Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui

Archive for January, 2010|Monthly archive page

Quaid e Azam Mohmmad Ali Jinnah was not secular

In Pakistan's Ideology on January 31, 2010 at 8:04 pm

By : Moin Ansari

Barrister Muhammad All Jinnah after financially securing himself entered the political field in 1905 at the age of 30 years as a staunch nationalist from the platform of the Indian National Congress. He was soon reckoned as an aggressive, bold and a forthright speaker for the cause of the Indian independence.

In his speech in December 1906 in an annual open session of the Indian National Congress in Calcutta he created a stir by challenging the British government to hasten the grant of ‘home-rule’ to India. He said: “If the British do not give ‘home-rule’ to India and soon, then it will not be Boston tea chests that will be thrown in to the sea, but truck loads of Britishers that will be thrown into the Indian ocean.” The speech not only shook the Vice-regal Lodge, but also created ripples amongst the Congress ranks as well, who were not prepared to go that far and were only hypocritically agitating against the Raj.

In his pursuit for ‘home rule’ for India, Jinnah firmly believed in Hindu-Muslim unity as a prerequisite and therefore came to be known as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. But the Hindu bigots in the Congress put many obstacles in the way of this unity. Jinnah saw through their nefarious designs to perpetually dominate the Muslims. For almost 20 years he tried to convince them of the need of this unity and proper safeguards for the minorities, particularly the Muslims. His views were always sidelined but he remained firm in his convictions. And in spite of separating from the Congress in 1920, he continued to attend various ‘unity’ conferences. He advanced many proposals that were not accepted, and finally came up with his Fourteen Points which later became the combined voice of all the Muslim organisations.

As president of the Muslim League in 1916, and at the same time a front rank leader of the Indian Congress, he was in a unique position and negotiated a unity agreement between the two political parties in a pact known as the Lucknow Pact. It was a personal triumph for Mr Jinnah. This pact conceded the right of the Muslims to a separate electorate. Was Mr Jinnah secular? Some of Mr Jinnah’s detractors call him secular.

Who is a secular? Webster’s Pocket Dictionary defines secular as one who “is not concerned with religion; and not living in a religious community.”

Let us see Mr Jinnah in the light of this definition. In this context, nothing could be more authentic than Jinnah’s own confession about his faith. On August 6, 1939, he said: “I was born Muslim; I am a Muslim and shall die a Muslim.” At another time he said: “I am no Maulana or a Maulvi but I also know a little of my faith.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah was brought up in a Muslim family, adhered to the tenants of Islam, was repeatedly elected to the Indian Council/Legislative Assembly on a seat reserved for a Muslim, succeeded in getting a number of bills concerning the Muslims passed from the Legislative Assembly, advocated Hindu-Muslim unity, always stressed for safeguards for the Muslims including their demand for a federal form of government as envisaged by the Nehru Report. In his negotiations with the government and parlays with the Indian Congress, he always stoutly advocated the Muslim cause.

But when Jinnah finally resigned from the Congress after 20 years, he focused more to organise his community. Within a short time in 1935, he gave Muslims a sense of separate entity, a third party status in 1936/37 when Nehru introduced his “two forces” doctrine in the Indian politics, gave them the status of nationhood in 1940, indicated to them the goal of Pakistan and finally within seven years in 1947 brought about the miracle of the 20th century in the form of an independent dominion of Pakistan.

With this background and Mr Jinnah’s relentless struggle for the rights of his Muslim community none of Webster’s definitions may be applied to him – his actions or sayings. He was as good a Muslim as anyone of us or perhaps better in many respects. He had complete knowledge of the convents of Islam and was well acquainted with the prayer rituals. I am a witness to it as his ADC. To dub Quaid-i-Azam as secular or that he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state is only an attempt to further confuse the quagmire of political thinking already prevalent in the country.

Having said that, I would not like the clerics and those alluding Pakistan to be a theocracy, to get away with the argument that “if Quaid-i-Azam and Pakistan were no secular then they must be theocratic.” It is a fallacy and totally illogical.

