‘Just call me Muslim’

Published: February 26, 2012

When a man asked Jinnah if he was Sunni or Shia, Jinnah replied angrily that he was just a Muslim.

This year there have been a number of reports that what were clearly acts of sectarian violence, hatred and discrimination. In January, three lawyers – a father, his son and nephew-  were gunned down. They were Muslims who belonged to the Shia sect. On the same day, three other professionals from the Shia community were killed in Quetta. This all follows the year of 2011 where hundreds of Shias were murdered – and it seems as if nothing has, or will change.

The Shia community is not the only minority sect that is being targeted. For a couple of weeks, attempts were made to shut down an Ahmadi place of worship; a week ago, the food and beverage brand ‘Shezan’ was banned from all court premises by the Lahore Bar Association because the owners belong to the Ahmadiyya community.

This is just recent news.

Sadly, sectarian violence and discrimination in Pakistan is frequent. Some argue that the Pandora’s box was opened in 1974, when extremist Sunnis clashed with Ahmadis until they were declared non-Muslim by Pakistan’s constitution, though sectarian violence was reported as early as the 60s.

My personal belief is that the reason behind the rise in sectarianism is the increasing subconscious acceptance of it by our society.

Today discrimination amongst sects is openly publicised in Pakistan. I can confirm that the Islamiat textbook I studied from in high school preached religious inequality and even anti-Semitism. Due to a lack of quality education and teachers, irresponsible textbooks in our schools, statements made by religious scholars, things some of our elders say society in Pakistan has made assumptions based on people’s religious views. For many people, being Jewish is a crime. Being Christian is only slightly better, and then the fact that you are a Muslim makes you a superior and better Pakistani. Among Muslims people belonging to a sect feel they are ‘better’ than the others. I once sat in a majlis at a Shia mosque only to hear a long speech explaining all that was wrong with Sunnis, and heard similar sermons about Shia Muslims at Sunni mosques.

Keeping in mind the stories shared above and other incidents from the past, I find it safe to say the Ahmadiyya community receives the most hatred and discrimination. Some clerics have gone as far as announce the justification and permission for their murder. In fact in 2008, the leader of the anti-Ahmadi movement was invited to Dr Aamir Liaqat’s TV show on which he repeated exactly that. The next day, two Pakistani citizen’s from the community were killed.

The problem we face in Pakistan is this extreme ‘holier than thou’ attitude; a strong feeling of self-righteousness and moral superiority. People believe that their personal beliefs are of greater virtue than those of others, and through a biased study with an ill-informed and poorly educated mind, have used words of Holy Scriptures to justify violence against those with differing religious views.

This is completely against what religion actually teaches.The Holy Quran tells us to approach those with different beliefs by starting on the points of agreement or equitable words. Islam also teaches us to accept that believers and non-believers both have their own religion and worship their own Lord(s) and in forbids any compulsion in religion.

Extremist groups behind these attacks target the Shia and Ahmadi community to incite fear within the sects and hence reduce, and eventually finish their ability to practice their faith openly. Keeping in mind the targeted killings in broad daylight last month, it is understandable that many people from the communities have fled the country as a result. Their tactics are working.

It should also be brought to light that these sectarian extremist groups have split since their inception in the 1980s and have regrouped under different titles and movements. They have spread all over the country from their starting point of Southern Punjab, taking their radical ideas to all parts of the state.

Much needs to be done to stop this. The country’s intelligence agencies need to find out how and where these groups operate, observe them and keep a check on local madrassas and what is taught there.  A strategy must be devised on how to isolate and tackle them. Why we have waited so long to tackle this is a mystery. But in my opinion, these groups are only half the problem.

The other problem is our radicalised society. This polarisation of  views is due to a combination of the spread of these sectarian groups, and the lack of impartial, quality education. With more than half the country living under the line of poverty, the vast majority cannot afford sound education, as it exists in Pakistan’s private schools that only the elite can afford. This leaves a colossal portion of the population exposed to sub-standard schooling, if any at all, and hence vulnerable to the acceptance of extremist ideas and versions of religion bestowed upon them. These are the people the sectarian groups feed on and this is where their support comes from.

It may seem absurd, but I have personally witnessed many educated people agree with the fatwa that allows the murder of Ahmadis. After everything he has done and said, countless people have undying, unconditional support for Dr Amir Liaqat; people have celebrated the death of the former Governor of Punjab and hailed his murderer as a hero; some still think it is ‘okay’ to target Shias.

And that is essentially the problem. People accept it.

But I don’t think these people are entirely to blame. It is our governance that is educating these people. Pakistan is the only state to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims. When the state has numerous discriminating laws and education against entire sects, how could you expect its people to be any different?

How many of our text books proudly mention that Dr Abdus Salaam was from the Ahmadiyya community? He put Pakistan on the map by becoming the country’s only Nobel Prize winner but then left the nation in protest when his sect was declared non-Muslim. His gravestone was also modified after his death so that it would not read ‘Muslim’.

How many of our textbooks tell us that our founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was a member of a minority sect, which was a minority community in an already Muslim minority in India?

How many of our textbooks tell us that our first ever foreign minister, Chaudhry Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, who Jinnah referred to as his ‘son’, was a scholar of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, drafted the Pakistan resolution, represented the country at the United Nations and served as a judge at the International Court of Justice? The answer is: not many.

Once a man asked Jinnah if he was Sunni or Shia and Jinnah responded angrily that he was just a Muslim. He was against sectarianism. That’s why Jinnah wanted faith, discipline and unity - virtues we lack the most.

Everyone thinks their beliefs are perfect, but none of us is God and no one should be allowed to judge anyone else.

Sectarian groups must be eliminated, madrassas monitored and education heavily reformed to change this mindset. If not, Pakistan will be contaminated with far too many fanatics.

The Quran asks us to show kindness to people of all faiths and calls Christians and Jews ‘people of the Book’. Today, Muslims in Pakistan can’t even be civil to sects of their own religion. It further says that when you see any injustice, fix it. If you can’t fix it, then raise your voice against it. And if you can’t raise your voice against it, then condemn it in your heart.

I think it would help if Pakistan started with the latter.

 

Abu Bakr

AbuBakr Agha

A software engineer in Islamabad. He tweets @AB_Agha (twitter.com/AB_Agha) and blogs at www.elucidations.org

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @bigsaf,

    “Jinnah’s daughter’s decision was personal and so was his civil reaction.”

    Secularism when applied to a state, yes. But, what when applied to an individual?

    Its pure hypocrisy to say that one is secular but wants his daughter not to marry an individual based on the fact of the future son-in-law’s Religion.

    Nehru was secular. He didn’t oppose when Indira Gandhi married Feroz Gandhi. In fact daughter and father were ever close after the marriage!Recommend

  • Knowledge Seeker

    @Mustafa Moiz: haha. what a joke. A perfect example of distorted history which is taught to us.Recommend

  • Deb

    @Anoop

    As you know Jinnah comes from a family of converts and to my knowledge he was a third generation muslim.It’s quite common among converts to become over jealous in matters of religion than the original (to use the term loosely) practitioners of the faith.Some of them become zealots because of it.
    I think Jinnah’s objection to her daughter’s marrying a non muslim should be looked at with compassion, considering the fact that this is the man who worked so hard (and successfully) to prove that people practicing different faith can not live together.
    In this case Jinnah the father gave in to Jinnah the politician.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    @Bigsaf
    I think this all madness start it after first Afghan war and all the warriors around the world got here by C.I.A with petro dollars and some fuels by khomanis revolution too. and i have seen
    vali nasr books and interviews he is no diffrent than any anti sunnis anti pakistan and anti saudi arabia just for we called KHUDA WASTAY KA BHER.Recommend

  • http://mezaajedeen.blogspot.com Tribune Reader

    Why do you people forget us non religious non practicing Muslims, we are on the receiving end of persecution from right wing minded religious people. We are just as Kafir for them as any1 else, we face harassment, persecution and our very lives are threatened. Religion is repeatedly used as a trump card to persecute us, we are after all human beings and Islam is a religion of peace, it teaches compassion, it does not teach looking for excuses to torture people, I swear the root of the problem lies in our society including that of a few other Muslim countries to judgmental attitudes, were a judgmental nation. Recommend

  • http://bigsaf.newsvine.com bigsaf

    @Anoop:

    Incorrect. Nehru was indeed opposed to Feroz and his daughter’s marriage, and tried to dissuade them but could not. They went ahead and married under Hindu rituals anyways. He wasn’t happy, but grew closer only later and the family dynasty would form. Your homerism got the better of you. As for Jinnah, you’re confusing state secularism with personal pluralism

