Jinnah Defended the Case of Killer of a Blasphemer

[insaftak]

The 1920’s in India witnessed the publishing of an inflammatory book vilifying Prophet Muhammad (SAW) thereby adding fuel to the existing Muslim/Hindu tensions. The British Raj ruled India and the creation of Pakistan was still a distant dream in the hearts of the Indian Muslims. The Muslim population was understandably incensed and mass protests were held. Prashaad Prataab had authored Rangeela Rasool (The Colourful Prophet), under the pen name of Pandit Chamupati Lal. The word rangeela means ‘colourful’ but can be understood in this context to mean ‘playboy’. [Nauzbillah]

Rajpal was a Hindu book publisher from Lahore. He took the responsibility of publishing the book in 1923 and pledged not to disclose the author’s real name. Pressure from the Muslim community resulted in the matter being taken to Session court Lahore which found Raj Pal guilty and sentenced him. Subsequently Rajpal appealed against the decision of Session Court in the Lahore High court. The appeal was heard by Judge Daleep Singh who gave leave to appeal on the grounds that on the basis of criticism against the religious leaders, no matter how immoral it is, is not covered by S.153 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus Rajpal could not be sentenced as law did not cover blasphemous criticism against religion. The High Court decision was widely criticised and protests were made against it by Muslims of India. Little did anyone suspect that one young man’s course of action would bring about a significant change in the Law, ensuring that Islam would be covered by blasphemy laws.

Ilm Din was an illiterate teenager from Lahore. His father was a carpenter. One day he was passing near Masjid (mosque) Wazir Khan. There was a huge crowd shouting slogans against Rajpal. The speaker thundered: "Oh Muslims! The devil Rajpal has sought to dishonour our beloved Prophet Muhammed (S.A.W) by his ****** book!”

Ilm Din was deeply affected by this passionate speech and vowed to take action. On 6th September 1929 Ilm Deen set out for the bazaar and purchased a dagger for one rupee. He hid the dagger in his pants and waited opposite Rajpal’s Shop. Rajpal had not arrived yet. His flight had arrived at Lahore airport and he proceeded to phone the police in order to request them to provide him security. Ilm Deen did not know what the publisher looked like. He asked a few passer-by’s as to Rajpal’s whereabouts and said that he needed to discuss something with him. Rajpal entered the shop without detection but soon after a man alerted Ilm Din that Rajpal was inside. The young man entered the shop, lunged forward and attacked him. He stabbed his dagger into the chest of Rajpal with such force that his heart was ripped from his body. Rajpal fell dead on the ground. Ilm Deen made no attempt to escape. Rajpal’s employees grabbed him and shouted for help.

The police arrived at the scene and arrested Ilm Deen. He was kept in Mianwali jail. The case went to court and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was his defence lawyer. Jinnah fought Ghazi Ilm Deen's case on a special request from Allama Iqbal. Jinnah urged Ilm Din to enter a plea of not guilty plea and to say that he had acted due to extreme provocation. The fact that Ilm Din was only 19 years old would have also worked in his favour. Ilm Din refused to offer such a plea and insisted that he was proud of his actions. This case was the only one that Jinnah ever lost. The Session Court awarded Ilm Din the death penalty. Against his wishes, the Muslims lodged an appeal, but it was rejected.

Ilm Din's execution occurred on 31st October 1929. When asked if he had any last requests, he simply requested that he be allowed to pray two rak’at (units) nafl (voluntary) prayer, thus following the example of Khubaib (RA) who also prayed 2 rak’ats nafl before the pagan Quraish executed him.

As the noose was put around the neck of Ilm Din, he repeated before the huge crowd:
"O people! Bear witness that I killed Rajpal to defend our last Prophet Muhammed S.A.W, and today they are going to hang me. I am sacrificing my life whilst reciting the kalimah (shahadah - testimony of faith)."

The young man was killed and the authorities buried him without any Janazah (funeral) prayer being offered for him. Mass demonstrations broke out and there the tension between the Hindu and Muslim communities was palpable. The inhabitants of Lahore wanted Ilm Din’s body returned in order to give him an Islamic janaza (funeral). Two celebrated activists — Dr. Muhammed Allama Iqbal and Mian Abdul Aziz — campaigned to have the body of Ilm Din returned to Lahore for the Janaza prayer. The British were worried that this would incite unrest. Only after Allama Iqbal gave his assurance to the British that no riots would erupt, was permission given.


