Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Muhammad Ali Jinnah | Photo: Commons
Text Size:

A recent article in ThePrint, ‘Indian Muslims are silent about Tabrez Ansari because of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’ by Zainab Sikander, does the unthinkable. Besides butchering historical facts, the article, in a very sinister attempt, blames Muslims for their “fate”. It is incredible that such a leap of fancy can even be given space in a serious news outlet. [Zainab Sikander’s response is included at the end of this article.]

Let us consider the historical facts, those stubborn realities that Sikander utterly failed to take into account despite claiming to be a history graduate. None of these following facts are historically disputed. First and foremost, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the only leader before undivided India — not Mahatma Gandhi, not Jawaharlal Nehru, and certainly not Maulana Azad — to be called the ‘best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’.

It was not the Indian Muslim or a Pakistani who called him that. Indian freedom movement leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Sarojini Naidu, others and Gandhi himself conferred Jinnah with this acclaimed title. When Sikander’s favourite patriot Maulana Azad was busy calling India ‘Darul-Harb’ and asking Muslims to migrate to Afghanistan, Jinnah was trying to reason with Gandhi and tell him not to bring religion into politics. Far from putting religion above country, Jinnah’s most famous quote was “I am an Indian, first second and last.” So, what changed?


Also read: Indian Muslims are silent over Tabrez Ansari because of Muhammad Ali Jinnah


Get acquainted with history first

By the 1930s, the emerging wave of populist mass politics that Congress was engaging in and the rise of the Hindu Mahasabha convinced Jinnah of the need to have constitutional safeguards for all minorities, amongst which Muslims comprised the most. He repeatedly attempted to come to a compromise but was spurned. However, his demand for the creation of Pakistan was not predicated on the condition of the partition of India. Anyone who reads the 1940 Lahore Resolution with a keen legal eye can see that it envisaged an India above a Muslim majority federation and a Hindu majority federation, bound together by a super-constitution, protecting minorities in both. This consociational vision for a modern independent India was almost realised with the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan. What Jinnah agreed to was less than a confederation and more a federation.

But these are not novel views. And I am not introducing new evidence. H.M Seervai, one of the greatest jurists of India, stated very clearly that it was the Congress leadership that was to blame for the partition of India. All you need to do is pick up his introduction to the Indian constitution, published separately as “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”. Moreover, Seervai was not the first one to state this. Sikander’s uber Muslim patriot Maulana Azad said as much about this in his own book “India Wins Freedom”. B.R. Ambedkar’s book on Pakistan “Pakistan or the Partition of India” had stated these facts in the 1940s and Jinnah himself recommended his book to Gandhi during their talks in 1944. If only the history graduate had bothered to read these books instead of blaming “Pakistan’s Quaid-e-Azam” for all that is wrong with India’s Muslims today.


Also read: What explains the Muslim silence in the face of BJP’s aggressive Hindutva?


The truth about Jinnah

Let us, however, ignore these facts and assume that the hackneyed nationalist mythology — common place on both sides of the border — is entirely true. Let us assume that Jinnah, the “pork-eating, wine drinking namesake Muslim” as Sikander writes, had somehow in the sixty-fourth year of his life decided to turn his back on everything he stood for and on the city he built his life in, for some sort of personal glory. Let us also assume that the would-be Pakistanis who followed him selfishly wanted to create an exclusive homeland for themselves — again historically untrue even if Pakistan did meander away from Jinnah’s vision of a secular state. But how can these be a valid justification for any lynching in India in 2019? At the core of Zainab Sikander’s argument is that the actions taken by Jinnah and his followers back then gives license to Hindus to act the way they do today.

Far from proving Jinnah’s contentions about Hindu majoritarianism wrong, her article actually proves him right. Jinnah had the prescience to see what unfettered majority rule without any safeguards for minorities would land India in. Even Sikander’s favourite patriot Maulana Azad could realise this when he criticised Congress for not always living up to the ideals of real nationalism.


Also read: When a Pakistan minister & Jinnah follower resigned over atrocities against Hindus


My advice to Sikander

There was nothing divine or holy about the borders of British India. Before the British arrived in India, there was never ‘one India’. It was always a collection of states. The only time India came closest to one unified polity was under emperor Aurangzeb, the same ruler Indians decry as fanatics and in whose opposition Chhatrapati Shivaji is lauded as patriotic even by Jawaharlal Nehru. Even during the British rule, India was two distinct polities — India under the British and the princely states of India.

In 1937, a major chunk of British India was separated to form the independent state of Burma. Imagine an Indian Buddhist writing about this separation and Burma’s birth in the manner that Sikander writes. This opens up all minorities to blackmail. If Sikander can lend herself to be blackmailed for something that happened so long ago and is part of history, is she also willing to be blamed for the establishment of Kashmir’s Hurriyat Conference? Interestingly, it is just not the separatist Kashmiri leaders in jail today but also those Kashmiris who rejected Pakistan in 1947. Farooq Abdullah languishes in house arrest without trial just as his father Sheikh Abdullah did in the 1950s under Nehru.

