“What If Pakistan Had Not Been Formed?”

Had Pakistan not come into existence, would we be better off religiously, morally, politically, and economically? Hearing this question deeply pains us. This question does not arise in the minds of the common Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, particularly in Pakistan. They are straightforward Muslims who consider Pakistan to be the abode of Islam, a haven and refuge. To these simple people, Pakistan is a precious gift from Allah. The same merciful Allah who revealed the Quran during the month of Ramadan also blessed us with the magnificent gift of Pakistan on the twenty-seventh night of Ramadan.

The words “What if Pakistan had not been formed?” burn our hearts. No person of faith can easily hear this question, especially considering that Pakistan has already come into existence, standing proud among the world’s nations as a nuclear power. It has achieved a level of missile technology that we could not have imagined. Seventy-eight years have passed, so why ask this question now? Is it to cast doubt on the blessed existence of Pakistan? When the Pakistan Movement was ongoing, the common Muslim who had limited knowledge confined to the Kalima Tayyiba saw this movement as a religious one and passionately chanted, “We will take Pakistan” and “What is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no god but Allah.” In contrast, many learned scholars were entangled in their theological debates and logical intricacies, distant spectators rather than participants. They were well-versed in Quranic knowledge, with many being Hafiz of Bukhari and Muslim, yet their hearts were locked, unable to perceive the truth. Among these scholars, a small number truly understood their faith and joined the greatest jihad of the subcontinent, fighting bravely, while the majority remained deprived.

The question of whether the creation of Pakistan was beneficial or harmful was posed by those scholars whose religion resided in their intellects but not in their hearts. The Quran states that “it is not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts in the chests that are blind.” Another group comprised the progressive intellectuals who regarded themselves as superior in literature and poetry. A third group consisted of communists, many of whom were also writers and poets. However, these latter two groups had little influence among the general Muslim population compared to the scholars.

If we detach ourselves from the bonds of reverence and consider the past and present, we might wonder how it happened that our esteemed scholars stood apart from the common people, proclaiming that the Muslims’ advantage lay in a united subcontinent under Hindu dominance rather than in an independent Muslim state. They believed that under Hindu rule, Muslims could avoid the severe subjugation of two-thirds of the subcontinent’s Muslim population. Despite these views, it is no small blessing that millions of Muslims received an independent homeland. Those scholars believed that implementing Islam under Muslim governance in Pakistan would be more difficult than in a united India, where establishing a divine government and the system of the Prophet could supposedly be better achieved under the virtuous leadership of Gandhi and his idol-worshiping successors. Who were these people who saw Gandhi as a better means to implement Islam? They were the distinguished scholars who deemed every Hindu leader’s word as truth and every Muslim leader’s word as falsehood.

Reflecting on the faith-driven common Muslims who fought for Pakistan despite their limited religious knowledge and contrasting them with the secular scholars and theologians who opposed them, highlights a divide. The term “Islamic fundamentalism” today signifies the unwavering belief in the truth of Islam. This belief does not necessarily entail extensive Islamic knowledge; if a scholar possesses such conviction, all praise to Allah. However, it is generally seen in the middle class, which forms the backbone of the Muslim community due to their zeal and commitment. This middle class has the strong support of the majority of the nation, and by the grace of Allah, the faith of the Pakistani people remains steadfast. They consider Pakistan to be a great blessing from Allah and are devoted to its well-being.

I am reminded of a book titled “Indian Destiny” by Cyril Modak, who was a Hindu by faith. In his book, he harshly criticized those opposed to united nationality and praised its proponents. He lauded many figures from the past, especially Prince Dara Shikoh. Allama Iqbal commented about Dara Shikoh, “The seed of atheism sown by Akbar has sprouted again in the heart of Dara.” It is surprising to read in Modak’s book that he considered Dara Shikoh to be a narrow-minded and biased person, while Aurangzeb was a bigot. Modak further claimed that in modern times, Abul Kalam Azad is the successor of Dara Shikoh, and Mr. Jinnah is the successor of Aurangzeb.

In that book, the person identified as the heir of the secular mind was “Imam-ul-Hind” (the leader of India) and “Khateeb-ul-Hind” (the orator of India), while the narrow-minded and prejudiced Muslim was identified as Mr. Jinnah. The prejudice and violence of Aurangzeb and Quaid-e-Azam were described in terms that, in civilized idiom, correspond to fundamentalism. It is important to remember that this statement comes from a Hindu scholar, and also recall that when Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani spoke at the funeral of Quaid-e-Azam, he said that Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest Muslim in the subcontinent after Aurangzeb Alamgir.