When the body of Ilm Din was exhumed from its grave, it was found to be the intact without any change whatsoever. The kaffan (shroud) had not changed its colour. This occurred on 14th November 1929 — a full 15 days after the hanging. After a two-day journey, the body arrived in Lahore. Muslims from the whole city and millions from adjoining areas attended his funeral. Ilmuddin's father requested Allama Muhammad Iqbal to lead the funeral prayer and this shivered Dr. Allama Iqbal who replied that I am a sinful person not competent to do this job to lead the funeral of such a matchless warrior. 200,000 Muslims attended the funeral prayer which led by the Imam of masjid Wazeer Khan, Imam Muhammed Shamsuddeen. Mawlana Zafar Ali Khan said ahead of the burial: "Alas! If only if I had managed to attain such a blessed status!"

Allama Iqbal carried the funeral bier along its final journey. As Iqbal placed the body of Ilm Din into the grave, he tearfully declared: "This uneducated young man has surpassed us, the educated ones."

The killing of Ilm Din had far-reaching repercussions. A provision was added to the Penal Code, making insult to the religious beliefs of any class an offense. Allama Iqbal’s proposal of a separate Muslim state in 1930 resulted in the creation of Pakistan in 1947. The Pakistan Penal Code makes it a crime for anyone who "by words or visible representation or by an imputation or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiled the name of the Muhammad". In 1982, President Zia ul-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code punishing "defiling the Holy Qur'an" with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet" in keeping Islam’s hudood (prescribed punishments). Ilm Din’s legacy is still visible across Pakistan, where parks, hospitals and roads carry his name.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/87158-jinnahs-only-lost-case-defending-killer-blasphemer-ghazi-ilm-deen-r-h.html

There was a post on salman Tasser assassinated thread that Jinnah would have opposed the law. So I thought I should share this. I'm not defending the brutal murder of salman Taseer here.

[Chasing Cars]

But there was no law that Jinnah was supporting here....just an action taken by someone who wanted to air his extreme anger and outrage at the situation. More than supporting anything which punishes those for speaking against Islam, I think Jinnah admired the young man for his commitment to the religion/his views.

[ganeshran]

Jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till Pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure Pakistan would be created.

When it was a united India, Jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even Hindu politicians did at that time. If Jinnah hadnt played the Islam card then, Pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once Pakistan was achieved I dont think Jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. IMO this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If Jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape Pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

PS: I dont want to start a war here on my views of Jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.

[Looney]

Jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till Pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure Pakistan would be created.

When it was a united India, Jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even Hindu politicians did at that time. If Jinnah hadnt played the Islam card then, Pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once Pakistan was achieved I dont think Jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. IMO this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If Jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape Pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

PS: I dont want to start a war here on my views of Jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.

I agree . good to see a balanced view from someone about Jinnah from the other side of the border . :malik

[Disco_Lemonade]

I guess Jinnah was just trying to win a case here? Or feared the hanging of the killer would incite Muslims even more.. you can make so many things out of this.

But atleast this article busts the myth of HinduMuslim living together in peace before partition.

This is 1920 right, and they were fighting as if its 2010. Same story.

[UmarAkmals-fan]

Jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till Pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure Pakistan would be created.

When it was a united India, Jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even Hindu politicians did at that time. If Jinnah hadnt played the Islam card then, Pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once Pakistan was achieved I dont think Jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. IMO this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If Jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape Pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

PS: I dont want to start a war here on my views of Jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.

+ 1 well explained ..totally agreed

[hussnainn]

Cannot compare Rajpal and Aasia Bibi I am sorry..

[srh]

Rajpal and Salman Taseer had nothing in common.

[wasim-fan]

Jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till Pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure Pakistan would be created.

When it was a united India, Jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even Hindu politicians did at that time. If Jinnah hadnt played the Islam card then, Pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once Pakistan was achieved I dont think Jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. IMO this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If Jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape Pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

PS: I dont want to start a war here on my views of Jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.

That is actually quite accurate. He was also not a very religious man, but a man of great vision and integrity.

[pakistani_banda]

Cannot compare Rajpal and Aasia Bibi I am sorry..

yes, there is no proof whether asia bibi actually conducted blasphemy. there is no proof at all, just allegations.

[KB]

Jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till Pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure Pakistan would be created.