My sincere advice therefore to Sikander is to reconsider her bias against Jinnah and to stop blaming Pakistan for everything that is wrong with India today. I certainly do not blame India for the myriad of problems that exist in Pakistan today. It is time to stop blaming Jinnah and take responsibility for what India is today at this moment.


Also read: As RSS praises Dara Shikoh, it’s time to give this liberal face of Islam his due


Zainab Sikander’s response

If Muhammad Ali Jinnah was called the ‘best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’, then Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi was also given the Nobel Peace Prize. Look what happened to the Rohingyas under her rule. A lot of people don’t embody the titles they receive.

As for my “favourite patriot” Maulana Azad calling India “Dar-ul-Harb”, I’ll let my “history grad” skills come in. I don’t cherry pick facts from history to obfuscate the truth. The term Dar-ul-Harb — that a lot of Islamic extremists misuse today — literally translates to “land of strife”. Maulana Azad used these words for British India, not independent India. Moreover, almost all Islamic scholars have unequivocally stated that Dar-ul-Harb, and migrating from such lands, is about the state of security of a land and is not based on religion (Islam and disbelief). I would recommend you to read the works of 6th century renowned Hanafi Islamic jurist, Imam al-Kasani — who authored one of the most authentic reference works on the Hanafi law, al-Bada’e al-Sana’e — to understand Dar-ul-Kufr and Dar-ul-Harb so that next time you use terms from ‘Fiqh’ (Islamic jurisprudence) you do so responsibly.

I am amused that you endorse Jinnah through B.R. Ambedkar, who categorically said, in the very book you mention ‘Pakistan or The Partition Of India’, that he was perplexed by Jinnah’s ‘new-found obsession’ with Muslim nationalism. Ambedkar said he found Jinnah’s argument of Muslims having suffered under the Congress’ leadership flawed. In the chapter ‘Must There Be a Pakistan’, he mentions Jinnah’s unwillingness to persist for a Royal Commission inquiry into the grievances of the Muslims.

You’ve not understood my article because of your bias. I mention the hypocrisy of the wine-drinking pork-eating Jinnah who insisted on redrawing borders and caused history’s largest and fastest human migration based on “religion”. It was completely Jinnah’s, and perhaps even Nehru’s, political ambition that led to the Partition. It has caused psychological wounds that are still festering. Indian Muslims are still paying the price for it under the Narendra Modi government that endorses Hindutva. The generations that lived through partition still carry the hate, and narrate tales about a man who wanted a separate country for “Muslims”, although 86 per cent Muslims never even had the right to vote. Denial of the truth does not change facts.

Yasser Latif Hamdani is an advocate of the High Courts of Pakistan and his biography of Jinnah will be published by Pan Macmillan India later this year. Views are personal

Zainab Sikander is a political observer and writer. Views are personal.

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

36 Comments Share Your Views

36 COMMENTS

  1. Dear Zainab Sikander
    Your statement; “If Muhammad Ali Jinnah was called the ‘best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’, then Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi was also given the Nobel Peace Prize. Look what happened to the Rohingyas under her rule. A lot of people don’t embody the titles they receive.” is the most misplaced and prejudicial statement, I have read about Quaid-e-Azam in a long time.
    Comparing Jinnah, a non-violent parliamentarian who was President of the Congress Party long before Gandhi came to India from South Africa, with a denier of a genocide, like Aung San Suu Kyi shows that Miss Sikander is ignorant of history and has a personal grudge against Pakistan and its founder.
    I would not dignify this lady by arguing with her about the role played by the Quid in asking for a separare homeland for the down trodden Muslims of Hindustan but would request her to broaden her knowledge by reading a neutral book by Professor Stanley Wolpert of USA. The book is called; Jinnah of Pakistan.I am sure, she would be wiser on the issue after reading it.

    Now, even if we forget other reasons of creating Pakistan, the most telling is the present situation of Muslims under the RSS inspired Hindutva regime of Modi. It was this lynching situation, Quaid foresaw 90 years back and warned the Muslims. His vision turned out to be the reality now and we Pakistanis are eternally grateful for his wisdom and leadership.

  2. There was no one who was a greater critic of Jinnah than Jawaharlal Nehru. Yet Nehru wrote that Jinnah was entirely without the lure of public office. So even someone who was trenchantly opposed to Jinnah as Nehru accepted the fact that sadly our friend Zainab Sikandar is unable to reconcile herself with.

    • Again, the argument was never about Jinnah’s integrity or his relations with the British or to Nehru or Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s opinion on Jinnah. They are irrelevant to the matter at hand. The discussion was about the role of Jinnah’s religious persuasion in the partition. We did not bring it up. That’s was your original assertion in the article. Let’s refresh your memory on what you wrote. You wrote, “‘best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’”, “Jinnah was trying to reason with Gandhi and tell him not to bring religion into politics”. You may want to read your article again. Please don’t use DEFLECTION tactic to jump to Safe topics. We are not your usual gullible islamic audience.