In a theocratic state, a priestly class claiming to have divine authority runs the government. This is what the politico-religious class is exploiting in order to gain power. They have also spread the notion that “Pakistan was created in the name of Islam…its ideology is based on adherence to the strict convents of Islam.” In support of their arguments they always quote the well known slogan: Pakistan ka matlab kia, La-e-la-ha Illil- lillalla raised by the masses during their struggle for Pakistan.

It may be pointed out that a few religious parties are very recent converts to being the champions of Pakistan. Their predecessors and forefathers vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan. They called Quaid-i-Azam as Kafir-i-Azam and Pakistan Dar-ul-Harb (the house of evil). They even preferred to stay back in India after independence and it was only when they saw a bleak future for them there, they reluctantly migrated to Pakistan. Encouraged and abetted by the dictators they established their political foothold and now present themselves as the custodians of Pakistan.

It must be understood that Pakistan was established on the basis of ‘Muslim nationhood’ and to safeguard the social, economic and political existence of the Muslims of the subcontinent. It was not created as a theocratic state. Quaid-i-Azam at no stage used the term ‘ideology’ of Pakistan. He always talked of Pakistan as a ‘democratic’ where ‘faith’ would be the personal matter of each individual. In his address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 he said: “Religion, cast or creed has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Again in February 1948 while addressing the Australians and later the Americans he asserted: “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with divine mission.” After these unambiguous and categorical statements of the Quaid all this controversy of his or the state being secular or theocratic should end.

A few words for the well known slogan: Pakistan Ka Matlab Kia: La-e-la-ha Illil-lillalla. This slogan was an expression of the two centuries of domination by the majority community that the Muslims saw as ending and in their exuberance and frenzy they raised slogans.

Founder of the country before and after independence in his speeches and writings always assured the people and the world at large that Pakistan is not going to be secular or a theocracy to be ruled by priests.

Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan is very clear: he wanted Pakistan to be modern, progressive, dynamic, forward looking and a democratic country with equal rights for all its citizens irrespective of their casts, creed or religion.

Let us get out of this secular and theocracy syndrome so ruthlessly exploited so far and unite to chart out a course for making Pakistan the envy of the vision of Quaid-i-Azam, an Islamic democratic welfare state. Nation. The writer is former ADC to Quaid-i-Azam. Ata Rabani

Source : http://www.zimbio.com/Muhammad+Ali+Jinnah/articles/0IP1yUTeBkW/Quaid+e+Azam+Mohmmad+Ali+Jinnah+not+secular

Aafia Siddiqui Trial: Jury Can Start Deliberation On Monday

In Dr. Aafia Corner on January 31, 2010 at 7:26 pm

  By Ibrahim Sajid Malick

Jury in Dr. Aafia Siddiqui trial is likely to begin deliberations Monday afternoon after prosecution and defense attorneys make closing statements.

In a taped video deposition presented by defense on Friday, Bashir, an Afghan police officer testified that he saw an American officer walk behind the curtain just before he heard gun shots, and that he never saw Dr. Siddiqui pick up a gun. Bashir was the last defense witness.

 Earlier in the day Judge Richard Berman allowed prosecution to produce additional witnesses to rebut claims made by the defense witnesses and experts. With lack of physical evidence and burden of proof – the Government has to demonstrate with mathematical certitude that Dr. Siddiqui grabbed the Chief Warrant Officer’s M4 Assault Rifle and fired at United States officers and employees in Ghazni, Afghanistan on July 18, 2008.

A point of possible contention was raised Friday when Bashir testified there were two shell casing found in the room. Government has produced only one .9mm shell casing as evidence during the trial. The prosecution offered rebuttal witnesses, intended to respond to the evidence presented by the defense. First, the prosecution called a firing range owner, Gary Woodworth, who testified that he remembered Dr. Siddiqui coming to the shooting range 19 years ago.

However under cross examination, Mr. Woodworth also admitted that there were no records of Dr. Siddiqui ever having visited the shooting range, and that even if she had, it could have been as part of her physical education requirements at MIT. Mr. Woodworth also acknowledged being a member of the National Rifle Association and having very close relationships with law enforcement officers. He also admitted that the course he alleged she came for is a very basic training pistol course.

