats why proportion of army men from traditonal areas is declining. I know a district in Rajasthan that has highest number of defence personel(both retired and serving). Look at the web site of this district Jhunjhunu, ( churu, sikar also have high contribution to army) Rajasthan . There are many villages where every family has atleast one army man. Do some googling regarding contribution of this district in armed forces. I can make you count many such districts from adjoing areas from Haryana where such traditon is prevalent. Young boys from rural areas of this region starts preparing for army since the age of 15-16 years. They make it to army or police even after giving bribes of few lakhs. Further the people of this region are of physically stronger built up(good height, weight etc) than southern and eastern India.

    I know many muslim friends from this region (although very less proportion of total population is muslim) also as officer as well as soldiers in army.

    The same region contributes maximum constables to Delhi Police also.

    I am from such family background, where joining army is a tradition. So I was brought up dreaming to join armed forces. although I couldn’t because of reasons beyond my control.

    Can the south Indian states cry that they are being treated as SECOND CLASS CITIZENS ?

    Do some googling of Pakistani army, theirs is mostly of Punjabis and Pashtuns (90 percent), so Sindh and BALOCH cry the same song as you are singing.

    The regional BIAS has hisorical regions there too.

    Secondly,

    Did you ever find what quran says ?

    It says when a non muslim country is at war with a islamic country, then it is the duty of muslims residing in that country to help the muslim country. Did you ask any muslim to reject this portion of quran or else ask deobandis and all seminaries to issue fatwa against this portion of quran ?

    I am sure they will not.

    Even if few armed forces men can be brainwashed through islamic ideology then it will create a doom for the fellow men in armed forces. Can anyone compromise with his security when life of thousands of men is at stake ?

    I know in month of February VHP asked deoband seminary and other muslim organisations to declare India as Dar ul- Aman.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Issue-fatwa-declaring-India-friend-of-Islam-VHP/articleshow/4171184.cms

    Do you know what was their response ? better you yourself search on net.

    Please compare the rights enjoyed by minorities in India and by minorities in ISLAMIC rebublic ?

    Then what you say ?

    Look how amny muslim terrorists are held up by police for having links with ISI, how can the army be sure that any muslim can penetrate which might be a ISI men.

    First ask your community to win the trust of ther communities through taking up against terror creating elements within your community.

    Please look within yourself for answer before spreading such FALSE propaganda.

    IGNORANCE IS MORE DANGEROUS

    Hope you will reply

    regards

    sanjeev

    [Reply]

    Sameer Reply:

    I completely agree with the Sanjeev, i too come from defence background and i belong to ….what you call martial race. Non representation of muslims in defence and other government establishment is due to lack of their educational and other compettive standards, not because they are discriminated in India as such.

    How ever, basic question remains, whether the present muslim generation is capable of reforming or rejecting those portions of quran which is in simple terms is offensive and against the saner elements of humanity. As long long as they are unable to do this, they have no right of crying hoarse over their so called mistreatment.

    They have no moral right to present themselves as victims, they should be thankful that at least in India they have equal political and economic right, not to speak of relegious freedom.

    What i don’t understand when 95% of muslims supported for pakistan, why 50% of muslims population is in India, why not pakistan take their responsibility and take them over. And those muslims who are in India, why are they are here, why not leave India and go to the their land of pure i.e pakistan or some other muslim country , who is stopping them, certainly not many indians.

    And for Indian government why can’t they provide same treatment to muslims as muslims treat to their minorities.

    rather then giving over lectures on secularism of Jinnha or other muslim perspectives, they better assess their place in current society or ethos as present in any modern democratic country, and as i am sure they will be find themselves misplaced in this regard, so they should make their way to some islamic country.

    As of now I have failed to meet many muslims who are ready to shoulder the responsibility of reforming Islam, that only speakss of muslims bigotry.

    Response lies in taking hard and stricker position against islam, as the negotiation with quran seems impossible, so Hinduis, Christanity and other relegion should take hard position against islam and their followers. That in my opinion is only way forward, pardon me if I seem like hardcore relegious jealot but as i said quran leaves very little for negotiation.

    Regarding sanjeevs questions and answer, well I too would like to hear satisfactory reply but I am sure there aren’t any answer to those questions. If any of my muslim freinds can provide reasonable answers to those questions, then I am tendering apology for all the things i said.

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    If there are less Muslims in Indian army, I would say it is following the teachings of Koran.

    Koran says, a Muslim should not fight against another muslim.

    So what if Muslims in Indian army refuse to fight Pakistan, saying that it is against their religion ?

    I have written to several Muslim scholars and they would not say it is OK to defend Indian against muslim army of pakistan. (I wanted the basis to be solely on Koran, not contemporary values, or past history…)

    So rejoice that Muslims will not have this moral dilemma of violating Koran, when they have to fight Muslim Pakistanis.

    [Reply]

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ Bobby

    a spade should be called a spade.

    see my second post above on why Jinnah should not be called a secular nationalist etc.

    This post shows your personal bias towrds your community, support your views by facts. Otherwise this is nothing but your opinion unsupported by reason or evidences.