    Secularism is separation of state and religion. Not individual and religion. It does not mean you’re irreligious. You can claim Jinnah’s preference for a Muslim son-in-law was preference with accordance to his religion or outright religious bias, or hypocrisy of not accepting religious pluralism personally like he once did when he got married and would instead later on lead a 2 nation theory, but not hypocrisy based on secularism. A secularist can practice religion and have religious preference. You’re looking for outright glad acceptance of an individual into their family despite different religious beliefs, values and identity. Has nothing to do with public life or how a state functions. They went ahead and got married without his blessing regardless. Societal pluralism wasn’t deterred with Jinnah’s lack of acceptance. There’s really not much to demonize a parent who would prefer their daughter or son in law shared their same beliefs.Recommend

  • Mustafa Moiz

    I’m just going to mention that I’m a university student and I’m busy enough and that’s why I’m not looking for any proof of what I have said.Recommend

  • Mustafa Moiz

    Also, just a little information about myself. I am among the minority of Pakistanis who says Ahmadis should not have been declared non-Muslims. Also, one of my favourite political personalities is Ataturk. He was secular but he was definitely not a liberal. To a certain extent I also liked and even admired the Shah of Iran. He was another secular conservative, which is the same view I hold of our leaders Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf.Recommend

  • sadia

    you should be very careful before writing something about religion. the only thing i got from your article is that you want a fight between all the sects, you want to make everyone realize that all muslims hate each other, such type of articles are realy a propoganda….. what i have seen in pakistan is that every sunni girl eats and drinks with shiya girls, every sunni boy hugs several shiya boys in a day… all are friends….. muslims love each other whether they are shiya, sunni or ehl e hadees….. you just pointed out some realy fake ideas …. you said people celebrated the death of governer of punjab…. yes they did….. but it was not because he was shiya,it was because he was a political leader from ppp, and everyone who opposes ppp would celebrate that, and those who are in favour of ppp would mourn on it whether they are shiyas or sunnis….. many people die everyday….. many sunnis also die everyday….. it doesn’t mean that some shiya killed them….. if three shiyas are murdered it doesn’t mean that its because of difference ov views….. fight may be because of many reasons….. many sunnis kill sunnis so what you say about that…… is it because they belong to different school of thoughts….. all muslims love each other and muslims are those who blv in Allah and Muhammad sala la ho alehay wasalam…… now if you want to create a war between shiyas and sunnis by such type of stuff to get benefit…… you wont…… and shut this ahmadi stuff….. they are not muslims and dont discuss them with muslims…. although as person i and my all fellows respect them alot, we have frndship with them….. but as far as beliefs are concerened they are not muslims like sunnis and shiyas…… if some agency have awarded you alot of money to do such drama to introduce such ideas in muslims mind to create hatered between them and make them realize that the other sect hate you, and ahmadi is sect of islam….. then you wont succeed because all muslims love each other and they better know that ahmadis are not muslims……. please take this back……Recommend

  • FJ

    @bigsaf:
    You are arguing with bunch of biased, unjust and hypcrite people. Save your argumnets for a better debate:) I agree with you and can very well understand these biased people arguments. If Shia were killing Sunnis that way , you would see what they will do:@Recommend

  • http://www.elucidations.org Abu Bakr

    Who ever is moderating this comment, please pass my message on to the editors.

    This post was originally called ‘Accepting’ and ‘allowing’ Sectarian Discrimination. It was about how administration and society both have a hand in why the violence and hatred is increasing. Education, and Government apathy along with sectarian groups were the reasons i tried to mention. By changing the title to what it is right now, you have done a major disservice to the write up. I feel it loses its theme and becomes more about Jinnah and his views on sectarianism. The point of this piece was to show that there is a lack of unity within sects of Muslims in Pakistan and that is due to the subconscious acceptance of sectarian violence in society. Poisoned education is what is to blame.Recommend

  • Zalmay

    The debate over Jinnah’s sect is out of control here. Jinnah did not live in the Mesozoic Era, he was born in 1875 or 1876 and died in 1948 and his whole life has been documented by the Indian Administrative Services.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @bigsaf:

    Has Nehru ever stated so? Certainly his actions indicate he was fine with the marriage. But, people like to peddle theories, but in this case facts dont add up to match your assumptions and pontifications.

    But, I get the point you are trying to make.