 When asked by a defense attorney if he remembered the student he taught before Aafia he said, “no”; if he remembered the student he taught after Aafia, he said “no”. The prosecution then called FBI Special Agent Bruce Kammerman, who testified that while recuperating at Bagram Airbase hospital, Dr. Siddiqui had told him that she had picked up the gun because she wanted to scare people in order to ease her escape. However, on cross-examination, Agent Kammerman admitted that his original handwritten notes about the conversation did not mention anything about “picking up” the gun, but only Dr. Siddiqui’s desire to escape, and that the reference to the gun was added only in the final typed report.

Kammerman testified that during the conversations she was “lucid”, but he was not aware of what medications she was on and did not inquire about them. He testified that he addressed all of her needs for food, water, and bathroom use during his 12 hour daily shifts monitoring her.

 In Aafia Siddiqui’s direct testimony during her time at the hospital she said that Bruce’s presence was “torture” for her as he would cross examination, Kammerman conceded that when she needed to go to the bathroom he did insist that the door be open for “security”. According to Siddiqui’s testimony, he would stay all night and because of this during his entire 12 hour shifts she could not go to the bathroom. The Prosecution then brought the other FBI agent who monitored Dr. Siddiqui while in the hospital, Angela Sercer. Sercer is a female Special Agent who also kept 12 hour shifts every day that Siddiqui was at the hospital.

She offered similar testimony to Kammerman, however, acknowledged that Siddiqui was on a wide variety of medications including, morphine, ativan, haldol, phentinol, and percocet; still she maintained that Siddiqui was “lucid”. According to Siddiqui Angela seemed like a “nice person” Both Sercer and Kammerman testified that their purpose in being with Siddiqui was for “security” and to “gather intelligence” about matters unrelated to the shooting incident. They both also testified that Siddiqui initiated the conversations. If neither of these fact were accurate then Miranda Laws would apply and these alleged self-incriminating statements would not be admissible in court.

According to Miranda laws an arrested individual must be advised of their rights including the right to an attorney and/or consular staff, and right not to speak. Also, law enforcement officals must identify themselves. Although Siddiqui was not read her Miranda rights and FBI officals did not identify themselves, the judge has allowed their testimony.

 Thursday had marked a turning point in the trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who decided to take the witness stand in her own defense. She declared under oath for the first time that she “was tortured in a secret prison” and that her missing children are all that has been on her mind every day. Dr. Siddiqui denied ever having shot at anyone, and appeared to remain unshaken even under intense cross-examination by the prosecution.

She explained that she was shot by US soldiers while attempting to peek around the curtain partition in the interrogation room, while looking for a way to escape. Before her testimony was cut short by the Judge, Dr. Siddiqui mentioned that her fear of being sent back to a secret prison had made her anxious to escape.

Source : http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/aafia-siddiqui-trial-jury-can-start-deliberation-on-monday/986/

Defense team wants ‘Lady al Qaeda’ Aafia Siddiqui barred from taking stand

In Dr. Aafia Corner, I Hate USA on January 29, 2010 at 8:33 pm

She’s not just out of control – she’s out of her mind.

Or so lawyers for the so-called “Lady al Qaeda” claimed Tuesday as asked a judge to bar their client from taking the stand in her own defense.

Lawyers for MIT-trained scientist Aafia Siddiqui say her request to testify “is driven by her severe mental illness and would turn the trial into a spectacle.”

“It has been and continues to be our belief that Dr. Siddiqui suffers from diminished capacity,” the lawyers wrote in a letter to Manhattan Federal Richard Berman.

The bid to muzzle Siddiqui – charged with attempted murder for opening fire on Americans in Afghanistan – is a longshot since she’s already been found competent.

Since the trial began last week, she’s been tossed from the courtroom several times for outbursts – including pleas to talk to President Obama and boasts that she can broker peace with the Taliban.

The lawyer fear more of the same under oath.

“Should Dr. Siddiqui continue her irrational and bewildering insistence that she has the power to influence the Taliban, she will invite jurors to infer that she has terrorist associations,” they wrote.

Her family says they’re also worried about Siddiqui’s mental state.

“The Aafia whom we know and love is not the same rational and focused Aafia who we see in this courtroom,” said her brother, Muhammad Siddiqui.

Prosecutors aren’t buying it.

“She is clearly doing it opportunistically,” prosecutor David Rody said even before the defense made its request.
“This is not any kind of political statement. She is trying to win the trial.”