    Isn’t it a polarization that all Mullah’s are supporting Jinnah without being critical at all. I know several Muslim scholars like Mushirul Hassan (VC, JMI and historian) Imtiaz Ahmed (political scientist and retired professor, JNU) all saying that Jinnah didn’t intend to have separate muslim nation. Another thing that they hold is that only upper class muslims of India supported Jinnah and his idea of Pakistan

    But facts speak contrary to this :

    1. Syed Ahmed Khan had proposed two nation theory much before Iqbal or Jinnah declared it their political aim.

    2. formation of first religious party by muslims only (1906)

    3. Pakistan resolution of 1940 was much before the “hindutva ” propounded by Savarkar.

    3. Direct action day of 16 august 1946 where Jinnah directly advocated use of violence against Hindus to achieve separate nation for muslims.

    Read this interesting article on todays Indian Express:

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pranabdas-bengal-division/508595/

    It shows the actions of great indian jinnah and his party muslim league.

    I think you are only reading ” MILLI GAZETTE”

    Please Come out of your mental ghetto before attacking on hindutva advocaters. It shows only your ignorance of facts.

    [Reply]

    Bobby Reply:

    “a spade should be called a spade. ”

    Yes, thats precisely why I keep calling you a crackpot.

    “see my second post above on why Jinnah should not be called a secular nationalist…”

    But I never called Jinnah a secular nationalist at all. I do not want to get into that discussion, in the first place. I was only trying to say that the reason that the hindutva crackpots react so strongly to even the slightest word of appreciation for Jinnah, is because they want to hide their own role in polarizing opinion.

    Its on record that these people were completely in agreement with Mr Jinnah as far as the two nation theory was concerned. Their leaders looked up to Hitler and the fascists as role model in the way minorities should be treated.

    One of the ways the Muslim league was able to get so much support from the muslims, was because they had the example of these hindutva nuts to show them, and convince them that it was just a mater of time when these nuts would be in power in India, and then the Muslims would be treated as second class citizens as was the openly stated desire of Golwarkar and others.

    sanjeev Reply:

    @ bobby

    then why you people didn’t move to Pakistan, when you all supported muslims league in 1946 elections. The sole agenda for league during that election was “Pakistan”.

    You people got Pakistan and still remained in India coz of your vested interests and now you have organizations like SIMI which dream of islamizing India. So that you can spread your filth in Indian society.

    Muslims are biggest opportunists.

    Now I am sure after few decades when you will grow enough then u will start demand for another Pakistan.

    sanjeev Reply:

    are you not polarised ?

    Why people like you Zia and Amy are having soft corner for a fanatic called Jinnah who was responsible for killing of million human beings of this subcontinent

    Bobby Reply:

    See firstly, how on earth have you come to this conclusion that I am muslim by faith!!! thats because, you cant get out of this muslim/hindu mode of thinking…anyone who does not agree with your hindutva mode of thinking has to be a muslim.

    You are so blinded by the nonsense that u learn from hindutva nuts that you do not see the hypocricy when you first accuse muslims of asserting their islamic faith all the time, when in fact you and your nutty “twin jeev” cant think beyond Hindu and Muslim.

    Secondly, you or any of your Hindutva comrades do not own this country. So please stop behaving as if you do. Who should be in this country or not is not decided, thankfully, by nuts like you.

    Rajeev Reply:

    Bobby,
    You are muslim because you have failed to condemn rape of 9 year old Ayesha at the hand of your prophet Mohammad.

    This reluctance is the greatest proof.

    Rajeev Reply:

    Sanjeev,
    Let us not get too bothered about describing Jinnah as secular. Yes, He was secular ONCE before he took up communal politics to attain status of Gandhi among muslims.

    Jinnah’s life is very similar to any muslims life-
    1. Early years, he was nationalist and secular.
    2. As he grew older and went abroad and came under the influence of Fundoos like Iqbal, he start turning MUSLIM.
    3. He came back and became true follower of Mohammad i.e. a criminal minded, cold hearted monster who got 1 million people killed to achieve his personal and Islamic goal.

    I always knew that muslims in India have soft corner for that son of b*tch and now you can see people like Bobby coming out.

    I don’t have very high opinion of Nehru but Jinnah doesn’t deserver to be mentioned in same sentence as Nehru.

    Jinnah was a typical muslim just like Amy, Bobby and all muslim pretenders (soft terrorists).

  • http://www.rediff.com Paritosh

    Sanjeev, Rajeev and Sam , I have been reading your responses since many days and you guys are really doing a great job by speaking against those proPakistan , congresswallas etc. These sort of people are hypocritic and are needed to be back answered to make them realise their errors. Good job guys, keep it up!!!.

    [Reply]

  • Bobby

    One of the reasons behind the Hindutva brigade’s strong opposition to any attempts of potraying Mr Jinnah as anything other than a villain, is because then it’s own record in creating tensions, which played an important role in polarizing opinion, can be hidden from the public eye. Fact is that the hindu communalists played a very important role in making the “idea of Pakistan” become a reality, and this is one point they would like to hide from the public.

    I think its good that these discussions are taking place. It will play a small part in civilizing our society. Banning books on Shivaji, plays on Godse, or Rushdie’s book, or for that matter Taslima Nasreen’s book Lajja, attacking M. F. Hussain etc shows that we are still a society where facts, and freedom of speech seem to be given less importance than emotions and ideology.

    [Reply]

    sanjeev Reply:

    ha ha ha,

    A muslim is talking of freedom of speech and expression.