When it was a united India, Jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even Hindu politicians did at that time. If Jinnah hadnt played the Islam card then, Pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once Pakistan was achieved I dont think Jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. IMO this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If Jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape Pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

PS: I dont want to start a war here on my views of Jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.

This is actually the dominant view in Pakistan. When Advani labelled Jinnah secular, there was uproar in India, but very little reaction in Pakistan.

Whilst I do not agree that Jinnah merely 'instrumentalised' Islam for tactical purposes, I have said enough about this in the past, so will not repeat here.

However, what is quite revealing is Jinnah’s statement at the All-India Muslim League Council Meeting in Karachi on December 14 and 15, 1947.

Maulana Jamal Mian had objected to the phrase ‘Pakistan, a Muslim State’ arguing that the word Muslim should be deleted.

Jinnah’s statement was, “Let it be clear that Pakistan is going to be a Muslim State based on Islamic ideals. It was [sic] not going to be an ecclesiastical State. In Islam there is no discrimination as far as citizenship is concerned.”

‘Secularists’ would of course pounce on the second part of the statement, emphasizing equal citizenship rights the argument that Pakistan is not going to be an “ecclesiastical State.” ‘Islamists’ on the other hand would stress that Jinnah objected to the word Muslim being taken out and stated that Pakistan was to be based on “Islamic ideals.”

Certainly Jinnah does not appear to be compartmentalising religion and politics, but equally he is not advocating discriminatory practice in respect of citizenship rights.

For Jinnah there was no conflict between tolerance and equal citizenship rights for minorities and Islamic principles. He was quite consistent on this throughout the Pakistan movement and after the creation of Pakistan.

‘Secularists’ and ‘Islamists’ are both selective in the evidence they cite. The contemporary debate as to the direction Pakistan should adopt rather obscures the historical record.

[s2k]

Jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till Pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure Pakistan would be created.

When it was a united India, Jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even Hindu politicians did at that time. If Jinnah hadnt played the Islam card then, Pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once Pakistan was achieved I dont think Jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. IMO this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If Jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape Pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

PS: I dont want to start a war here on my views of Jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.

I think thats pretty much what i think of Jinnah.His early death and inability of anyone to follow his path is the reason for Pakistan's problems today.Had he live long and had handed over the baton to a worthy succesor Pakistan wouldnt have had so many coups.Imagine anyone deposing Jinnah in a coup.IMPOSSIBLE i say.

[ganeshran]

This is actually the dominant view in Pakistan. When Advani labelled Jinnah secular, there was uproar in India, but very little reaction in Pakistan.


I understand you made this point to show that Pakistan didnt take offence at the use of word secular (which is apparently a sensitive issue there going by the comments of the Chief Justice who warned against secularism), but on a side note - If a Pakistani politician comes to India and says positive words about Nehru or Gandhi, there would be a similar uproar in Pakistan too

There is so much rhetoric and misrepresentation in the history textbooks of both countries that an objective view of the partition and time preceding it is only possible in western sources who had no incentive to make either side look good.

[haroonrasheed320]

jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure pakistan would be created.

When it was a united india, jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even hindu politicians did at that time. If jinnah hadnt played the islam card then, pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once pakistan was achieved i dont think jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. Imo this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

Ps: I dont want to start a war here on my views of jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.

potw

[shan]

Just to let you guys know, Jinnah defended him on request of Iqbal. He was professional doesnt mean he agreed with what Idin did.

[Hussain]

Just to let you guys know, Jinnah defended him on request of Iqbal. He was professional doesnt mean he agreed with what Idin did.

A professional lawyer also charges for his services

Quaid did not charge a dime for this case

[FastBowler]

I don't see anywhere that Jinnah did anything more than handle it as a professional case at the request of Iqbal.

[FastBowler]

Insaftak are you on defence.pk?

[taxzu]

There is nothing common in rajpal and taseer. And today there was a report on tv in which they said that when gazi ilmdin funeral was brought in lahore it was rested in the house of salman taseer's father and his father gave kandha to his funeral.
And one more fact about jinnah sahib: first time he offered namaz on the insistence of liaqat ali khan his comments were 'its good exercise'. Remember Jinnah was agha khani muslim and they dont offer namaz like sunni do.

[Qelic]

I wonder was Jinnah even Muslim .... who knows Inside ?

