my first question -- why religion was induced in politics and Quaid demanded it on the bases of two nation theory .but when pakistan was founded then it has been declared u will remin as a free citizen reggardless of religion and pakistan is not a theocratic state ..unfortunately pvs post discussion gas no satisfactory answers and strian2 brother has only posted quotes of Quaid i azam .. why do not you have psoted quotes of molaana abu azad kalam .. please you should have quoted them in order to have clear picture .as each picture has twoo sides and u again and again posting the quotes of quaid.. i invite you to have discussion relative to Quaid as well as mollana abu azad kalam..this will present a clear picture why pakistan has created ..if it was Quaid divine mission then why this divine mission collapsed after its creation when he orderd as you are free and pakistan is not thecratic state and his own life is evident what his divine was..you people have said about disowing of Quaid`s daughter but i have explained it it was the only the polity of quaid and nothing else ..where in pvs post it has been ansd .. refer it to me..

quaid and his some follwers prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. . Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? . . The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India.





The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.

This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"