    Freedom of speech and expression you enjoy in India is much greater than people enjoy collectively in your ISLAMIC REPUBLICS.

    Don’t club fanatic M F Hussain along with others (Tasleema, Rusdie ). He tried to hurt sentiments of community to which he himself doen’t belong. If he has so much love for artistic freedom he must protray Mohamad along with his 13 wives.

    I know he can’t because otherwise he will be killed. Thats why this rascal choose hindu goddess

    You use you freedom of expression and speech to criticize quran. Then I will support you freedom.

    You mullahs very well know how to abuse freedom of speecha nd expression to your advantage.

    [Reply]

    Atul Barry Reply:

    @ Zia: It would be so hilarious if it were not so sad to see some rabid hate-mongers commenting on your site. I applaud you for letting them vent. As The Economist says, never call your opponent an idiot; let him prove it himself.

    Your article is excellent.

    Regards

    Atul Barry

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    Booby,
    Great to know that you believe in freedom of expression.
    How about Condemning Mohammad for sleeping with 9 year old Ayesha?

    This is Ramzan and if you speak truth Allah may grant you 72 hooris after life all aged 9 years.

    [Reply]

  • Amy

    Whoever won anyone with hate, if u had preached ur ideology with love perhaphs anyone would have fallen for ur way of thinking but the great effect is ur having, everyone more hardened in their views.The q u raise are simply not part of what the blog aims at.Ur only boring us all have some common sense u were absolutely nasty in ur earlier comments esp directed to me personally.Who do u think u are to write such nonsense?I hate u and ur views u have won an enemy instead of a debator.But alas ur skills are poor in that too.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    BS…

    Jinnah was pig eating Islamic moron just like you..

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    Amy,

    Protecting one’s rights is hate as per Muslims..

    real hate is, wanting Shariah for everyone, regardless of its stupidity

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    Amy,
    Yes every Muslim kid needs sharia love like this.

    80yr old marries a 10yr old girl, as per Sharia

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027361.php

    [Reply]

  • Anil

    People are erroneously delving too muchy into Jinnah’s early years.> if we atsrt giving that kind of ebnefit to any criminal and extrapolate his pre-crime days and declare them innocent then we might as well close down our judiciary and police system. Bceuase at soem stage every criminalremains an innocent person.. So was Jinnah..

    Fact is he was working in cohorts with the white supremacist Churchill to balakanize India as early as 1940.. he put all the bottlenecks whcih he could think of in ways of fuctioning of govt whenever Muslim leageu got chances in the corrodors of power.. Making Congress leaders convinced that this gentleman si throwing all the tantrums for one and only reaosn whcih is Parittion..
    Have asked several pakistani whether they will accept the same 14 point which Jinnah propounded in matters of Baluchistana and all i hear is silence.. Why in world dis they expect congress to agree with those in that case..

    BTW Jaswant Singh has not made him a hero for sure Jasnwat’s message got lost in frenzy.. Yes he has been drioven out fo party for many reasons this book is just an excuse .> fotr me the most prominent reason is his work against Raje govt in Rajstahn in assembly election..

    Given how he is runnign around with a verbal diarrohea putting down his party of 30 years tells em thsi guys never became part fo the party has pronounced individual sense and has no remorse ins runnign down his party of yester-years with nonsense like BJ is fasicist BJOP is this and that..

    Nobody asks this clowns how come you didn;t figure these thigns out unless you were shwon the door..

    Long liev BJP and logn live tradition of deabte . What won;t congresis give for thsi kind fo freedom..

    [Reply]

  • shafat

    I wonder why should muslims even reply to the malicious and evil thoughts of these hindu bigots who don’t lose an opportunity to defame Islam and quote The Holy Quran out of context. The problem lies in their inferiority complex,having no real religion and just following the animilistic traditions which later was given the name Hinduism. At the drop of a hat these people will name a new God, a new idol comes into being and above all no historical data and facts even for their so called crores of Gods. Look at this wretched race for depicting their so-called Gods in semi-nude attire and then getting frustrated at our noble culture for respecting the dignity of people. It is nothing but their utter frustration for not being able to hold their ilk together and that is the reason why their beautiful ladies who have understood the Brahiminical wickedness have been welcome in our hearth & hearts. For thousands of years this paganism subjugated people in the name of casteism and racial superiority and depicted their goddesses and gods fornicating and , now they have got the temerity to teach us human rights and mora lvalues—what a tragedy. The pagans will talk about the cruelty of kings(who happen to be muslims) but forget to mention the millions killed by Ashoka and such people. Enough is enough , the Muslims need not be apologetic about anything and as far the subjugated people of hinduism (paganism) are concerned ( the so called Dalits) they are our brothers, for Islam has always come to the rescue of the oppressed.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

    Your Islam is nothing but crude copy of Judaism and xtianity mixed with arabic tribalism.

    I am pretty sure all muslims will be raosted in hell for endorsing criminal acts of Mohammad.

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    yes islam is a noble religion, where you create your version of pedophiles (Sharia approved marriage of a 10yr girl with 80 yr old man).

    Please take your arab tribal customs back to the place where they belong.