      Or are you afraid to talk about Jinnah’s islamic beliefs? We totally understand that fear and we definitely don’t want another Mashal Khan incident ((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZexWiSO_QUI&feature=youtu.be).

      • Why Do You Limit It To Religion???Hindus and Muslims Not Only Have Separate Faiths But Also Separate Culture Customs Political Worldviews Everything Even Dietary Needs.Muslims Were A Separate Nation By Every Definition Of The Term and Had A Genuine Concern About Their Existential Threat Of Hindu Majority

  3. Dr B R Ambedkar, in his book writes: “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” (Pakistan and Partition of India; 1946; page 323)

    • You have omitted some important lines while quoting from the book : “ Secondly it ( the facile explanation so dear to Hindus) forgets that Mr. Jinnah, who represents this ideological transformation, can never be suspected of being a tool in the hands of British even by the worst of his enemies. “He may be too self-opinionated, an egoist without a mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance which is not compensated by any extra ordinary intelligence or equipment. It may be on that account he is unable to reconcile himself to a second place and to work with others in that capacity for a public cause. He may not be overflowing with ideas, although he is not, as his critics made him out to be, an empty headed dandy living upon ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up more upon art on less than substance. ” (”..” : omitted part)

      • PS . Secondly the Ambedkar book is important because Jinnah himself gave it to Gandhi to read. It is important because of the solution Ambedkar presents at the very end which Jinnah endorsed. It is important to realise that Ambedkar spoke of the Lahore Resolution in terms which Jinnah later accepted in the Cabinet Mission Plan.

        Neither you nor Zainab Sikandar has understood Ambedkar’s book and how it was itself a political act. The questions he asks and the criticism he forwards was to get to that aim …. Jinnah despite the criticism felt that Ambedkar best understood what he was really after and it was not a separate state.

      • Yasser Latif Hamdani omitted those lines because they were embarrassing and inconvenient—Truths that do not fit his or his nation’s glorified view on Jinnah. Just imagine what his book on Jinnah will be filled with? Half-truths and sanctified versions of Jinnah ready for unreserved consumption by the faithful believers! Let’s observe and infer from his scarred psyche.

        Why do you think he is picking a fight with his ‘favorite parrot’, Zainab Sikander (Not mine, those are His patronizing misogynistic words)? His parrot’s portrayal of Jinnah as a “pork-eating, wine drinking namesake Muslim” really ticked him off. He even bothers to type it up in his reply. Why? muslims put a premium on SHAME (Zainab unconsciously or consciously brought up ‘shame’ in her last article). Remember Jinnah is revered in Pakistan as Quaid-i-Azam and Baba-i-Qaum, “Father of the Nation”. You don’t dare to dishonor such a saintly person or at least their version of a noble Jinnah. Their IDENTITIES are hopelessly meshed. Her attack on Jinnah was an attack on Yasser Latif Hamdani. Let’s explore further:

        If your ethos is guilt-based, you have an inner police that stops you from doing wrong because doing wrong makes you feel guilty. islamic culture is shame-based. All they care is to preserve their image, because shame is a painful. To avoid shame, you have to hide the source of shame, be it Jinnah or md. This means you must protect the image at all costs. His and his nation’s entire self-esteem and self-worth depends on that image. It’s personal. When you are shamed, it’s natural for you to become violent. Violence is one way, humans deal with shame. I am happy he chose to write, as opposed to stoning her, which is the usual norm in Pakistan’s community.

        ” The opposite of shame is honor. You can do wrong but as long as no one sees it, your image is not tarnished and you can still be seen as an honorable person. In a shame-based culture, wrong and right have NO meaning. It is all about shame and honor. If the stain of shame is removed, even if it means the murder of your own daughter, honor is restored.” Hello! Honor Killings! Here is one: 5 Pakistani women were burnt with boiling water and embers for a month and then, killed by their own family members for clapping, when their brothers danced to a song (https://youtu.be/xwqOTXRZR7g). Hmm! islam! Where’s is that individual, who declared that she was a proud practicing muslim?

        However, Shame is Good! If your source of pride turns out to be really ugly and barbaric, it becomes a source of shame. You no longer have a tendency to cling to it, but will be embarrassed of it. You would want to dissociate yourselves from it. That’s why pursuit of Truth and honest debates without fear of reprisals are crucial to a healthy persona.

    • Didn’t I say that most muslims tend to quote unrelated out-of-context information to direct questions? Yasser Latif Hamdani just proved that. I assume that his quote above is regarding Jinnah, because there is no specific mention to any name. The argument was never about Jinnah’s integrity or his relations with the British. It’s irrelevant to the matter at hand. The discussion was about Jinnah’s motive and role in the partition. If you don’t know what to say, be honest. It’s definitely not, “if you don’t know, say something, say anything”! Maybe, before writing a book about biography of Jinnah, you may want to first read and ask relevant questions to knowledgeable sources.