[DeadlyVenom]

I wonder was Jinnah even Muslim .... who knows Inside ?

Why do you think he wasnt?

[FastBowler]

I wonder was Jinnah even Muslim .... who knows Inside ?



Why are you asking such a provocative and obviously inflaming question? Are you trying to provoke people into responding angrily to this stupid query? Are you just looking to provoke people into an argument?

[cricket_fever]

i think there is a difference...

one was a non muslim blasphemer, the other was a muslim man sympathetic towards an "alleged" blasphemer

[ehjaz]

here we go again..........In true Islamic spirit, there is full protection and equal rights be it a Muslim or Non Muslim........and justice is supposedly served being neutral and impartial.............there is full protection to all the religions, sects etc... that is the idea of true Islamic state..............and we find hundreds of example from the past where there were Muslim vs Non Muslim and Non Muslim won the case based upon true Islamic justice system......the true essence of Islam but sadly forgotten by many...

[Indiafan]

I will give another pre-independence example which is slightly in contrast to the OP. Unfortunately I dont have an online link, the incident is mentioned in a book I have

Once during British rule, a father of a famous church was trying to convert a village of primarly hindus. the village was in Karnataka and they worshipped Shiva. He was preaching to a huge crowd which had gathered and General Dyers was with him

He went on a long rant about how worshipping a stone(the shivlinga which devotees of Shiva worship) is senseless and that a stone should only be used to weigh out meat and other unclean stuff. The crowd calmly listned to him without any protest though at that time there was not much police presence in the village and the preacher and Dyers were alone. At the end of it all, when the crowd dispersed, Father Antony turned to Dyers and said

"You can never convert these people. People who have so much faith in the truth and belief of their own religion that they don't turn a hair when you abuse it, can never be converted by any means. Its only the insecure and the doubtful who can be converted"

To this day, there is not a single christian in the village(though chritianity spread far and wide in India) which continues to worship Shiva peacefully

[insaftak]

I posted this thread in response to Jinnah would have never been in favor of this law. I don't really care about these laws. I only want people to focus on important issues like education, healthcare and economy.

[shan]

I will give another pre-independence example which is slightly in contrast to the OP. Unfortunately I dont have an online link, the incident is mentioned in a book I have

Once during British rule, a father of a famous church was trying to convert a village of primarly hindus. the village was in Karnataka and they worshipped Shiva. He was preaching to a huge crowd which had gathered and General Dyers was with him

He went on a long rant about how worshipping a stone(the shivlinga which devotees of Shiva worship) is senseless and that a stone should only be used to weigh out meat and other unclean stuff. The crowd calmly listned to him without any protest though at that time there was not much police presence in the village and the preacher and Dyers were alone. At the end of it all, when the crowd dispersed, Father Antony turned to Dyers and said

"You can never convert these people. People who have so much faith in the truth and belief of their own religion that they don't turn a hair when you abuse it, can never be converted by any means. Its only the insecure and the doubtful who can be converted"

To this day, there is not a single christian in the village(though chritianity spread far and wide in India) which continues to worship Shiva peacefully

Ghandi himself was killed by hindu terrorist, and Indra ghandi by Sikh extremist.

So dont comeup with pathetic baseless stories so we can see how peacefull hindus has been. One doesnt need to go back much (2001) to remember state sponsored genocide of muslims in Gujrat.

[tahir_dj]

I understand you made this point to show that Pakistan didnt take offence at the use of word secular (which is apparently a sensitive issue there going by the comments of the Chief Justice who warned against secularism), but on a side note - If a Pakistani politician comes to India and says positive words about Nehru or Gandhi, there would be a similar uproar in Pakistan too

There is so much rhetoric and misrepresentation in the history textbooks of both countries that an objective view of the partition and time preceding it is only possible in western sources who had no incentive to make either side look good.

you are getting it wrong there... our politican has been mostly prasing Gandhi there was never any uproar about it.

[Sherazkhalid]

Does any of the folks here, who are arguing about Jinnah being secular or non-secular know about "Two Nation Theory" presented by Jinnah, go read it and it should vilify all the doubts.

[Eagle_Eye]

I wonder was Jinnah even Muslim .... who knows Inside ?

Oh dear... your conspiracy theories have gone off the chart this time!! what a ridiculously stupid and insulting comment!!

May I suggest you look into why he chose to cut off ties with his daughter aside from creating one of the largest Muslim countries ever.