Siddiqui, meanwhile, told the judge she no longer wants to attend the trial.

“I’m going to boycott from now on,” she said as she left the courtroom. “I’m not coming here again. Bye again.”

The judge is expected to rule on whether she can testify before the defense begins presenting its case to the jury today.

Siddiqui is on trial for allegedly snatched a Special Forces officer’s rifle and opening fire on a team of Americans sent to interrogate her after she was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 with chemicals and weapons-making guides

آہیں، سسکیاں اور فیشن شوز

In Clsh of Civilizations, Hijab on January 29, 2010 at 5:18 am

فرانس کے لبرل طالبان

In Clsh of Civilizations on January 28, 2010 at 6:46 am

فرانس کے لبرل طالبان

anwer, sen, roy, bbc, urdu, london, انور سِن رائے

بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لندن

 

فرانس عورتوں کو یہ احساس دلانے میں ناکام رہا ہے کہ وہ چہرے پر نقاب ڈالے بغیر بھی محفوظ ہیں

فرانس میں ان عورتوں پر پابندی لگانے کی تجویز ہے جن کی تعداد ساڑھے چھ کروڑ کی آبادی میں صرف انیس سو ہے اور جو اپنی پسند کا لباس پہننے پر اصرار کرتی ہیں۔

پابندی لگانے والوں کو بھی ان کے سارے لباس پر نہیں صرف ان کے نقاب پر اعتراض ہے اور ان کا کہنا ہے کہ چہرہ چھپانا درست نہیں ہے۔

فرانس کی ایک پارلیمانی کمیٹی نے یہ تجویز دی ہے کہ ہسپتالوں، سکولوں اور پبلک ٹرانسپورٹ میں نقاب پر پابندی لگا دی جائے اور جو اس پابندی کی خلاف ورزی کرے اس کے لیے فرانس میں رہائش اور شہریت کا حق ختم کر دیا جائے۔

بات ان انیس سو خواتین کی نہیں ہے جو چہرہ ڈھانپنے کو اپنی بنیادی آزادی اور لباس کا حصہ ہے۔

یہ پابندی کب لگے گی اور کیسی ہو گی یہ تو الگ بات ہے لیکن یہ بات ضرور ہے کہ فرانس ان انیس سو عورتوں کو یہ احساس دلانے میں ناکام رہا ہے کہ وہ چہرے پر نقاب ڈالے بغیر بھی اتنی ہی محفوظ ہیں جتنی کے وہ نقاب ڈال کر ہو سکتی ہیں۔

مزید یہ کہ حکومت مداخلت بے جا ہےکیونکہ مداخلت وہاں ہونی چاہیے جہاں مدد مانگی جائے۔

کہا یہ جا رہا ہے کہ مرد عورتوں کو نقاب ڈالنے یا پردہ کرنے پر مجبور کرتے ہیں۔ مگر اب تک ایک بھی عورت نے یہ شکایت نہیں کی۔

ایران اور افغانستان میں جو کام اسلام کے نام پر ہوا وہ فرانس میں ثقافت کے نام پر کیا جا رہا ہے

جب افغانستان میں طالبان نے عورتوں پر پابندیاں لگائیں تو اس کے خلاف پہلی آواز خود افغان عورتوں نے اٹھائی۔ بعد میں جب افغانستان پر امریکہ نے اتحادیوں کے ساتھ مل کر حملہ کیا تو اسباب میں ایک سبب یہ بھی تھا۔

یہی صورت ایران میں ہوئی، حجاب اور چادر کے لیے حکومت کے دباؤ کے خلاف پہلا احتجاج ان عورتوں اور لڑکیوں نے ہی کیا جنہیں حجاب اور چادر پر مجبور کیا جا رہا تھا۔

اس میں سعودی عرب کا نام بھی آتا ہے۔ وہاں عورتوں نے اب تک خود پر ہونے والی مبینہ زیادتیوں کے خلاف کوئی آواز نہیں اٹھائی کہا جا سکتا ہے کہ وہاں زیادتی اس حد تک ہے کہ کوئی آواز تک نہیں اٹھاتا لیک تا حال یہ ایک مفروضہ ہی ہو گا۔