    [Reply]

    Anil Reply:

    Reason is simple.. When a person who calls himself prophet indulges in acts like
    (1) killing a hapless woman whiel she was breast-feddign her son.. Mind you her crime was to ask men from her community to avenge the earlier killign of her husband by prophet’s army.

    HE gets the hapless woman killed and makes a comment like not even goats will fight over her death.. Then the question arises if she was so worhtless and her words so worhtless why bother killing her.. And Mullahs will make you believe prophet forbade killing of woman and child..

    (2) Kills a jews and has sex with his wife within hours of the killing and calls this consensual act of marriage.. Despite the cfat that that poor woman was about to be raped by one his henchmen before he realized the girl was too pretty and belongs in muhd’s harem..

    When you this kind of nonsesne in resume of a person calling huimself prophet.. no matter how hard muslims try they can’t but have to proffer some kind fo explanation for these indefensible acts..

    This is why muslims respond because deep down they know they have put their money on wrong horse and are stuck with it..

    I can never bring myself to follow a person of this nature even if he was messenger of god.. I wud like to aks the god why he entrusted his message to be delivered by a person of such a shady character..

    [Reply]

  • http://- Rajeev

    I wish all muslims a very happy ramzan (the month when mohammad had maximum epileptic seizures which he claimed were revealation from God).

    I wish all muslims get epileptic seizures and see their god up close in mental asylums.

    [Reply]

  • Anil

    BTW hats off the the blogger others bloggers on this same site delete anythign that doesn;t agre with their line of thoguht.. he at least lets you write stuff..

    I wrote shtg on Inderjit Hazara’s blog and he immdiately deleted it.. I just asked him why do you expect public wailing over failures of chandrayan but it was too much for that blogger..

    I say if you can’t take criticism why bother publiching your blog in first place.

    Got to give this blogger on that he takes it all on chin and lets you express yoru views no matter how incongruent it may be with his thoguht process

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    This is what muslims protest.

    Stomping and spitting on a dead cows head and parading it on the streets.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MbjWW8Wffg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fekawaaz.org%2F2009%2F08%2F29%2Ftaliban-making-malaysia-video%2F&feature=player_embedded

    If Hindus in India do not protest, muslims in india will get inspired will mimic soon and do the same in indian cities.

    [Reply]

  • shafat

    Look at their frustration my brothers in faith. A good muslim should have nothing but some pity and a lot of sympathy for these pagans, for it is only a matter of few more years before their next generation shall kneel along side us before Almighty Allah as is happening all over the world as the curtain of falsehood gets thinner and thinner.By the way were the mythological Luv n Kush really Ram’s Kids– need to ask someone in Sri Lanka .The pagans inferiority complex is so extreme that even their so-called God Krisna is not depicted in true colours. Ask your pandits why that debauch fellow is shown always in blue colour when He was black ( kya saanp ka zehar pee liya). this only goes to show another of their casteist mindset.

    [Reply]

    Sameer Reply:

    He…he….he….”Good Muslim”….Haa..haaa…Whats that?

    Yeah…Allah is biting dust in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq..etc.etc…not to speak of pakistan….saudi arabia always ready to kiss the american christian arse….

    Yeah…I can question the legimitacy of luv ..kush and their is a historical reference to it also…
    BUT can you agree that your prophet was nothing but a paedhofile and rapist…sufferring from epilepsy….

    Regarding colour of krishna…I agree he was dark or black..but isn’t he is accepeted as such always…atleast he wasn’t rapist and suffering from paedhophilic tendencies..

    And ask your forefathers how they became muslims..I bet most likely it was forced u by some invading arabs or afghans….who raped your wife and sisters before putting your neck to the sword, you are nothing but a despicable convert who couldn’t hold on to your original faith and decided to turn yourself to the followers of rapist meglomaniac.

    Regarding next generation kneeling allah…I can only say ..due to the month of ramzaan you two are now suffering from fits of epilepsy….so, dream on…

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    These Arab tribals called muslims forget that muslim invaders came to India WITHOUT their wives so these people should know their true lineage.

    If there is any paganism, it is Islam. The devil called Allah is tribal arab demon whose child rapist mohammad forced these cowards to convert to Islam.

    Paganism = Islam minus spritualism plus sex fantasies

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    then Paganism = islam

    Sam Reply:

    Why should pagan be any lesser of a human being ?

    Atleast they did not loot someone in the name of religion.
    Atleast they did not get revelation’s to justify marrying a 9yr old kid to an 54 yr old man ?

    as long as someone does not commit crimes against a fellow human, their religious beliefs should not matter (let them be pagan’s, wiccans, witches,,..whatever)

    [Reply]

  • shafat

    In 1st Timothy ii, 12, St Paul is quoted thus: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

    “This is what the Lord Almighty says … Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Samuel xv, 3).

    Psalm 137, which features a line that is rarely spoken in church: “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

    Judges xix, 20-25, when a man is trapped in his house by a hostile crowd and sends out his concubine to placate them. She is raped “throughout the night” and eventually returns to the house to collapse in the doorway. His response is simply to tell her to get up. “But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.”