      But, I don’t want to get you in too much trouble. Last time, an intellectual Mashal Khan in Pakistan posed uncomfortable questions, he was lynched to death by his fellow students in his own college campus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZexWiSO_QUI&feature=youtu.be). Maybe, you can write a book about that lynching and also, let Zainab Sikander know what force was required to break into a human’s skull. She was really asking about it in her last article. I would be more interested in the strength and the audacity of Mashal Khan’s character and courage, which refused to bow down to hegemony and ignorance. Yes, that’s the book I would read.

  4. The writer Yasser Latif Hamdani lied when she said, “Jinnah was trying to reason with Gandhi and tell him not to bring religion into politics..” In fact, the opposite is true. Pakistan was a result of hegemonic islamic ideology. “Pakistan has always been imagined as an ideological islamic state, as a “new Medina” and a vehicle for islamic revival with pan islamic ambitions. Pakistan was not only expected to assume the leadership of the islamic world, but was also expected to emerge as a state more powerful than “Hindu India”, because its soul and spirit will be islam.”

    In fact, Jinnah including muslim League (ML) leadership, muslim modernists at Aligarh, and the ulama articulated their vision of Pakistan in terms of an islamic state. The renowned historian of islam and comparative religion, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who lived and taught at Lahore between 1940 and 1946, and a close contemporary observer, was among the first scholars to acknowledge that Pakistani nationalism was above all a struggle for the creation of an islamic state in the modern world (W. C. Smith, Pakistan as an Islamic State, Lahore, 1951). Pakistanis saw the transcendental ideal in terms of the ideal islamic community that would be enabled and brought into existence under the islamic state. Thus, islam became the language of politics.. Jinnah summed up the ML’s message to the muslim voters, when he told a meeting in Allahabad that they were not to vote for personalities. They were to vote for a ML candidate even if the candidate was a lamp-post because ‘he stood for Pakistan and the muslim nation’s freedom.

    Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usman of Deobandi ulema, who led Jinnah’s funeral prayers exhorted the muslim voters to vote for the ML as it stood for the formation of Pakistan. While casting their votes, he advised muslims to disregard kinship (qarabat), friendship (dosti), teacher student relationship (talmuz pir muridi), and party feeling in order to fulfill their great responsibility towards the muslim nation. The fight, he reminded muslims, was not between personalities but between principles. He also warned them that if they deliberately ignored the fundamental principle of Pakistan and got carried away by wrong principles and arguments, they would be responsible for damaging their nation. In fact, they would be humiliating the muslim qaum before the kafirs . The ML, Usmani reminded muslim voters, was an organization of Kalimah reciting muslims. The ML’s principle of Pakistan was preferable and pure (marajjah aur beghubaar) from both a rational and shari’i point of view. If the ML lost this election, it would lead to the burial of this true principle (saccha usool) and muslim freedom in India would be snuffed out forever (Sherkoti, Khutbat-i-Usmani , 233, Speech at Peshawar).

    “Pakistan was thought of as a new Medina, the second islamic state to be created 1300 years after the first one was established by Prophet Muhammad in Medina.” “Usmani pointed out that when the prophet along with his companions made his hijrat (hegira) from Mecca to Madina, he had left behind his shrines (mabid) and dependents (mustazafeen). Usmani’s veiled comparison of Jinnah to the Prophet here is indeed startling for he seemed to be pointing out that like the prophet, the Qaid too was leaving his own home to establish a Pakistan in another Medina.”

    Here is an typical instance, where Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, the editor of Zamindar of Lahore, set the tone of the ML campaign in one of the electoral battles on the basis of fear and hatred, twin weapons of md.’s islam:
    Hafiz Ibrahim Udhar hain, Abdus Samih Idhar,
    Hardwari dars udhar hai, Shari‘i taleem idhar
    Us Taraf Gandhi ke farman par Sar-i-Taslim Kham,
    Aur Rasul Allah ki Taslim ki Tanzim Idhar
    Us Taraf Nehru Paraston ke liye Bharat ka Raj,
    Hift Aqleem Idhar
    Vote Dene waalon Sunon Kaan Dil ke Kholkar,
    Khatra Imaan ko Udhar se Hai, Nahi yeh baham Idhar

    On that side stands Hafiz Ibrahim, here stands Abdus Samih
    On that side is Hardwari learning, here we have Shari’i training
    On that side lies submission to Gandhi, here stands the organization that
    submits to allah’s prophet
    On that side is Nehru’s Bharat, here you have the whole world
    O voters, open the ears of your hearts and listen, the threat to your Faith
    comes from the other side,
    There are no such dangers here.