    But, I also sense that you actually think Jinnah is a person worth emulating. I disagree.

    One can agree that Jinnah is Secular. His being secular or non-secular is not the troubling part, his being communal is; He partnering with Feudals is; He associating himself with thugs like Suhrawardy is.

    I often say Secular or non-Secular is the not the word to describe Jinnah, but Communal is.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @Deb:

    Fair enough. Recommend

  • rex minor

    I guess that the arabic language is not compulasary for school children in Pakistan. As such they rely on what their village clergy translates and interprets Quraan suras to them.
    This is the root of the problem. Pakistan has more ethnic divide within the muslim community than any other so called muslim countries.

    Let the parliament of Pakistan openly declare to the people of Pakistan that none of the so called muslim born is a perfect muslim. The entire muslim community of Pakistan therefore falls in the aforesaid category It is a hypocracy to belittle the minority muslims namely that of Shias, Ahmedis or other muslims who have additional names todenote a certain school or a leader etc.

    Islam is a way of life and those who accept the tenets of Islam are called muslims who have promised to live th life in accordance with the guidence of Islam as stated in Quraan and those which were practiced by Prophet of Islam(pbuh). Therefore muslims are not automaticaly muslims as soon as tehy declare their intentions. This should be understood by all the mislims of Pakistan and should refrain from belittling others or glorifying ones self.

    Rex Minor

    PS
    In today’s environment Mr Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan would have been the victim of similar treatment which the minority muslims are receiving at the hands of or on behalf of the majority. Let us recall, Islam was not a religion of majority at the time it was announced. The majority terefore has no relevance for the eligion of God.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    @bigsaf
    When u say Deoband/Sunni/salafi /wahabi thing its a wrong thing to do because true and pure
    islam is what saudis practiced with out all crruption that happend in south asia or in iran iraq.Recommend

  • Nakvisson

    “Sectarian Violence” or Gradual Genocide of Shia Muslims?

    Read complete blog at: http://nakvisson.blogspot.com/2012/03/sectarian-violence-or-gradual-genocide.html

    An excerpt from the same blog:

    ”It is not sectarian violence that the Pakistanis are experiencing. Simply put, I believe it is a “gradual genocide” of Pakistani Shia Muslims being carried out by a fraction of ”Muslims” who are quite frequently disowned by majority of Sunni Muslims.”Recommend

  • Abdul Alim

    What did shias and Christians do in the national assembly when ahmadies were declared non muslims. They supported it. Shia ulema never speak out and condemn ahmadies being killed. Christians never protested ahmadis being killed. Now Shias and Christians are being killed and will be killed and no one will do anything about it. Barelvis and deobandis are killing each other. soon Ahmadi Muslims will be left alone because others are too busy killing each other inshallah. So here is a lesson for all Pakistanis. Hurry up and kill each other and go to paradise before some real kafir kills you. This way you all will meet in paradise to start killing each other all over again. Recommend

  • http://bigsaf.newsvine.com bigsaf

    @Mustafa Moiz:
    You claimed you were too busy to give a reference for your claim, but apparently had time to post in 5 more comments. Hope that’s not how your research papers are handed in university.

    I don’t see how naming dictators you like disproves anything. Seeking Ahmadi rights is a good step…but doesn’t explain the other prejudice or the academic ignorance on Jinnah.Recommend

  • http://bigsaf.newsvine.com bigsaf

    @Anoop:
    I’m sorry, but the Nehrus did indeed make it known they weren’t happy with it initially. Feroz’s name change to Gandhi and the Hindu rituals was to please and ease it for them. Anyway you cut it, Feroz had to change and wasn’t accepted as is until later.

    Regardless, glad we can hear each other out.

    My own grandparents were no fans of Jinnah. And of course his communal nationalist theory had serious consequences and implications. But he was not a zealot as Deb would make him out to be or as those who disliked the split in nations like to demonize him as. I can very well understand the hegemonic fear and opportunity for a nation for one’s own community. But I can’t say I’d like to emulate him either due to the idealist, somewhat naive romantic view and the radical solution taken to Nehru’s refusal. But what’s done is done, and as far as his idea on how a state should be run not poking into an individual’s religion, it is a basic and strong shared principle that the current Pak state must return to.Recommend

  • http://bigsaf.newsvine.com bigsaf

    @Ali Tanoli:
    That is just deluded. What the Saudis, under the rule of a dictatorial monarchy, practice is twisted, and not ‘pure Islam’ you like to fantastically and radically revision. Maybe you don’t like to let your women drive or vote, forbidding them under the guise of religion, but other Muslims and progressives do.