    1 Peter ii, 18: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.”

    And btw, if u people are so penis crazy, i got a livlier n bigger one, than the one u keep praying as a shiv-ling and your sisters and mothers don’t even need milk to wash it with. you pagans stink and unashamedly at that too. only one myth of hindus is worth fantasizing—the kinky Kali

    [Reply]

  • http://www.yahoo.com Sameer

    Haa…haa….Haa…Agreed what u have said..about bible and Hindu relegious practices…and I denounce it with all my heart…beacause my so called hindu/christian relegion gives me that strength or let’s say choice……

    But my dear do you have that choice…can you denounce your rapist and paedophile Mohammad…or your islam does not lend you that much courage…..

    So, my so called muslim brother….u have no choice but to live with a tribal philosphy propagated by sex crazed meglomaniac..who if he were alive ..definitely have raped your wife and daughters without any compunction…..

    And regarding having bigger and livelier penis…I expect it u see only anilas like donkeys have such thing ..anf followers of Islam are nothing but….donkeys….

    [Reply]

    shafat Reply:

    Before I reply your “intellectual” thoughts, let me say that I never intended to attack your pagan beliefs, but ,as is clear from the facts, you people hijacked a political discussion and turned it into a religious one.

    To speak of the age of consent for women in the United States: A 20-year-old woman who marries in Nebraska breaks the law because there the age of consent is 21, while a woman in Alabama can legally marry at that age, as the age of consent there is only 18. A hundred years ago, under the common law in the United States, the age of consent was just 10 years. Ancient Jewish law permitted girls to be wives at a much younger age. In ancient India girls as young as five and six were married to much older men. Even now the practice continues among some Hindus.

    The foregoing shows that the minimum age for girls to be married varies from culture to culture and from age to age. Against this background, there seems to be no point in holding a particular age as the right age of consent in the post-modern world. But people who want to impose one on a different culture or religion would make it a big issue. It is surprising how even the intellectuals show a tendency to judge others by their own culture-specific standards as though these should be accepted universally binding on the whole of mankind!

    This is not to argue that today girls should be married off at nine or ten years, for no one can ignore that the times, the social conditions, and the cultural milieu have undergone immense changes. But the very same fact should help us to realize that in another age and in another cultural setting, marrying a girl at the age of nine was quite the norm and there could be nothing surprising about that.
    The enemies of Islam have always been working on the Prophet’s private life as being the Achilles’s heel of our religion that we have to be ashamed of and keep defending.

    The source of confusion in understanding this issue of the Prophet’s marriages is that we judge a 7th century style of life with a 21st century criterion. At the Prophet’s time and environment – Arab Peninsula – it was a normal thing for a man to marry an unlimited number of wives plus taking an unlimited number of women slaves. Then, when Islam was revealed, it restricted the number to only four wives, girls can not be forced into marriage, must reach puberty, plus encouraging people to free slaves.

    kindly go through the following and put up a few thoughts as to what any “man of true letters” has spoken about, if at all, about your drop-of-a-hat dieties

    Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol II, pp. 276-77:
    “If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls… the forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unit of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
    “Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?”

    Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, History of the Saracen Empire, London, 1870, p. 54:
    “It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Quran…The Mahometans[1] have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’, is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”

    Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p. 92:
    “He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”

    Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4:
    “It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”

    W. Montgomery, Mohammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, p. 52:
    “His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”

    James A. Michener, ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion’ in Reader’s Digest (American Edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70:
    “Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.
    “Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one God.”
    “In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumors of God’s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human-being.’
    “At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever.’”

    Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33:
    “My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.”

    Encyclopedia Britannica:
    “….a mass of detail in the early sources show that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were like-wise honest and upright men.” (Vol. 12)

    George Bernard Shaw said about him:
    “He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness.”

    (The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936)
    He was by far the most remarkable man that ever set foot on this earth. He preached a religion, founded a state, built a nation, laid down a moral code, initiated numerous social and political reforms, established a powerful and dynamic society to practice and represent his teachings and completely revolutionized the worlds of human thought and behavior for all times to come.
    His Name is Muhammad. He was born in Arabia in the year 570 C.E., started his mission of preaching the religion of Truth, Islam (submission to One God) at the age of forty and departed from this world at the age of sixty-three. During this short period of twenty three years of his Prophethood, he changed the complete Arabian peninsula from paganism and idolatry to worship of One God, from tribal quarrels and wars to national solidarity and cohesion, from drunkenness and debauchery to sobriety and piety, from lawlessness and anarchy to disciplined living, from utter bankruptcy to the highest standards of moral excellence. Human history has never known such a complete transformation of a people or a place before or since – and imagine all these unbelievable wonders in just over two decades.

    (Lamartine, Histoire de la Turqui, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp 276-277)
    The world has had its share of great personalities. But these were one-sided figures who distinguished themselves in but one or two fields, such as religious thought or military leadership. The lives and teachings of these great personalities of the world are shrouded in the mist of time. There is so much speculation about the time and place of their birth, the mode and style of their life, the nature and detail of their teachings and the degree and measure of their success or failure that it is impossible for humanity to reconstruct accurately the lives and teachings of these men.
    Not so this man. Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, accomplished so much in such diverse fields of human thought and behavior in the fullest blaze of human history. Every detail of his private life and public utterances has been accurately documented and faithfully preserved to our day. The authenticity of the record so preserved are vouched for not only by the faithful followers but even by his prejudiced critics.
    Muhammad was a religious teacher, a social reformer, a moral guide, an administrative colossus, a faithful friend, a wonderful companion, a devoted husband, a loving father – all in one. No other man in history ever excelled or equaled him in any of these different aspects of life – but it was only for the selfless personality of Muhammad to achieve such incredible perfections.