[ehjaz]

Does any of the folks here, who are arguing about Jinnah being secular or non-secular know about "Two Nation Theory" presented by Jinnah, go read it and it should vilify all the doubts.

Two nation theory was introduced way before Jinnah's entry to politics

[Qelic]

Oh dear... your conspiracy theories have gone off the chart this time!! what a ridiculously stupid and insulting comment!!

May I suggest you look into why he chose to cut off ties with his daughter aside from creating one of the largest Muslim countries ever.


Baby , correct ur self first , Pakistan wasnt made as ISLAMIC STATE as u are trying to sell here .

BRITISH DOMINION STATE OF PAKISTAN ( Monarchy ).... was created on 14 august 1947 ... and Guess who was its head of Govt. .... KING GEORGE and QUEEN ELIZABETH lol

[FastBowler]

He didn't say Pakistan was created as an Islamic state. But you said Jinnah was not a Muslim. Care to explain that extremely inflammatory remark?

[Qelic]

He didn't say Pakistan was created as an Islamic state. But you said Jinnah was not a Muslim. Care to explain that extremely inflammatory remark?

well wrong quotation ... I dint say He was Non Muslim ... I said " I wonder was He a Muslim ? " ... there has always been a debate among secular circles in Pakistan that Jinnah probably was Secular . So I was saying that ... Was He a dedicated Muslim or a Secular person ? that was my point ... in quick .

[wasim-fan]

Ghandi himself was killed by hindu terrorist, and Indra ghandi by Sikh extremist.

So dont comeup with pathetic baseless stories so we can see how peacefull hindus has been. One doesnt need to go back much (2001) to remember state sponsored genocide of muslims in Gujrat.

I have to say you have wonderful comprehension skills. Very few could have unearthed the true intentions of that post

[Eagle_Eye]

He didn't say Pakistan was created as an Islamic state. But you said Jinnah was not a Muslim. Care to explain that extremely inflammatory remark?

Common sense is lost on him and I am glad you got it.... Pakistan was the largest Muslim country in the world at the time of its creation! It had the largest concentration of muslims in it!

You asked a simple question and he comes back with implicit muddles!!... :facepalm:

I could say " I wonder if PJ is a persian conspirator" as arabs affectionately call people of Iranian descent. But that would be a ridiculous and stupid statement. I hope he can see some sense in what he was saying about Jinnah and then trying to defend it like a 11 year old smart ass.

[Sherazkhalid]

Two nation theory was introduced way before Jinnah's entry to politics

But did he ever went against it, no on the contrary he highlighted it, which just shows what his stand was.

[Zechariah]

Look at Allam's Iqbal's teachings and look at our nation's behavior today. A total 180 degrees.

[Eagle_Eye]

Look at Allam's Iqbal's teachings and look at our nation's behavior today. A total 180 degrees.

Do not exclude yourself from that list of people.... Everyone needs to look at what they doing and perhaps maybe we will then get somewhere!!

[Zechariah]

Do not exclude yourself from that list of people.... Everyone needs to look at what they doing and perhaps maybe we will then get somewhere!!

Hence the word our nation my friend.

We are all in this together. We as a whole are very far from the true teachings of Quran and our Prophet (PBUH).

That was my point.

[Indiafan]

Ghandi himself was killed by hindu terrorist, and Indra ghandi by Sikh extremist.

So dont comeup with pathetic baseless stories so we can see how peacefull hindus has been. One doesnt need to go back much (2001) to remember state sponsored genocide of muslims in Gujrat.

Ok

[kkmix]

Jinnah wasn't perfect was he?

[ganeshran]

you are getting it wrong there... our politican has been mostly prasing Gandhi there was never any uproar about it.

What about Nehru. If Zardari or Gilani or Nawaz Sharif come to India and say Nehru was a great personality, there would definitely be an uproar.

Point is, both Nehru and Jinnah were both great leaders, They both were instrumental in forming the nations they both envisioned. Only difference is Nehru was alive for 3 terms after independence to give shape to his vision while Jinnah unfortunately passed away before he could give a clear direction to the state.

Due to their respective popularity both of them also felt threatened by each other. Jinnah feared Nehru and Patel will sideline him in an united India. Nehru feared that Jinnah with his large Muslim support base could take up more space in the political forum and could also become the prime minister.