حجاب کے بعد نقاب کے معاملے پر فرانس میں ایک بار وہی صورتِ حال ہے جو افغانستان میں طالبان نے اور ایران میں آیت اللہ خمینی کے پیروکاروں نے پیدا کی۔

میری سمجھ میں یہ نہیں آتا کہ نقاب اتروانے کے لیے ریاستی طاقت کا استعمال کرنے والوں کو برقعہ، چادر اور حجاب پہنانے کے لیے طاقت استعمال کرنے والوں سے الگ کیسے کیا جائے۔ وہ اگر اسلام کے نام پر کچھ کرتے ہیں تو یہ ثقافت کے نام پر کر رہے ہیں۔ وہ اگر اسلامی شدت پسند ہیں تو یہ لبرل شدت پسند۔

ظاہر ہے ہم اس پر کچھ نہیں کر سکتے لیکن فرانس کے زوال اور انفرادی آزادی کی موت پر گریہ تو کر ہی سکتے ہیں۔

Witnesses’ accounts differ at Dr. Aafia’s trial

In Dr. Aafia Corner, I Hate USA on January 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm

By Alvis Matt

The second day of Aafia Siddiqui’s trial on attempted murder charge was marked by conflicting versions given by government witnesses of the 2008 incident in Afghanistan, with an FBI expert saying on Wednesday he found no fingerprints on the rifle that she allegedly used to fire at US interrogators there.

T. J. Fife, the FBI fingerprint expert who was put on the stand by the prosecution on the second day of Ms. Siddiqui’s trial, said he used all techniques, including the top-of-the-line laser technology to search for evidence, but found nothing on the M-4 rifle, which was produced in the court.

“There were no fingerprints on the rifle, but it is difficult to obtain them from firearms,” he added.
Fife was the last of the five prosecution witnesses who testified on Wednesday. He will be cross-examined by defence lawyers on Thursday.

Throughout Wednesday’s proceedings, the lawyers for the prosecution and defence worked to focus the jurors’ attention on their stands concerning the July 18, 2008, incident in Ghazni, Afghanistan.

In his opening statement on Tuesday, Charles Swift, the defence lawyer, had said Ms. Siddiqui didn’t fire any weapon that day. Authorities were never able to find any gunpowder residue on Ms. Siddiqui or any ballistics evidence showing the rifle had been fired or that she had used it, Swift said.

The prosecution brought in the FBI fingerprint expert in an obvious attempt to take the edge off Swift’s statement because the government witness said that firearms usually do not record the impressions. The reason he gave was that firearms have rough surface that do not retain fingerprints, with heat, humidity and sweat also contributing to erasing them.

Meanwhile, a former Afghani interpreter with US Special Forces on Wednesday appeared to contradict the version of the Ghazni shooting incident given by a US Army captain on Tuesday about the position of Ms. Siddiqui while allegedly aiming the rifle. While interpreter Ahmad Gul told the court that the Pakistani neuroscientist was standing with the gun in her hand, Capt. Robert Snyder had said that she was in kneeling position.

Gul, who now holds a Green Card, lives in the United States. Responding to Defence lawyer Linda Moreno’s question, he said that the U.S. government had sponsored him in October 2008 and he got the permanent resident status in 2009. He said he was paid all expences here until he got a job in a clothing store.

Gul also had trouble in remembering what he had said in a report to the FBI five days after the incident. He had then stated that his chief warrant officer looked behind a curtain of the room in a police station where Ms. Siddiqui was supposed to be sitting. Responding to the defence attorney’s queries, Gul said his boss never look behind the curtain. Ms. Moreno then handed him the report he had signed, to which he said it was wrong.
The interpreter said he managed to disarm Ms. Siddiqui, after she was shot in the abdomen.

The neuroscientist is alleged to have grabbed the rifle after the Special Forces officer left the weapon within her reach, according to the prosecution.

The same officer used his 9mm pistol to shoot Siddiqui after she fired two shots, prosecutors said. NO one hit in the room, but Ms. Siddiqui was wounded in the abdomen.

Shortly after the Americans gathered in the room to interview Ms. Siddiqui, Gul said Capt. Snyder’s shouted: “She’s got the gun!”

 

Gul, claiming to be standing just three feet from Ms. Sidduqi, said he lunged at her and started wrestling for the weapon. Ms. Siddiqui fired one shot before he reached the rifle, and a second after he pushed her into a wall.