    The ML declared that a vote for Congress was a vote for kufr . It alleged falsely that its opponent Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim had committed that most reprehensible of crimes, apostasy, having gone to a temple and applied Hindu marks on his forehead and closing of mosques. An essay in the Hindustan pointed out that the Maulana, by asking voters to vote for the ML candidate on religious grounds, seemed to think of votes as zakat or khairaat, which a good muslim should donate. A vote, on the contrary, it argued, was a very worldly thing and in order to put it to good use, an unemployed person needed to give his vote for someone who would raise the prospects of employment, a peasant for tax reduction and a worker to effect a wage enhancement.

    “Why did the idea of Pakistan get such overwhelming traction in the muslim community? Iqbal’s quip “Mullah Ko Jo Hai Hind Mein Sajde Ki Ijazat Nadan Ye Samajhta Hai Ke Islam Hai Azad” comes to mind. For muslims, a mere freedom to exercise one’s religion isn’t enough. Because islam demands much more from its adherents. It demands all muslims to live by islamic rules. That is real Azaadi. ‘Sajde ki ijajat’ isn’t enough.,” commented Arihant Pawariya. I agree.

    (Source: Dhulipala, Venkat. Creating a New Medina : State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India, Cambridge University Press, 2015.)

    Yasser Latif Hamdani says, “Jinnah had the prescience to see what unfettered majority rule without any safeguards for minorities would land India in.” Another display of fear mongering! Let’s dismantle this lie:

    As per the Census of India. Census Data 2001, islam is the fastest growing religion in India. For example, during the 1991-2001 decade, Muslim growth rate was 29.52% (vs 19.92% for Hindus). Their growth rate, between 2001 and 2011 was 24.6 per cent, still higher than Hindus (16.8%) for the same period. The Muslim population has increased from 13.4 per cent of the population to 14.2 per cent. If muslims were really prosecuted and fettered, will the minority muslims have such dominating growth rates?

    Whereas, the percentage of Hindus and Sikhs in West Pakistan, excluding the East (today’s Bangladesh) was 22.67% as per the 1941 British Census of the areas that composed West Pakistan. The population of Sindh, Balochistan (British & Sovereign), NWFP and West Punjab was 23,296,061. The number of muslims was 18,013,705, while Hindus and Sikhs was 5,282,356 (22.67%). Today, it is below 1.5%. Pakistani sources will selectively use census sources, which are post-Partition to hide the nonmuslim ethnic cleansing. Karachi was a Hindu majority city and Lahore was an eclectic mix of muslims, Hindus, Sikhs. Hindu population stands decimated in Pakistan and even more in Bangladesh. That’s the “peaceful” nature of islam. It wipes out all other faiths. It’s not just an aberration in the subcontinent. North Africa and Egypt used to be Christian. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East were Christian. Turkey used to be Greek Anatolia. Afghanistan and all of the rest of the Silk route countries were Buddhist. Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be Buddhist and Hindu. Today all of those nations are islamic. Did islam “just happen” or was there a systematic ethnic cleansing process over the centuries? How did Greek Christian Anatolia become islamic Turkey? That history of islamification is a non-history to our self-anointed “history experts” Yasser Latif Hamdani and Zainab Sikander.

    islam has three sacred texts: koran, sira and hadith. The sira is md.’s biography. The hadith are his traditions-what he did and said. sira and hadith form the sunna. The amount of text devoted to jihad in hadith, sira, and koran are 21%, 67% and 9%, totalling 31% in the trilogy. When md. was just a preacher, islam grew at 10 new muslims per year. But, when he turned to jihad, islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. jihad has killed about 270 million non-muslims over the last 1400 years. That’s all the people in Indonesia! Gone! Put to death in the name of islam!

    (Source: Factual Persuasion by Bill Warner, Ph.D., published by Center for Political Study of islam, LLC, 2011.)

    Zainab Sikander states, “…although 86 per cent Muslims never even had the right to vote.” A responsible writer always will cite the source of their facts to make it easier for the reader to cross-check author’s sources. A dodgy one won’t. Did she get those statistics from her local illiterate imam or from a reliable census conducted by an official organization? We have already caught her peddling untruths, half-truths, misrepresentation of facts and plain deception in her previous articles. With such baggage, how are we supposed to take her word to be true?

    She makes it appear that muslims were denied the right to vote on purpose, while other denominations enjoyed a full franchise. In actuality, the 1935 act increased the number of franchise to 30 million men and women, i.e., 15% of the population were made eligible to vote. That number would have certainly increased in the 1946 elections. There was no discrimination based on religion. So, why is she selling us a perception that somehow the muslim population were singled out and denied the right to vote, thereby denying their say in the partition. muslims knew very well what they were doing at that time.

