Originally Posted by Monk

Still i would like to dig deeper into contextual interpretation of that speech because its hard to digest 😅. How come a person with modern liberal outlook strives for a country and when he achieves his goal then handover it to Unscrupulous Mullahs in platter ?

For the sake of argument if we admit that he really meant what he Said in that Shariah speech even then his numerous speeches in favour of islamic welfare state (which obviously is devoid of Shariah) outweigh a single speech.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Haha I get your drift! But I think it would be an injustice to assume that all Mullahs are unscrupulous! Secondly, don't interpret these words of Mr. Jinnah in a unidimensional view. A Sharia-oriented constitution may not have to entail a theocracy! Though this debate can be stretched to great lengths, but I think Sharia shouldn't necessarily imply a rule by Mullahs for the Mullahs!

As far as the matter of usage of this particular word—or other similar words—being scanty in his speeches is concerned; I think if you compile all of his important speeches, you won't be able to comment with any certainty whether it's a liberal or a conservative who is uttering the words. Lastly, the whole confusion about Quaid ka Pakistan is because his words have never pointed towards any definite position—they have always been open to interpretations. Ultimately, both of us are going to end up interpreting Mr. Jinnah as our minds like to

Originally Posted by Monk

Sure you can! When you request for something then you don't use offensive words.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1121773

Originally Posted by Xing Lee

You copied the first few paragraphs of this article without giving any credit like it was your own writing. Plagiarism much?.

Originally Posted by Xing Lee

But an article published on Jul 26, 2014 in a publication with a known bent for secularism in Pakistan is not a credible source for this quote. A credible source would be a credible history book where this quote originally appears. Or a historical news piece when this news was actually published in the late 1940s or something similar..

Originally Posted by Monk

It was a famous article everybody knew that it was copy paste except you

Originally Posted by Xing Lee

these general ideas from the Library of University of North Carolina for establishing credibility of a scholarly work

Originally Posted by Xing Lee

Civil service deserves people who can expose plagiarists like you who attribute unsubstantiated quotes to Quaid-e-Azam .

Originally Posted by Monk

First, you do admit that these are"general ideas" so it means there is no universal principle to establish credibility.

Second, whatever vague guidelines you have provided are just for " Scholarly work" as you mentioned

Originally Posted by Xing Lee

The kind of quote you attributed to Quaid-e-Azam, in fact any quote attributed to Quad-e-Azam, demands scholarly credibility. If you think a publication known for trying to spread secularism in the country through their work publishes a previously unknown quote from Jinnah which appears to favor their own position on the matter without giving any source at all, forget credible, is worthy of being quoted in a civilized world then all I can say is that may God save the world from you and your ilk.





This is whats called kisi ko truck ki batti ke pechai lagana.



You quoted him, so the onus of getting a reference for this quote from him is on you, not me.



For other people, I bust open the fictitious quote attributed to Quaid-e-Azam: Lets see if his quotes holds true for generally accepted criteria of authentic writings:



1. Does the text generally agree with other sources for the same information?



Not at all, in fact there is no mention of this quote anywhere else on the planet. Most probably because it originated in the author's mind.



2. Is there documentation or evidence presented for the information provided? Look for in-text references and citations or a bibliography at the end of the article, chapter, or book.



No, None what so ever was provided anywhere.



3. Does the text contain basic information that contradicts generally accepted information found in many of your other sources?



Hell yeah! "Pakistan ka matlab kya" slogan was THE slogan of the Pakistan movement everywhere in India. It makes no sense for Quaid-e-Azam to insult & distance himself from his workers by saying something like what was quoted.



4. When was the book published? Could the time period in which it was written introduce bias?



Jul 26, 2014. And yes, this time period seems to be the high tide of trying to turn Pakistan into a secular country by a group of people who mostly write for English news papers.



5. Who is the author? Does he or she have strong ties with any organizations or corporations? Is the author an active political figure?



Oh yes, the author is an unknown journalist based in the US who writes for a publication called Dawn which is the one of the forts of the aforementioned people who want to turn the country into a bastion of secularism.



6. Who published the book? A university, publishing company, corporation, or another organization?



Dawn news, which has a long and sordid history of peddling secular agenda in the country.



7. Are politics involved? If the book was published by an organization, look carefully for political affiliations, leanings, or any specific agenda it might have.



Hell yes politics is involved. These people concoct news without references to make it look like they are the soldiers of Jinnah working for his beliefs to fool the people who love Jinnah(whole country) into following them.



8. What do the author and publisher have to gain from convincing readers their opinion is right?



Has been answered above.



9. Is the author an expert in this field? What else has he or she written?



Hell no! The author seems to be garden variety Dawn journalist working for his secular masters so they can implant the seed of liberal fascism in the country. His other works include a passionate defense of gay relationships in Pakistan, denigrating the core concepts of Islam, promoting & glorifying promiscuity and alcohol drinking, glorifying a secular politician Bhutto and denigrating a polar opposite Zia etc. etc. All agendas high on the secular mafia's wish list.



http://www.dawn.com/news/707618/when...prime-minister

http://www.dawn.com/news/717776/when...an-act-of-love

http://www.dawn.com/news/723333/musl...en-nor-exposed

http://www.dawn.com/news/719644/flig...of-nothingness



9. Where is the author employed? Is the author associated with a group or organization that may stand to benefit from the research? For instance, a scientific study about pain relievers may be less credible if the primary investigator works for Bayer, a major manufacturer of aspirin.



Oh yes, read the above for starters!



10. Is the publisher well known?



Its well known for promoting secularism that's for sure.



11. Does the author or publisher stand to benefit from the research or argument presented in the publication? If so, this may indicate bias.



Hell yeah! They get to have their political & social objectives met.



Conclusion: By all known and accepted standards of authenticating the veracity of information in the civilized world, the quote attributed to Quiad-e-Azam by Monk by the way of plagiarism, and Dawn reporter Anwar Iqbal, most probably by the way of a compulsion to serve his own political and social interests, has been proven to be wrong. If anyone has any other credible source for this info he must come forward, otherwise, the fate of this blatant attempt at changing history for political point scoring has been sealed.



http://www2.lib.unc.edu/instruct/eva...?section=books



Also, everyone writing about the failure of two nation theory need to hold their horses and read the Sachar Commission Report from Indian to understand how Muslims are treated there and how valid the two nation theory has proven to be. I'll give just one example from the report:



"Muslim community has a representation of only 3% in the Indian Administrative Services, 1.8% in the Indian Foreign Service and 4.5% in Indian Railways. Almost all (98.7%) of them are positioned at lower levels." All this despite being 10% of Indian population, almost equal to Pakistan, 172 million.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee



http://ncm.nic.in/pdf/compilation.pdf



http://www.minorityaffairs.gov.in/sachar



Also, Bangaldesh rejected India to become a Muslim majority state thereby renewing the two nation theory again instead of destroying it.

Originally Posted by Monk

Lol, Interesting! Shariah for me is dangerous word because we don't find this in Quran and Sunnah .it's the product of islamic jurisprudence. Now, inventors of this word outlined very rigid political system which i am afraid Quaid would've implemented or even thought of implementing that

As a matter of fact i did compile the speeches of Jinnah in which he wanted to incorporate islamic injunctions in constitution which is totally fine. Quaid being admirer of Iqbal wanted to implement Iqbal's version of islam which iqbal put together in his famous work "reconstruction of religious thought in Islam". I am sure that you know that Iqbal's philosophy runs contrary to Shariah.