    Mahatma Gandhi, speaking on the character of Muhammad, says in (Young India):
    “I wanted to know the best of one who holds today’s undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind….I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life.”

    Thomas Carlyle in his (Heroes and Heroworship), was simply amazed as to:
    “how one man single-handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades.”

    Diwan Chand Sharma wrote:
    “Muhammad was the soul of kindness, and his influence was felt and never forgotten by those around him.”
    (D.C. Sharma, The Prophet of the East, Calcutta, 1935, pp. 12)

    Edward Gibbon and Simon Ockley speaking on the profession of Islam write:
    “I believe in One God, and Mahomet, an Apostle of God’is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honor of the Prophet has never transgressed the measure of human virtues; and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”

    (History of the Saracan Empires, London, 1870, p. 54)
    Muhammad was nothing more or less than a human being. But he was a man with a noble mission, which was to unite humanity on the worship of One and Only One God and to teach them the way to honest and upright living based on the commands of God. He always described himself as, “A Servant and Messenger of God,” and so indeed every action of his proclaimed to be.
    Speaking on the aspect of equality before God in Islam,

    the famous poetess of India, Sarojini Naidu says:
    “It was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy; for, in the mosque, when the call for prayer is sounded and worshippers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and king kneel side by side and proclaim: ‘God Alone is Great’… I have been struck over and over again by this indivisible unity of Islam that makes man instinctively a brother.”
    (S. Naidu, Ideals of Islam, vide Speeches & Writings, Madras, 1918, p. 169)

    In the words of Prof. Hurgronje:
    “The league of nations founded by the prophet of Islam put the principle of international unity and human brotherhood on such universal foundations as to show candle to other nations.” He continues: “The fact is that no nation of the world can show a parallel to what Islam has done towards the realization of the idea of the League of Nations.”
    The world has not hesitated to raise to divinity, individuals whose lives and missions have been lost in legend. Historically speaking, none of these legends achieved even a fraction of what Muhammad accomplished. And all his striving was for the sole purpose of uniting mankind for the worship of One God on the codes of moral excellence. Muhammad or his followers never at any time claimed that he was a Son of God or the God-incarnate or a man with divinity – but he always was and is even today considered as only a Messenger chosen by God.

    Michael H. Hart in his recently published book on ratings of men who contributed towards the benefit and upliftment of mankind writes:
    “My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.”
    (M.H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York, 1978, p. 33)

    K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, an Indian Professor of Philosophy in his booklet, (“Muhammad, The Prophet of Islam,”) calls him the
    “Perfect model for human life.”

    Prof. Ramakrishna Rao explains his point by saying:
    “The personality of Muhammad, it is most difficult to get into the whole truth of it. Only a glimpse of it I can catch. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes! There is Muhammad, the Prophet. There is Muhammad, the Warrior; Muhammad, the Businessman; Muhammad, the Statesman; Muhammad, the Orator; Muhammad, the Reformer; Muhammad, the Refuge of Orphans; Muhammad, the Protector of Slaves; Muhammad, the Emancipator of Women; Muhammad, the Judge; Muhammad, the Saint. All in all these magnificent roles, in all these departments of human activities, he is alike a hero.”

    Today after a lapse of fourteen centuries, the life and teachings of Muhammad have survived without the slightest loss, alteration or interpolation. They offer the same undying hope for treating mankind’s many ills, which they did when he was alive. This is not a claim of Muhammad’s followers but also the inescapable conclusion forced upon by a critical and unbiased history.
    The least you could do as a thinking and concerned human being is to stop for a moment and ask yourself: Could these statements sounding so extraordinary and revolutionary be really true? And supposing they really are true and you did not know this man Muhammad or hear about him, isn’t it time you responded to this tremendous challenge and put in some effort to know him?
    It will cost you nothing but it may prove to be the beginning of a completely new era in your life.

    Allah bless you all!

    [Reply]

    Sameer Reply:

    Well…again u r not getting .it…i can always..accept Mohammad as a great historical personality and to some extent spriitual leader also…but can u similarly accept the same for jesus and hindu gods…can u do it publicly..without any backlash….As a hindu, i can cricisize hindu relegious practices openly and try to reform it or decide to not follow various hindu rituals without affecting my being hindu…but can u do the same….and writing paens about the greatness of mohammad ..whts the purpose of it? offcourse he was great in terms of his achievents……who the hell is denying that…but was he and his words are the only truth…u as a person living in the prsent time are ready to accept that…if u accept that then u can do it at your own expense……things become bitter only when islams considers its values as non negotiable and refuses to accept other as equals….

    So my dear freind…argue with logic…if u present u r logic well..nobody will deny you your dues…but if u have no answer accept it…nobody is going to snatch your failure or victories..

    I accept the blessings of allah with humility,open heart and mind…….

    And i pray that Jesus and all the 33 crores of hindu gods bless u too….(hope its not unislamic to u)

    [Reply]

  • http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/they-call-me-muslim/2009/08/23/conversations-with-jinnah%E2%80%99s-djinn/ N Khan

    Just come across this blog by chance. It has the usual arguments and stereotypes. Just a few observations:

    Someone called Ayesha Jalal a typical Pakistani and mentioned her lawsuit against Columbia University. Well if you going to use such an argument then please consider that she is married to Sugata Bose, an Indian and a Hindu.