    If you have been reading the articles of Zainab Sikander or the likes of Yasser Latif Hamdani, the reader won’t come away with any insight or understanding. The authors’ primary intention seems to be to provoke and incite fear and hatred – islam’s most powerful political weapons among their readers. So, it’s no surprise, that its proud believers like Zainab and Yasser are using the proven strategy to kindle troubles among the religious denominations. She speaks about healing, but healing will only happen if muslims at least acknowledge the innumerable sufferings of Hindus in the past 1400 centuries at the hands of the islam’s fanatics in the name of koran and its prophet. You will also notice that they never talk about their prophet or koranic scriptures. Even if they quote verses, it will always be the feel-good ones, not the violent ones and entirely out of context.

    The Print editing team needs to step in and restrain such weekly incendiary articles written primarily with an intent to foment trouble.

    • Of the three islamic texts-koran, sira, and hadith-the koran is about 16% of the total content of the doctrine. islam is 84% mohammed and 16% koran. To know islam, know mohammed. The term mohammedanism points to truth and to mohammed. But, everybody looks to the book they cannot understand, the koran. It has been made impossible to understand without mohammed. Most of the educated kafirs never think about mohammed, they are left ignorant and believing whatever muslims say. Luckily, all of the bad stuff in the koran has been interpreted in the Sharia. For instance, Sharia says that the verses about fighting in al Lah’s cause means killing kafirs.

      The sira is comprised of 67% violence (Jihad). 21% of the sahih hadith (creme de la creme of hadiths) is about jihad. The koran devotes 64% of its text to Kafirs and every reference is bigoted, hateful and evil. How do you take this and reform it? No one can reform islam. True islam is what ISIS practices. They are the true muslims, true believers, who submitted to koran and md. teachings to the fullest extent. They did not neglect any of his directives. All others are pseudo muslims, wannabes. Moderate muslims deceive Kafirs about the true doctrine and deceive us that it does not exist. I already mentioned above that trilogy has 31% of its text devoted to jihad. When we count the words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the trilogy. muslims will say that only 9% of koran is jihad. Mein Kampf is only 7% Jew-hatred. That means that it is 93% good. So, will we take Mein Kampf is a good book? We know what Nazis did exterminate the Jews. We have seen the haunting photographs! We have seen what fear and hatred could do.

      These figures are not about moderate muslims or extremist muslims. These figures are about the doctrine that muslims say is PERFECT. No human can modify or correct it. All muslims, without exception, believe in the perfect koran and the perfect sunna. Now, how much of it they are aware of is another question. But the doctrine is there for all of us to see and study.

      The violence in the trilogy is for all musliims, in all places and for all time. Jihad is to stop only when every Kafir submits. Look at mohammed, the perfect example. He was involved with violence until the day he died. And on his deathbed, he directed violence against the Kafirs when he said in his last breath: “Let there be neither Christian or Jew left in Arabia.” There will not be Peace until Peace of islam is established on the world.
      (Source: Factual Persuasion by Bill Warner, Ph.D., Published by Center for the Study of Political islam, 2011)
      http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/

      • Gentleman What Makes You Think That Just Copy Pasting A Known Islamophobe and Right Winger Bill Warner Who BTW Isn’t Even A Historian By Profession Will Make Your Arguments Stronger????

        Sorry Try Harder

        • Look! Look! Kafirs! I give muslims hard facts. They don’t even try to dispute even one single fact, not one statistical figure, NOT ONE. Ignorant muslims like Khalid, Saeed cannot handle facts or Truth. Either their knowledge on their faith is shallow or the moderate deceivers know the truth and are ashamed to tell it. So, what do they do? Instead of thanking Dr. Bill Warner for helping them realize the lies that they have living their whole life, they throw poo at their adversary and try vainly to disparage him by indulging in character assassination using words like “islamophobe”, “right winger” and what not. It’s easy. That way they don’t have to change. They will find huge solace in sayings of would-be self-anointed historians like Zainab Sikander or Yasser Latif Hamdani, illiterate imams, madrasas and other lie spouts with no apparent credentials, other than proudly flaunting rote memorization of koran verses without any iota of knowledge on Arabic language, preislamic arab traditions or the historical contexts of those verses. It reinforces their inherent bias and their IDENTITY, like how they reinforce their loyalty to their cult five times a day, throughout their lives. For such pitiable muslims, ignorance is pure bliss. Anything that disturbs that status quo will be dispatched off quickly.

          “Dr. Bill Warner is a prominent and highly respected expert on Political Islam. He holds a PhD in Physics & Applied Mathematics from North Carolina State University. He has held positions as a research scientist, business owner and University Professor. The day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person. Dr. Warner’s training in scientific theory and mathematics shaped how he analyzed Islamic doctrine. Realizing that the Islamic texts had been made deliberately difficult to read and comprehend, he set out to organize the doctrine in a manner that would be easily understood by the average person. As he analyzed the foundational Islamic texts, it became clear that Islam is not constructed on the same civilizational principles as the rest of the world. Simple statistical methods revealed that dualism and submission were the foundational principles of Islamic doctrine. Dr. Warner founded the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) to further the study of political Islam and its ramifications for Western Civilization. He has written fifteen books that teach about Political Islam and make the Islamic doctrine understandable (https://www.politicalislam.com/shop/). He also developed the first self-study course on Political Islam.” Brothers, Khalid and Saeed may choose to enroll in those courses and engage in a constructive dialogue to either contest or really learn for the first time in their lives about a faith that they have been blindly practicing throughout their lives.