Earlier, FBI agent John Jefferson, under questioning from Ms. Moreno, the defence lawyer, said he never saw Ms. Siddiqui firing the weapon even though he was in the room. He said he thought that the shots were coming from the window.

Agent Jefferson testified that he heard an M-4 rifle — which he said is distinguished when fired because of its loud pops — fired in the room, followed by two shots of lower volume.

But on cross-examination, Ms. Moreno suggested, Jefferson’s hearing might have been impaired because he was wearing a communication device.

“But you had some devices in your ear?” Ms. Moreno asked.

“Yes,” Jefferson said.

“And they remained in your ear while you were in the room?” she said.

“Correct,” he said.

The trial of Ms. Siddiqui is taking place under heavier-than-usual security. On Wednesday, a metal detector was put in place outside the 21st-floor courtroom, in addition to the ones already on the ground floor. But Judge Berman told the court not to draw any “adverse inferences” from it.

Before the start of the trial, Ms. Siddiqui, who was wearing a white scarf, told the presiding Judge, Richard Berman, that her articles in some magazines were being distorted. While nothing positive she wrote about America was ever picked up, some of her observations were taken out of to give a negative impression of her. Indeed, she is being projected as terrorist even though she has not been accused of terrorism.

Ms. Siddiqui, who was removed from the court on Tuesday after she interrupted the proceedings, agreed not to do so again. “I’m just going to be quiet, but it doesn’t mean I agree,” she said.

Ms. Siddiqui, who on Tuesday had called a witness a liar and denied that she was a terrorist, then rested her head on a table and kept it there for much of the morning’s proceedings.

Judge Berman also told jurors that the evidence presented by the government should not be taken as a proof of Ms. Siddiqui’s alleged crime. He also told them to weigh what the prosecution witnesses say about Ms. Siddiqui while quoting Afghan officials

My children were tortured : Dr Aafia

By Alvis Matt

Posted on 20 Jan 2010 at 2:52am GMT

Pakistani citizen Aafia Siddiqui has told jurors at her trial that she was held in a secret prison in Afghanistan, her children were tortured, and the case against her is a sham.

On Tuesday, Siddiqui was thrown out of the New York courtroom where her trail is being held after shouting the remarks at the jurors.

The MIT-educated neuroscientist is currently on trial, facing charges of trying to kill US soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan in 2008 and connections with Al-Qaeda operatives.

She was ejected from her federal court trial after her second outburst, Bloomberg reported.

“Since I’ll never get a chance to speak,” she said in the courtroom. “If you were in a secret prison, or your children were tortured…”

She insisted that she knew nothing about a plan to carry out terrorist attacks on targets in New York, The New York Daily News reported.

“Give me a little credit, this is not a list of targets of New York,” she said. “I was never planning to bomb it. You’re lying.”

Siddiqui vanished in Karachi, Pakistan with her three children on March 30, 2003. The next day it was reported in local newspapers that she had been taken into custody on terrorism charges.

US officials allege Aafia Siddiqui was seized on July 17, 2008 by Afghan security forces in Ghazni province and claim that documents, including formulas for explosives and chemical weapons, were found in her handbag.

They say that while she was being interrogated, she grabbed a US warrant officer’s M-4 rifle and fired two shots at FBI agents and military personnel but missed and that the warrant officer then fired back, hitting her in the torso.

She was brought to the United States to face charges of attempted murder and assault. Siddiqui faces 20 years in prison if convicted.

However, human rights organizations have cast doubt on the accuracy of the US account of the event.

Many political activists believe she was Prisoner 650 of the US detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan, where they say she was tortured for five years until one day US authorities announced that they had found her in Afghanistan.

