AOA Members
So that was expected. I was knowing that, just after giving only ONE reference, clearling Mr. Jinnah's position on his wrongly interpreted speech, secular-lovers would come up with some new arguments. Imagine if i would have provided you guys with more than 100 of his statements???? (Yes...when i say 100, i really mean it).

@Shahzaib Abbasi
I must salute you about your solid reasoning and confined way of arguments. hats off.

@Sheeraz S
you wrote:
"What about America as a Christian State, Japan as Buddist State, India as a Hindu State and so on?? Islamic State is really a mirage which we are chasing since our inception. Instead of leading to a pluralistic state, it descended us into chaos and splinterism."

You praised those states. May i know how many times you have been to those countries/states. If so, may i know your fair and impartial analysis of their society and culture?.
Iqbal once explained this to make people like you to understand;

Yourap Mein Bohat Roshani-e-Ilm-o-Hunar Hai
Haq Ye Hai Ke Be-Chashma’ay Haiwan Hai Ye Zulmat

Raanayi-e-Tameer Mein, Ronaq Mein, Safa Mein
Girjon Se Kahin Barh Ke Hain Bankon Ki Amarat

Zahir Mein Tajarat Hai, Haqiqat Mein Juwa Hai
Sood Aik Ka Lakhon Ke Liye Marg-e-Mafajat

Ye Ilm, Ye Hikmat, Ye Tadabur, Ye Hukumat
Peete Hain Lahoo, Dete Hain Taleem-e-Masawat

Bekari-o-Uryani-o-Maikhawari-o-Iflaas
Kya Kaam Hain Farangi Madniyat Ke Fatuhaat

Woh Qoum Ke Faizan-e-Samawi Se Ho Mehroom
Had Uss Ke Kamalaat Ki Hai Barq-o-Bukharaat

I dont think i can say anything other than this masterpiece of Iqbal (RA).

My saying "destroying your weak arguments" meant exactly what it said and it had no connotations of destroying anything else! But you had to use the material you've read from Mr. Mobarik's manhoos books, because that all you know!

I never said you meant that the Golden age was due to these free thinkers, why i even said that I didn't consider it a Golden age. The people that you worship and call great were secular scum and they had no bearing on the Golden age...that is my whole point.

Muslim...as I have already explained are not those who are named in arabic... or were born in a Muslim household. They are those who obey Allah S.W.T and his messenger S.A.W.

Hazrat Abu Bakr R.A waged war against those who had apostatized form Islam by rejecting to pay the Zakat or those who claimed to be false Prophets or followed false Prophets/prophetesses. This is a matter of clear history. No doubts in it.

Hazrat Ali R.A and Hazrat Bibi Aisha R.A did not intend to fight each other the fights were instigated by the Khwarijs.

You clearly have been reading a lot of anti-Islam propaganda... and have turned away from the right path.

Just to straighten your facts, Ridda/Apostasy war was declared against those who refused to take allegiance to Abu Bakar. In my view, if God made him first caliph then refusal could tantamount to apostasy; however, he himself declared first caliph, how come refuse to accept his personal despotic choice makes one "apostate"?? And as far as your point about rejection of Zakat, then against straighten your fact, how come those Muslims who refused to take oath of allegiance to Abu Bakar would pay Zakat to his authority?? Mind you, they didn't refuse Zakat itself; instead they didn't want to pay Zakat to that authority to which they were not obliged to...

Whether Aisha-Ali conflict was instigated by Khwarijis or the present day Zionists or Jews, that's not my concern... But don't be in denial and admit that your GOLDEN AGE of so called Khulafa rasheeden was full of massive human bloodshed... And that is it... You are like victim of Tehzeebi Nargisiyaat (civilizational narcissist) who will always blame others like jews/zionist/america/isreal for all your ills... that's really a defeatist mentality, my friend!!!

You were actually distorting facts here.