          Kafirs, Yes kafirs read those books, recommend them to libraries in Universities, colleges and schools. Donate them. Read Koran along with historical context related to mohammed’s life. Write about it in blogs. Start conversations with fellow muslims. Ask for the sources of their assumptions. Point out the inconsistencies and let them explain. Missile and nukes are useless against an ideology. Arm yourself with knowledge!

      • Hey Saeed, I followed your link that was supposed to annihilate my charges and illuminate all of my factual inaccuracies that you have wisely spotted. Before that, is the anonymous person in Reddit with no declared qualifications (not even self-declarations) your go-to spiritual authority on islam? That person himself has written in his profile, “A place for the most uninformed, naive, and wrongheaded comments about history.” I sincerely tried reading that slathering vomit of a blog for your sake. It’s supposedly a reputation of a lecture given by Dr. Bill Warner. Your Reddit expert’s opinions are filled with expletives in every other sentence making it really hard to read without wincing and cringing. There are no factual reputations, no citations…just plain angry vomit. Do you feed on such inspiring sources for your spiritual advancement?

        Are you even a muslim? Don’t you know koran, sira, and hadiths are the ONLY accepted authority in your faith? Kafirs, this is another sleight of hand by moderate ignorant wannabe muslims. If you ask them a legitimate question supported by facts, instead of answering your questions, they will simply point you to an article in the media, or a website link that just declares mohammed was a remarkable scientist and that he invented computers! Unfortunately, this is how majority of muslims, including Saeed and Zainab Sikander get their information on Official islam. Remember, they cannot question their religious scholars or imams without garnering the latter’s wrath and fury and risk being labelled an apostate. It carries a death sentence (“I would kill them according to the statement of the al Lah’s apostle, “Whoever changed his islamic religion, then kill him.” Bukhari 9, 84, 57) . So, they try to assuage their inner spiritual thirst by resorting to substandard sources of information. It’s perfectly understandable, not wanting to lose your head over a silly religious question, but that doesn’t absolve muslims from seeking to read and understand their legitimate scriptures (koran, sira, and hadiths).

        Hey Saeed, in the name of mohammed and al Lah, have you read the koran, sira and hadiths (at least sahih) in its entirety? What your understanding about abrogation? Do you know that all of the “good” verses are abrogated by the later verses? Do you know islam has a doctrine and you need mohammed to understand it? Go read and then come back and refute using your scriptures!

        I apologize to all Kafirs, including myself. I failed to mention that Kafir really means FILTH, DIRT, ANIMAL, VERMIN. But, that’s the label our muslim brothers and ‘peaceful’ islam honored us with. Let’s wear it proudly!

          • Note what’s missing. He has time to Roll On Floor Laughing (ROFL), but won’t write another sentence to tell us what ‘Kafir’ stands for. At least extremist muslims tell the truth to our face. Moderate pseudo muslims like to laugh at Kafirs! Because, that’s what their imams, muftis and sheikhs do to them, when they themselves ask uncomfortable questions to their preachers. Laugh at their face! They hide their own ignorance with a smile or a laugh. When you see an islamic scholar put on a BIG SMILE to your legitimate question, you know he is going to LIE through his teeth.

  5. From Sachar Commission To Tabrez Ansari To Babri Mosque To Pehlu Khan To RSS. India is Littered With Reasons Pakistan Was Created.

    Thank You Quaid e Azam

  6. For, readers of the Print, more particularly the Indian Muslims. Please consider the following aspects. Forget Jinnah and Pakistan, think of your own future.
    • It is argued that Jinnah never wanted Partition. The relentless invocation of the racialist neologism “Pakistan”—was all a ploy meant to secure for Muslims greater rights within a united India. This argument, pioneered by the formidable Ayesha Jalal, relies, once again, on a degree of deception, neglecting entirely the question of whether such brinkmanship, being directed by a man who was dying of lung disease, was going to profit the people he claimed to represent or condemn them to an uncertain future. Even if we accept Jalal’s thesis, it’s not easy to exalt a man who uncorked the genie of religious hatred as a tactic even though he knew that he wouldn’t be around to force it back into the bottle.
    • United India was a mirage. It would have never succeeded. The Partition proved to be a blessing in disguise for the Hindus in the sub-continent: (I) They were united in the partitioned India and enjoyed the status of an absolute and enduring majority, whereas the Muslims in the sub-continent were hopelessly bifurcated (later trifurcated). (ii) The threat of political blackmail and use of veto power by Jinnah and his ilk vanished forever. (iii) This facilitated faster compilation of one of the best written constitutions. (iv)This also facilitated unification of India as the princely states were compelled to assimilate in the united India. (v) United India meant continuous friction, conflicts and threat of disintegration. Had India remained undivided it could have easily split into at least 20 small nations. (vi) The divided India also proved to be a boon for those Muslims who chose to remain in India, as they were assured of constitutions rights of equality and freedom. These Muslims have to imagine their fate had they decided to migrate to Pakistan – just think of MQM and what happened to the Muhajirs to migrate to Pakistan. Forget the Hindus and Christians in Pakistan, think of what happened to minority sects within the Islamic community- Shiyas, Ahemadis , Bahais etc.
    • Now think of the plight of majority Sunnis in Pakistan – what was promised and what was delivered. Promises : (I) Economic self- sufficiency and prosperity. (ii) Modernity, excellence in scientific research. Pakistan would inaugurate Islamic renaissance in the 20th century. Jinnha had told Shaukat Hayat Khan :” Pakistan would the base where Muslim scientists, doctors, engineers, economists would be trained and they spread through the entire Middle East to ‘serve their co-religionists and create awakening among them”!!!!!! Delivered : A bankrupt nation ruled directly or directly by Pakistan’s corrupt Army.

  7. Two liers, fighting to have their last word. Jinnah is great for someone and he is secular to the the core. He is crook for many Indians. But Jinnah is the best thing happened to India. Good riddance.

  8. I quote from B.R.Ambedkar’s book “Pakistan or Partition of India”(Chapter 13, Section VI): “ To put it differently, Pakistan is unnecessary to Muslims where they are in majority because there, there is no fear of Hindu Raj. It is worse than useless to Muslims where they are in minority, because Pakistan or no Pakistan, they will have to face a Hindu Raj. Can politics be more futile than the politics of the Muslim League? The Muslim League (was) started to help minority Muslims, and has ended to espouse the cause of majority Muslims. What a perversion in (= of) of the original aim of the Muslim League! What a fall from the sublime to the ridiculous! Partition as a remedy against Hindu Raj is worse than useless.” Should I write more? Jinnah, in his quest of establishing his supremacy as the ‘ Sole Spokesman’ of Muslims has spoiled their future. No wonder Pakistan is a failed state now. The credit goes entirely to Jinnah.

    • If I Were To Take Ambedkar Jee At His Word That The Muslims Majority States Had No Fear Then Jammu and Kashmir Was A Muslim Majority STate Look At How Hindu Raj Has Been Imposed By Removing Art. 370.

      Fact Is No Matter How Much Muslims Are Even In A United India They Were Never more Than 30% And So Were Always Vulnerable To Majoritarian Hindu Politics Espoused By The RSS .

      If The Partition Had Not Happened The World’s Bloodiest Civil War Would Have Ensued.What Happened in 1947 Was Nothing To What Could Have Happened

  9. I didn’t read the article because I have read the blatant and dishonest lies of YLH before.

    It is very funny 😄 The Print has invited Jinnah worshipper YLH to write here. Rational, logical arguments, facts are not effective in battling the blind fanaticism of YLH in his Jinnah worship. Anyone posting here to rebut YLH should realize that YLH is a very closed minded fanatic.

    Jinnah was a dishonest, very shallow hypocrite who ensured Muslims of the subcontinent are divided and weak. Jinnah liberated the Hindus.

  10. To Mr Hamdani, Hindus have not retaliated till now, so what does he mean by what they are doing today. You can compare the percentage of minorities in both the countries, and had hindus retaliated there would not be any Arabic worshipper in this country.

  11. Sadly Zainab Sikandar’s response is as ignorant as her original piece. She missed the point about Azad asking Muslims to migrate to Afghanistan and she entirely misunderstood Dr B R Ambedkar’s thesis on partition. She also conveniently ignored as usual Azad’s own testimony about partition.

    I suppose all those leaders who worked with and knew Jinnah were wrong and the History graduate today can slander his memory because of her prejudice bias and misplaced nationalism. Slow clap for Zainab Sikandar.

  12. Praising Jinnah got Advani into a lot of trouble. However, for Pakistanis he is a figure of reverence, the man who got them a homeland. So many years later, his dietary preferences or lifestyle should count for little. It would be a fine gesture for Jinnah House to be restored to the government of Pakistan and for it to house their Consulate in Bombay. Else, Nusli Wadia is such an enterprising man, one day he will get his hands on it.

    • That is why Niazam’s great grandson is asking to give Hyderabad back to him. Because it belongs to his grandfather’s property. There is no end to people writing nonsense to please the few Pakistanis.

  13. This is getting interesting . Buy why YLH is addressing Ms. Zainab as Sikander ? Small request for Shekhar Gupta , You should invite Mr. Venkat Dhulipala in to this discussion . It will become more interesting . Good to read something after long time

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here