    The Saudi Wahhabi foreign and alien ideology is also openly discriminatory towards the Shia sect, as seen in one of their provinces. So can you please stop pretending the fake unity Pakistani pandering, as you clearly share the same anti-Shia sectarian prejudice and bigotry as them? And NO, I don’t justify Iran or their own dogmatic beliefs and abuses, so please don’t deflect there to justify Saudi corruption, paranoia and abuses.

    I don’t simply make up Wahhabi/Salafi/Deoband/Sunni extremism and hegemony. It is obvious and evident to all in Pakistan. There’s nothing wrong in pointing out this fact, as uncomfortable it makes it for you sharing the same background and your cognitive bias. Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    @bigsaf
    I am sure when u talked about saudis province it is similar to what i am saying about iran and iraq is not it and shias made by some anti islam elements in earlly islam like Dr Hamidullah sahab said in his islamic history book and islam is what is in Quran and Hathith
    what prophet did according to Quran thats it.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @bigsaf:

    Yes, its nice to have a decent conversation.

    “Feroz’s name change to Gandhi and the Hindu rituals was to please and ease it for them.”

    No! He did not change his name. He was born Feroz Gandhi, he was of a parsi decent. He was the son of Faredoon Jehangir Gandhi. His elder brothers were Dorab Jehangir Gandhi, Faridun Jehangir Gandhi.He has two elder sisters one is Tehmina Kershashp Gandhi and other is Aloo Gandhi Dastur.

    They are originally from Gujrat, where the well-known Gandhi-The Mahatma also came from. Goes to explain the same name doesn’t it?

    This much I gather from the well-respected M.J.Akbar, who also writes for Dawn in Pakistan.

    So, Feroz Gandhi had to change is untrue.

    “But I can’t say I’d like to emulate him either due to the idealist, somewhat naive romantic view and the radical solution taken to Nehru’s refusal.”

    I think he was rather vague. I have read Nehru’s letters and his columns in newspapers in India about his dream for India, the debate raging in his mind about competing economic and socio-political solutions scream at you.

    You dont hear that with Jinnah. When ever someone asked about Democracy, he said Democracy was a bedrock of Islam and that Islam practices and vouches for it. Really? He took refuge in saying things no secular, pluralist individual would care to challenge, to not hurt Religious feelings.

    There are many such instances.

    Take so with the Feudals. Nehru since the mid 20s has been writing against Feudalism, the greatest tool of oppression. He was adamant that land reforms will be initiated in the new India, if he had any say(Thank Goodness he had a LOT of say). You dont hear Jinnah talking much about it. In fact all the Muslim Feudals scared of Nehru’s India rush to Jinnah to find refuge and Jinnah takes them in with open arms. Till today Land Reforms have not been carried out, which was carried out in 1951 in India. Just 4 years after Independence, 1 year after the establishment of the brilliant Indian Constitution.

    Jinnah was either vague or you can say, ignorant of the most important issues of the time. He just did not have his hand on the pulse of India, like Gandhi and Nehru did. He must be a smart man, a great politician, excellent lawyer, but he was no Nehru, he was no match for Nehru’s intellect.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    @Anoop
    Mr Jinnah did not got enough time like Nehru had and Nehru and vilabai patel are also reason
    of the partition,
    and when Jinnah says about islam is Democracy it is true islam is complete reliegen with in democracy which protect minority rights and dont killed or converts like christians did in the
    History see latin america and east europe u will find the answer we ruled but never forced one to accept islam this is islam golden history and also jinnah knew that he was a such great thinker.
    and i do agreed with u on Fuedalism but it is not jinnah fault he got only one year to lived after partition actualy he did said about these fuedal when he says that MERI JEB IS KOHTAY SIKAY HAI.Recommend

  • Adnan

    “Once a man asked Jinnah if he was Sunni or Shia and Jinnah responded angrily that he was just a Muslim.”