The Ridda wars were declared against false Prophets (I am sure you know about letter of Musleima to Prophet (P.B.U.H) in his life and how he knew about Tulaiha (also named as Talha by few historians) but he (P.B.U.H) ignored him) as well as people who had refused to pay zakat (Abs and Dhobian offered to remain Muslims if the tax were abolished). Though a few historians(like Hitti) believe that owing to lack of means of communication, it was only the chieftains who used to come to Medina and pay homage. So it was not always the people who had actually embraced Islam, but their chieftains. So no matter whether you agree to zakat part, one thing is certain one cannot deny the fact that the wars were declared against false Prophets.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

I think Ridda/Apostasy wars require more critical inquiry even if it is distasteful to Muslims - specially the Sunni branch. My bottom line: Companions of Prophet should NOT be equated to Prophet's legend and glorious personality who himself didn't sanction any death penalty for apostates. Muhammad was a paragon of peace and elegance and a model of compassion; however, Islam and her universal values were buried the day Prophet was dead.

Nothing bad in pouring out opinions.

I just tried to get your facts straighten about history part.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"Critical Inquiry"... go ahead...who is stopping you from it?

But provide us with tangible evidence i.e. Abu Bakr R.A declaring war against those who didn't pay him their bayah. We can't just take YOUR word for it.

Bhai you are changing the words of Jinnah and quoting out of context to create a wrong impression. .

You said that speaking on the occasion of the Holy Prophet's birthday at the Karachi Bar Association on 25th January 1948, Jinnah made the following statement, “I could not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create mischief and propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat”.
But the exact wording of Jinnah was “I could not understand the section of people who kept on impressing upon everybody that the future constitution of Pakistan should be based on Shariat”. (Go for the reference books or just google it).

From the wording you used, It seems that Jinnah was addressing to “secular-lovers” who were of the view that the constitution of Pakistan would not (or should not) be made on the basis of Shariat.

But the exact wording of Jinnah clearly shows that the mischievous people he was referring to were the Islamists and theodemocrats of that time who were once against Muslim League and Jinnah and demand of Pakistan, and after they came to Pakistan defeated and frustrated, they started the propaganda that constitution of Pakistan was going to be against Shariat (because this constitution was not going to make any discrimination among the citizens of Pakistan on the basis of religion).

In the same address of 25 January, Jinnah further added , ” Why this feeling of nervousness (who were nervous) that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws ?……Islamic principles today are are as much applicable as they were 1300 years ago……Islam and its idealism have taught Equality, Justice and Fairplay to EVERYBODY.”

Now please compare the above statement with another statement in which Jinnah used the same wording as he used in 25th January address, and presented his views more clearly.

“The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..In any case Pakistan is NOT going to be a theocratic State – to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims – Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are ALL Pakistanis. They will enjoy the SAME rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.” [ Jinnah, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]

And finally, I have a question. Let us assume for the time being that it is controversial that whether Jinnah was Islamist or secular, but do not you think that, at least, it is unambiguous that Jinnah was an absolute democrat believing in democracy? In fact, Jinnah held the view that Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. My question is does Islam really endorse democracy? Being more precise, I want to ask that do Islamists believe in democracy? If they believe then don't they know that according to our constitution, you can enact any law by a simple majority in national assembly and you can even amend the constitution with two third majority? So if they want to impose any Shariat law, for example one related to Hijaab, why don't they go for democratic struggle, mobilize people, get vote, and make laws of their choice? Why the movement for imposition of Shariat law is always an armed struggle, as we recently saw in Swat??

I repeat my question: "does Islam and Islamists endorse democracy?"

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

I have never been a fan of coupling Islam with democracy all the time, just because someone told us that democracy was an ideal system. Still, it is only compatible with Islam to an extent where it does not violate Allah's commandments. So according to your constitution, you cannot enact a law that is in conflict with revealed sources. Secondly, why do people have to look at TTP and Taliban always when someone talks about implementation of Shariah? I mean they are ones who are following certain ideologues and their writings. If they call it Islam or Shariah and we think that really is Shariah then its nothing but our willful ignorance.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Careful now..

__________________
I shall either find a way,or make one
'Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa'