I perceive shariah as a dangerous term only because who invented this term also opined that doors of Ijtehad are closed forever. Rigid and medieval political system of islam will creat horrible scenario in modern time. As you suggest that in modern times Shariah is open to Ijtehad and i totally agree with this so in quintessence i don't see any difference of opinion between you and I

Man oh man

Your comments on my post reminds me of this funny English competition from old PTV drama Choti Si Dunya, with you and your ilk being Janu German and his followers. Everyone must watch it, funny as hell.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A7KLa_VP5I

DailyMotion Link:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x33svmo

BTW, I did say that the long part was meant for other people, not you.


Your paper doesn't have any citation or reference for the said comment about Quaid-e-Azam. Can't you see that? It might as well have come from the Dawn report you quoted!

But any way, I don't have more time for you; the case has been busted open in front of everyone about this fictitious quote attributed to Quaid-e-Azam, unless some new credible information negating it surfaces.

Altough one forum member texted me that he will soon provide me textbook reference of that quote but i don't think that it will be of some use since you already rejected two references on flimsy grounds.

There is no treatment for scepticism and arguing instead of sceptic is like bhains k aagy been bajana

Flimsy grounds you say? Man you have no idea what you're talking about. I hope one day you wake up from your deep slumber of ignorance.

'Two nation theory' refers to the need of distinct country based on the failure of coexistance of two "nations" involving their religion, culture, philosophy particularly "political systems" as both the nations had developed to a stage to have a constitutional system, both had vary interpretations to politics and governance that could have been an obstacle in the formation of a constitution. It was the case of two nations in which both had own interests based on their significant political powers. Now the question "why such a theory didn't emerge in past history when there was muslim rule?" during Muslim rule the case was not alike if regarded the political establishment of Hindus against Muslims. Muslims had dominancy so they could have a system based on their own interests but later on both were in power equally. Factually If Hindus were in power and dominant over Muslims as were the later before then definitely there wouldn't have emerged any "Two Nation Theory" because of unequal political stands. (as currently there are many Muslims living in India and also in other non-muslims countries but they can't question the system as they are not making any distinction with all the regards which also is questioned above that why doesn't tnt is applied on people living in europe etc).
Secondly partition of Bangladesh can be posed for the failure of Muslim Unity but it had nothing to do with Two Nation Theory. We can call it a partition based on class or ethnical difference due to political problems or injustice or whatever one wants but not failure of two nation theory as Bangladesh still remains an independant state. No doubt historians have cherished the idea of two nation theory with artifical words drawing it very unlike to its actual definition.

__________________
I desire not to make any further mistake in my life and make it once again.