Pakistani TV Anchors Dancing at US Embassy

In pakistan on January 25, 2010 at 9:17 am

By Omar Javed – Critic Magazine

To whom their loyalties belong? … visiting an occasion at US Embassy is one thing, partying and dancing their is another. If thats happening then we definitely need an alternative media, whose news and opinions are trust worthy for the people of Pakistan … It is ironic that so many people blindly believe in what ever is shown on television, despite realizing that we have such blood sucking bigots within our ranks …  

Check the following link for more pics:
After having a blow from these pics, now get a feeling why Saima Mohsin (the lady on the left in the pic) is taking too much side of Western Media in the following video

Helpless – Dr. Aafia

In Dr. Aafia Corner, I Hate USA, pakistan on January 24, 2010 at 9:04 am

QUAID-E-AZAM and HOLY QURAN

In Pakistan's Ideology on January 22, 2010 at 6:29 am

By _ Ahmad Subhani

The Quaid  once said that he was not a religious scholar, hence no authority on religious matters; yet views expressed by him on various occasions amply demonstrate, that he had deep in sight into Quranic concepts and teachings. Those who know him closely would vouchsafe that he was a perfectionist to the core and that he would never entertain any claim unless he was convinced of its legitimacy. Reproduced below are excerpts from his speeches to prove this point. This will also dispel the frivolous charge made by certain religious “heavy weights” who allege that since Jinnah was the product of western system of education, he was bereft of the true knowledge of Islam and its teachings:–

“I am not a ‘moulvi” nor do I claim to be an expert in theology. However, I have tried, at my own, to understand Quran and the Islamic laws. In the teachings of this great book there is guidance for each and every aspect of human life, may be it is spiritual, social, political or economical all have been covered by it”

(Address at the Usmania University, Hyderabad, India-1941).  “People criticize me alleging that I am not well acquainted with Islam. I. have studied Quran thoroughly and many a time. And when I declared that Islamic system would be established in Pakistan, It was not a mere slogan” (Tolu-e Islam-February,1959).

“You have requested me for giving you a message .What message can I give? For guidance and light, we all are blessed with Quran’s loftiest message” (Frontier Muslim Students Conference—April, 1943).

During struggle for Pakistan when Muslims were facing great hardships and victimization at the hands of Hindus and their allies ,Quaid comforted them saying that ultimate success would be theirs if they only sought guidance from the Quran:–“ At present, a battle is going on between the Muslims and the Hindus in the political arena. People ask me as to who is going to be the winner?  Only God knows about it. However, as a Muslim I can assure that if we treat the Holy Quran as our final and absolute guide and persevere not forgetting at the same time God’s command that all Muslims are brothers to one another, no earthly power or even their combine, can defeat us” ( Address at a  meeting in Hyderabad ,Deccan—July,1946). “ We have been the victim of a deeply laid and well-planned conspiracy…..We thank Providence for giving us courage and faith to fight these forces of evil. If we take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Quran, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours.”(Speech at a rally at the University Stadium,Lahore-October,1947).

According to the great Quaid, Holy Quran is the “sheet anchor of Islam and fundamental code of life for Muslims “What is it that keeps the Muslims united, and what is bedrock and sheet anchor of the community. It is Islam. It is the great book Quran that is the sheet anchor of Muslim India.” (Speech at ALL India Muslim League Session, Karachi-26-12-1943). “Every Musalman knows that the injunctions of the Quran, are not confined to religious and moral duties. From the Atlantic to the Ganges, Quran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence, and the laws which regulate the actions of mankind are governed by the immutable sanctions of the Will of God. Everyone except those who are ignorant knows that Quran is the general code of Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial criminal penal code, it regulates everything…. .And our Prophet has enjoined on us, that every Musalman should possess a copy of the Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collectively and individually.” ( Eid Message to the Nation—September,1945).

Elaborating the role of the Quran and the Islamic State, the Quaid, in his address to the students of the Usmania University, Deccan in August, 1941, said,” In Islam ultimate obedience belongs to God alone.The only way to follow His guidance is through the Holy Quran. Islam does not preach obedience to a king, parliament, person or any institution. The Islamic Government means rule of the Quran. And how can you establish the rule of Quran without an independent state? In this state, legislation will take place within the boundaries drawn by the Quran”.

This scribe has yet to come across a better description of the role and function of the Quran and an Islamic State than the one given above by the great Quaid.

Source : http://pakistandesk.com/?p=3506&cpage=1#comment-31151

Pakistan: Envisioned as Islamic State

In Pakistan's Ideology on January 21, 2010 at 11:25 am

By – Ahmad Subhani

Source : http://pakistandesk.com/?p=3701 Read the rest of this entry »