    A lot of such BS is propagated by not only naive young people fed on such myths but also analysts who have been around for long. The truth is that Jinnah is none of those. Yes, he was not even a Muslim. That’s not to say he is not a great man or that he lied or that is deceptive. Jinnah was a very intelligent, modern man who was in mind and practice secular. Any dispassionate reader of history will accept that. yes, he said he is Muslim and he is one but he did not practice it like we do these days – in all its convoluted and insane way. He accepted the faith he was born into and that is that. He said he is a Muslim in that context and perhaps – being a politician and statesman – to calm down people. I actually suspect that Jinnah would not have distinguished or treated people of any faith any differently. That’s because, he was most of all a rational, secular man. That’s not the Pakistan we have today. It’s a shameful pit of religiosity, sanctimony, and viciousness. It’s the Hell that no prophet or saint ever wished on any peoples or faith. By not standing up against idiots that populate our public space, we’re only encouraging the decline of our country. Naive and sentimental notes like this are appreciated but hardly enough. Just in case you are curious about my own faith, I’ll be happy to tell you that I’m an atheist and humanist who has never hurt anyone nor has ever entertained thoughts of hurting anyone (even the vicious murderers and religulous idiots who incite violence).Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @Ali Tanoli:

    “Mr Jinnah did not got enough time like Nehru ”

    Is one whole year not enough to say one paragraph against Feudalism? 10 lousy sentences condemning it would have sufficed.

    Thats AFTER the partition, Jinnah had his whole life and especially after 1937 to talk about his ideology. He never did fully. The result is today both the Right and the Left use Jinnah to suit their means. You cannot do that with Nehru. Nehru dedicated his writing and time alone in elaborating on his vision.

    The fact is Jinnah wanted the support of the Feudals. They were disheartened with Nehru who refused to budge to their demands. He held a view which would have robbed them of wealth. Jinnah had no such principle stand on Feudalism. I dont think he thought of it as a problem, else he would have said something about it. Thats the difference between Nehru and Jinnnah. One is uncompromising and sticks to his beliefs, another,well, let it pass.. You know what I mean.

    The not-much-time excuse doesn’t really hold considering Jinnah knew well in advance of the disease in him and that he would die soon..

    What Jinnah said about Islam and such stuff only strengthens the hand of the Right. He never really quoted the Quran, did he. He said stuff which are romantic to the naked eye but do more harm than good.

    There are 57 Islamic Countries in the World, only few of them Democratic.Recommend

  • kaalchakra

    “Is one whole year not enough to say one paragraph against Feudalism? 10 lousy sentences condemning it would have sufficed.”

    Anoop, Jinnah did say many things, quite strongly and clearly, against feudalism but all those words have been lost. Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @kaalchakra:

    “Anoop, Jinnah did say many things, quite strongly and clearly, against feudalism but all those words have been lost.”

    I’ve heard a lot of excuses from Pakistanis over the years to save their liberal version of Jinnah, but this one is new!

    Do tell me, if they are indeed lost, how is it that you know those words were spoken?

    I understand your answer was an exercise to somehow explain and preserve your version of Jinnah. Thats what is wrong with him. His vision can be molded to suit the purpose of the individual. You cant do that with Nehru or Gandhi. Thats the mark of great men. Same with people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King,etc.

    Ashiq Husain Batalvi’s book Iqbal kay akhri do saal contains letters of Iqbal to Jinnah, in which he is clearly not happy with Jinnah for his acceptance of feudal aristocrats into the Muslim League. Iqbal insisted on promoting middle class individuals such as Malik Barkat Ali – one of only two winners from the Muslim League from Punjab in the 1937 elections. Iqbal particularly insisted that Jinnah not proceed to sign the pact with Sikandar Hayat Khan for the same reason. Jinnah paid no heed, and the rest is history.

    Even Liaquat Ali Khan and Suhrawardy were Feudal Lords, the people Jinnah partnered with and chose one as his successor! Compare this with Jawaharlal Nehru who had been writing since his entry to Congress against Feudalism and walked the talk in 1951 by demolishing it from India once and for all, through land reforms.

    Jinnah was maybe ignorant of the threat Feudalism posed. But, that only brings into question his connection with the people and his intellectual abilities, that too in a Country of 80% poverty. Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    I am a human and shall behave like a human towards other hmans, with tolerence, understanding and love. The rest should follow this line. End of story and philosophies. I shall behave towards others as I want others to behave towards me.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • AIN

    Hopless situation….Recommend

  • Burhan

    WonderfulRecommend

  • Faheem Ahmed

    In pakistan ahmadis are being treater as un patriotic persons.Recommend