    On the question of why Jinnah never went to jail under the British unlike Nehru and Gandhi. It was because he was a constitutionalist and a firm believer in the rule of law. It was because of this, is why he fell out with Congress in the early 1920s. Gandhi-ji bought in mass style politics, civil disaobediance. All of this was not Jinnah’s style, he believed in a negitiated settlement with the British. Jinnah did not believe in the Khadi movement, he thought it was a cheap trick. Now I am sure many will question his ‘rule of law’ beliefs when looking at his career in the 1930s and 40s but he never quite got into the change in the nationalist politics bought on by Gandhi-ji. Even Nehru never went to jail, until Gandhi-ji started his mass movement.

    [Reply]

  • shafat

    “l’kum deen-a-kum waliya deen” The holy Quran says “each one to his /her own religion”.The Prophet (PBUH) said’”never abuse or say evil to others religion,for,in return when they speak evil against your religion,it is you who sins and not the other one. My concern is why on earth does a political or social discussion/incident (involving someone who happens to be a muslim,in this case Jinnah), always turn into a muslim-diatribe and Islam-hatred. The Jews were massacred in Europe and no one speaks of christian terrorism against them; there were the crusades and retaliatory Jehad in the middle ages,but all u remember is the muslim-jehad and never the christian crusades. Muslim rule in India is Islamic aggression, but the Dutch,Portugese and the British rule is just that, and never Christian rule. A bomb blast in Delhi/mumbai is islamic terrorism and a blast in malegaon or Mecca masjid is just a blast and never investigated with the same vigor as the former one and never given the name of Hindu terrorism. Israelis bombing innocent children is self-defence, and not jewish terrorism, palestinians retaliating is islamic terrorism. there are good and bad elements in every society and community,but one must never forget that for every Ghazni, there have been a hundred Chisti’s (ajmer wale). Regarding a religious discourse, we will have enough time for that ; let us first try to be only human and look at each event from a human point of view and not just as Muslims/Hindus, Christians and all that.

    p.s. Bless and bless whole-heartedly, without doubt.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    Wow!!! Sau chuhey khakar billi hajj ko chali…

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    look into

    http://www.memritv.org

    where many leading muslim intellectuals and politicians tell why Allah tells them (through Koran) to wage war on Infidels..

    Look at the videos of suicide bombers, who kill themselves in the name of Islam..

    If that terrrorism is not called “Muslim Terrorism”, that will be disrespecting those people who are actually committing it.

    So if you are upset about “Muslim Terrorism” just consult your masters in KSA and other OIC countries.

    [Reply]

  • gopi thomas

    @Shafat

    It is always easy to take some snippets, frame appropriately, and then say everything is fine, it is just a labeling issue, world looks at Muslims differently, they are always biased against us…

    If you sincerely believe that Islam is nlot at cross roads, that islam is not destroying itself, and that there is no Islamic (or a small segment of muslims) terrorism, you are living in your own artificial world. All across the Muslim world, from Somalia to Pakistan, the terrorist cancer is eating away to the core.

    Muslim rule in India is not called anything other thn Muslim rule. The initial process that tgriggered the Muslim riule is called the Moghul Invasion; The British and Portugese occupation, similarly, in similar terms; because there was no “christian” conversion as the side part. (Gazani and GAuri are aclled ISlamic Aggresors because of the destruction of places of worshipa nd forced conversions) You conside r the second world war and the instances such as the British occupation of India etc as “Christian Aggression”, because you cannot sepaarte religion from the country, or religion from the ruler. Such is your dilemma.

    Tipu Sultan’s attack on Vijayanagar and Malabar was Islamic Aggression rather than a Tipu Invasion, because his army forcily converted the subjects to Islamic religion. So, a rule of thumb between aggression and invasion is that in aggression, there is not only the take over of the territorry, but also forced changing of ones worship systems.

    Well, coming to nomenclature on terrorism- it is called Islamic terrorism,because the nihilist Jihadist movement is operating worldwide and not in just one country or one location. Islamists are commiting suicide bombings (according to their definition of Qur’an and in many cases blessed and approved by some of the Maulavis and Mullas, occasionally endorsed by Fatwas ). They bomb the train station in Madrid, terrorize Mumbai, attack indian parliament, bomb the underground trains in London, raze the twin towers in New york, bomb Marriott and other palces in Karachi, commit mass murder in Sudan–the list goes on. It is all committed by Muslims in the name of injustice created by somebody in some other place. The examples you mentioned in your labelimng compalint do not fit this dimension; Christianity was not the GErman official religion; so it is not Christian terrorism, it was Germnan brutal war. If Hindus joined LTEE of Sri LAnka and committed bombings in all budhist countries, then it becomes Hindu terrorism. If Catholics all over the world unite and bomb all protestant places, then it becomes a Catholic terrorism, otherwise it is just IRA.