[Zaz]

Ghandi himself was killed by hindu terrorist, and Indra ghandi by Sikh extremist.

So dont comeup with pathetic baseless stories so we can see how peacefull hindus has been. One doesnt need to go back much (2001) to remember state sponsored genocide of muslims in Gujrat.

What are you on about??? Honestly

The point our fellow indian poster was trying to make isnt how peaceful indian or hindus are. The point is if ur faith is strong, if ur iman is powerful then nothing can alter it.

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, it advocates love bcos minds cannot be won by force. We muslims need to show the beauty of islam and murder and hate isnt it

[Chasing Cars]

I wonder was Jinnah even Muslim .... who knows Inside ?

:facepalm: Sometimes I wonder when Allah will give you akal to stop coming up with provocative, baseless statements such as the aforementioned.

[IAJ]

I wonder was Jinnah even Muslim .... who knows Inside ?

Oye tera dimagh theek eh? If I was Mod I would have banned you!

Do you even know who sent Jinnah back from UK to fight for muslims?

[s2k]

What are you on about??? Honestly

The point our fellow indian poster was trying to make isnt how peaceful indian or hindus are. The point is if ur faith is strong, if ur iman is powerful then nothing can alter it.

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, it advocates love bcos minds cannot be won by force. We muslims need to show the beauty of islam and murder and hate isnt it

Bhai uski samajh mein nahi aayega.......koshish mat karo....

[QazzarFan]

Ghandi himself was killed by hindu terrorist, and Indra ghandi by Sikh extremist.

So dont comeup with pathetic baseless stories so we can see how peacefull hindus has been. One doesnt need to go back much (2001) to remember state sponsored genocide of muslims in Gujrat.

dude it's Gandhi or Ghandi ....please come up with better insult tactic

You obviously failed to understand the context of that answer. And talking about state sponsored genocide...you should be the last person pouting....let's not forget the original master planner of state sponsored genocide in South Asia is your country's army in my country about 40 yrs ago.

[Sherazkhalid]

dude it's Gandhi or Ghandi ....please come up with better insult tactic

You obviously failed to understand the context of that answer. And talking about state sponsored genocide...you should be the last person pouting....let's not forget the original master planner of state sponsored genocide in South Asia is your country's army in my country about 40 yrs ago.

And what about the genocide that was done by the civilians on civilians after that.

[ahsan88]

http://pakteahouse.net/2010/11/30/view-the-ilam-din-fiasco-and-lies-about-jinnah/

The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah
—Yasser Latif Hamdani

Courtesy Daily Times

In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.
To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

[Maula Jutt]

well wrong quotation ... I dint say He was Non Muslim ... I said " I wonder was He a Muslim ? " ... there has always been a debate among secular circles in Pakistan that Jinnah probably was Secular . So I was saying that ... Was He a dedicated Muslim or a Secular person ? that was my point ... in quick .

You make 'muslim' and 'secular' mutually exclusive. That's probably your belief. Well, newsflash for you. There is a whole big world out there who doesn't share your belief and many of them are muslims themselves.

[Maula Jutt]

http://pakteahouse.net/2010/11/30/view-the-ilam-din-fiasco-and-lies-about-jinnah/

The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah
—Yasser Latif Hamdani

Courtesy Daily Times

In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.
To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com



Yasser Hamdani is a master scholar on Jinnah. I am a regular reader and a huge fan of his.

[ganeshran]

well wrong quotation ... I dint say He was Non Muslim ... I said " I wonder was He a Muslim ? " ... there has always been a debate among secular circles in Pakistan that Jinnah probably was Secular . So I was saying that ... Was He a dedicated Muslim or a Secular person ? that was my point ... in quick .

I dont get your point. You imply that a dedicated muslim cannot be secular. Being secular isnt believing in multiple religions/gods, rather it is being tolerant of other religions other than your own even if you dont share the same faith as them.

[Qelic]

You make 'muslim' and 'secular' mutually exclusive. That's probably your belief. Well, newsflash for you. There is a whole big world out there who doesn't share your belief and many of them are muslims themselves.

I dont get your point. You imply that a dedicated muslim cannot be secular. Being secular isnt believing in multiple religions/gods, rather it is being tolerant of other religions other than your own even if you dont share the same faith as them.


separate topic posted !

discuss there .