    You seem to be more worried about why people label the Islamic terrorism happening now as Islamic terrorism while not labeling other terrorist acts happening now with a color you would like to paint with. But is coloring/labeling more important than the iacts themselves, where innocents are being killed, cowards recruiting poor mulsim boys and girls and amking themexplode in pieces in the name of ISlam? Even Islamic countries are not safe — just look what is happening to Pakisrtan.. What has happened to the land of the pure? Institutions have collapsed, nothing to show fror the 60plus years of independence, and brothers are killing brothers. A country where religion was the glue is proving that religion cannot hold them together.

    The american bombs will do only a small dent to eliminate the terrorism scourge. The real fight , opposition, and resistance with the real Qur’anic articulation have to come from enlightened people like you. But unfortunately, people such a s you are all more worried about what label is affixed, and to go into histoprical incidents and questioning why something is named the way it is. It is for peopel like you to save the world from these terrorists; and more imporftantly to save Islam from Islamists.

    [Reply]

  • Ali Shah

    WHY do they consider Ahmadi Muslims to be non-Muslim ? An Ahmadi is the one who was blessed by Allah & obtained NOBEL PRIZE for Pakistan yet when he won he went AGAINTS protocol – he did not wear a suit and tie. He wore shalwaar-kameez to represent Pakistan – the country which oestracises his own people. SHAME !! Ahmadis read same Koran & do same Namaaz & Kalimahs as us. How shameful to the people of Pakistan.

    [Reply]

  • YLH

    Sam,

    FYI Jinnah was a Shia himself… and considered Ahmadis Muslims … as good as anyone else.

    The Mullah-turn Pakistan has taken has been on the behest of parties like Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamaat e Islami… both of which were allied with your half naked Gandhi before partition… again fyi.

    [Reply]

  • YLH

    Ambedkar writes:

    “Secondly, it forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British even by the worst of his enemies. He may be too self-opinionated, an egotist without the mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance which is not compensated by any extraordinary intellect or equipment. It may be on that account he is unable to reconcile himself to a second place and work with others in that capacity for a public cause. He may not be over-flowing with ideas although he is not, as his critics make him out to be, an empty-headed dandy living upon the ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up more upon art and less on substance. At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.”

    [Reply]

  • Rabindra Kumar Ghosh

    Jinnah was a strictly secular person. And that was the trouble. Had he been a little religious he would not have misused religious identities in the cynical and insensitive manner as he did, particularly between 1940 to 1947. It was HE who instigated the Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946 in spite of the warning of all decent people, with disastrous consequences over the next six decades. He had no positive social or economic vision largely trusting only his legal knowledge. Had he encouraged land reforms and labour-intensive industrialisation immediately after Partition, Pakistan would not have seen the rise of fundamentalism and the present chaos. Admitted he had no time. But even before Partition his only goal was to spite Nehru and Gandhi, nothing else.

    [Reply]

  • http://ghaznawi@gmail.com Ghazi Ghaznawi

    A bunch of loonies bashing on Muslims. India would not be what it is today if it were not for the Muslims…there would be no Taj Mahal, Homayun’s Tomb, Lal Qilla, Shalimar Gardens, Qutub Minar, Fatehpuri Sikri and the great contributions of Islam towards arts and literature. The very language spoken in Bollywood is made of Arabic and Persian. Embrace diversity and accept the fact that we have to live on this earth with people we might not like or agree with and live and let live…my Hindu friends. If you ever converse in Hindustani you will realize every other word is Arabic or Persian and pure Hindi is no longer used except for rituals like weddings and religious holidays. Who cares about Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi…that was more than 62 years ago. Let bygones be bygones. By the way, get used to Muslims dominating the arts…ie Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Amir Khan, Javed Akhtar, Farhan Akhtar, M F Hussain etc, etc.

    [Reply]

    Rugved Reddy Reply:

    and taj mahal, humayun’s tomb etc.. and the perso arabic mixture in day to day hindi are everything a country aspires for ??
    one cannot deny that it was muslim rule which created pakistan which incubated islamic terrorism and spread it into afghanistan in the name of taliban…. this in turn created al qaeda and all other terrorist gangs.. look at how life has become miserable for the balochs due to the creation of pakistan and then talk about muslim rule’s contribution.

    [Reply]

  • http://tv-asahidata.com/ dorama

    I really liked your blog! It helped me alot…

    [Reply]

  • Abu Ahmed

    Very true – only a few like Fateh Sinh Rao Gaekwad, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Saleem Durrani & Farrokh Engineer had the guts to speak out their mind before the English & the Aussies. Dalmia turned BCCI around with his Marwari sense of business – and since then BCCI is dictating terms Why, there was a time in the 80s when cricket in Sharjah was dominated by the Pakis, who manipulated the matches as per the great gamblers wishes – and when BCCI stopped sending Indian team to Sharjah, suddenly that venue lost all its lustre! Fully support BCCI and itsstrong arm tactics – for how long shall we be steam-rolled by other nations?

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Looks like you are a Congressi or a Pakistani..only these two variety of people are opposed to India.

    [Reply]

  • dr drum

    dr drum…

    Conversations with Jinnah’s djinn : They Call Me Muslim…

  • Rugved Reddy

    you have shown your own bigotry by ridiculing unreasonably other’s faith!
    you may be having problem with our mode of worship but other’s have a problem with islam’s ideology itself which is intolerant and bigoted!
    you having problem with idols itself shows how bigoted you are… wow!

    [Reply]