[Qelic]

Oye tera dimagh theek eh? If I was Mod I would have banned you!

Do you even know who sent Jinnah back from UK to fight for muslims?


Online aggression is like throwing threats at people on mars ... this oye and abay .... LOL .... baby time to grow up !


:facepalm: Sometimes I wonder when Allah will give you akal to stop coming up with provocative, baseless statements such as the aforementioned.

hmmmm .... so all those scholars , historians , political commentators are akal less according to you who regard jinnah as Secular minded instead of believing in Socio - Political Islam ?

anyways I have posted a separate thread . Discuss it there !

[Tapori]

Young Lawyer defends client; shock horror.

Way to judge a Man's political philosophy based entirely on one case; Lets ignore his senate speeches etc.

[shan]

dude it's Gandhi or Ghandi ....please come up with better insult tactic

You obviously failed to understand the context of that answer. And talking about state sponsored genocide...you should be the last person pouting....let's not forget the original master planner of state sponsored genocide in South Asia is your country's army in my country about 40 yrs ago.

You mean another baseless claim like Pak army killed 3 million of your country men? Do you guys even uderstand how huge 3 million is?

But you cant do anything if country full of traitors joins enemy army, the same enemy who later on have showed his true colors dealing with your country.

[shan]

I dont get your point. You imply that a dedicated muslim cannot be secular. Being secular isnt believing in multiple religions/gods, rather it is being tolerant of other religions other than your own even if you dont share the same faith as them.

1+,

I know must of Pakistani thinks secular=atheist. Its nice to see Indians are not far behind.

[ganeshran]

You mean another baseless claim like Pak army killed 3 million of your country men? Do you guys even undertand how huge 3 million is?

But you cant do anything if country full of traitors joins enemy army, the same enemy who later on have showed his true colors dealing with your country.

Though Bangladesh - India relations havent always been rosy, we have been cordial with each other for most of our history.

I dont remember any major war of words or incidents. In fact Bangladesh helped capture terrorists from many Indian separatist insurgent groups on the border.

[shan]

Though Bangladesh - India relations havent always been rosy, we have been cordial with each other for most of our history.

I dont remember any major war of words or incidents. In fact Bangladesh helped capture terrorists from many Indian separatist insurgent groups on the border.

Bangladesh never have been in any position to have war of words with India.

[ganeshran]

Bangladesh never have been in any position to have war of words with India.

So, they are a peaceful country, not because their military spending is lesser, but because they recognize war is simply a waste of money and valuable resources.



PS: I think this discussion is going off-topic on this thread...

[Golden arm]

Jinnah had two different public personas in his political career. One till Pakistan's creation was not certain and other after he was sure Pakistan would be created.

When it was a united India, Jinnah who himself was quite secular was compelled to play up the islamic cause to justify the creation of a separate state. Even if he didnt believe in radical islamism himself, he had to play to the galleries, which even Hindu politicians did at that time. If Jinnah hadnt played the Islam card then, Pakistan's creation might have been delayed or not happened at all.

But once Pakistan was achieved I dont think Jinnah wanted a religious state, he was more comfortable with a secular state which was in line with his own beliefs. IMO this is the reason for his sometimes contradicting quotes one very liberal and others which took a more conservative view.

If Jinnah had lived longer he would have been able to shape Pakistan the way he had envisioned it to become. But unfortunately that wasnt the case.

PS: I dont want to start a war here on my views of Jinnah and you are free to ignore them if you find it offensive or reply if you disagree/agree.
Personal Opinion, fair enough.
I agree, Jinnah didnt want a mulla or theocrasy state not even Allama Iqbal- they were up against mullahs in every sense.

[the Great Khan]

sorry but thought id just mention that Dr Muhammed din Taseer actually along with allama iqbal paid for the reburing of Ilm ud deen...ironic considering his son met the same fate as rajpal..??

[Shehryar]

Some posters here were trying too hard to either explain or rationalize away Jinnah's involvement in this case,But unfortunately for them they have miserably failed to do so.

[Indiafan]

Some posters here were trying too hard to either explain or rationalize away Jinnah's involvement in this case,But unfortunately for them they have miserably failed to do so.

a lawyer has to defend a client no matter what otherwise the most evil of criminals wouldn't have any lawyers. Jinnah just fulfilled his duty as a lawyer. I dont see any other rational, sorry