Faith and conviction are matters of the heart. The Arabic words of the Kalima Tayyiba were not understood by the polytheists of Mecca who belonged to Abu Jahl’s group; did they not know Arabic? They did, yet the words of the Kalima Tayyiba were foreign and unfamiliar to them. As Allama Iqbal said: “Whether you are an Arab or non-Arab, your ‘La Ilaha Illallah’ is meaningless until your heart bears witness to it.”

تو عرب ہو یا عجم ہو،  ترا لا ا لہ الا

لغت غریب جب تک ترا دل نہ دے گواہی

Faith is a matter of the heart, and so is disbelief. As for intellect, it lies somewhere between presence and absence, between reality and illusion, a third realm like the one between the masculine and feminine. There was once a third world between America and Russia. Those who were masters of the Hijazi lexicon continued to weigh faith on the scales of logic, and as said: “The messenger of love commands swift action, Reason has yet to grasp the meaning of the message.”

عشق فرمودہ  قاصد سے سبک کام  عمل

عقل سمجھی ہی نہیں معنی پیغام ابھی

This class of logicians and rationalists was standing on the edge then, and they remain on the edge today. Therefore, they believed that the subjugation of Muslims across the entire subcontinent was a blessing from God, while the potential freedom of Muslims, their independent homeland, their own flag, their own tanks, cannons, and currency, and their own rule and authority were fraught with danger. Alas, when the time for jihad came, those who were meant to be the leaders of the mujahideen acted as if the verses of jihad had been abrogated. As Allama Iqbal rightly said:

یہ مصرعہ لکھ دیا کس شوخ نے محرابِ مسجد پر!

یہ ناداں گر گئے سجدوں میں جب وقتِ قیام آیا

“Who inscribed this verse on the mosque’s arch? These ignorant ones fell into prostration when it was time to stand.”

In December 1946, while returning from England, Quaid-e-Azam stayed in Egypt for a few days. Liaquat Ali Khan was with him. In Egypt, he attended a conference of the Islamic World and met with Egyptian politicians and journalists to inform them about the objectives, purposes, and benefits of the Pakistan Movement. In the English book “Quaid-e-Azam and the Islamic World” by Z.A. Sheikh and Muhammad Rauf, some of Quaid-e-Azam’s statements to Egyptian leaders are recorded. Quaid-e-Azam attended banquets hosted by Egyptian Prime Minister Nokrashi Pasha and former Prime Minister and Wafd Party leader Nahas Pasha, as well as gatherings of journalists. If only someone could collect all the statements Quaid-e-Azam made during those days that were published in Arabic and English newspapers. The newspaper clippings from the second half of December from Egyptian, British, and particularly the Dawn newspaper of India, which are still preserved in the British Library, should be reviewed.

According to what Walpert and Z.A. Sheikh have written, Quaid-e-Azam emphasized that “You Egyptians and the entire Middle East do not realize how powerful the state that will inherit the British Empire will be after the British leave. You will face a new disaster. If your Suez Canal today opens and closes at the whim of the British, tomorrow it will be under the command of the Hindu state. Yes, if we succeed in creating Pakistan, then we will be the focus of the Hindu state’s attention, and you can live in peace. Remember, we are not just fighting for the freedom of Muslims in India. We understand the collective psyche of the Hindus; they do not allow non-Hindu elements to survive in their society. We know that if we lose, we will be annihilated not only culturally but also religiously. And if we are annihilated, the surrounding Muslim countries, including the Middle East, will also be devastated. You will be wiped off the map. So, remember, if we sink, we will sink together; if we swim, we will swim together.”

Quaid-e-Azam, who, according to our esteemed scholars and leaders of religion, was devoid of the spirit of religion, merely a sahib bahadur, and even a sinner and transgressor, understood the importance of Pakistan for the entire Islamic world. He was making this importance known to the entire Arab world through the Egyptians, but the senior scholars in India were not willing to listen to him because, in appearance, he did not belong to the ranks of sheikhs, imams, or preachers, nor did he dress like Gandhi. The self-deception and self-promotion of the apparent observers did not allow them to see the realm of sincerity and light in Quaid-e-Azam’s heart. As ۔Mirza Ghalib aptly said:

قمری کف خاکستر و بلبل قفس رنگ!

اے نالہ نشان جگر سوختہ کیا ہے؟

“The dove is grey as ash, and the nightingale is a prison of colors. O lament, what is the sign of a burnt heart?”

The dove is grey, and the nightingale is a collection of beautiful colors. The nightingale, a beautiful bird found in lush and cold regions, has not been seen by the people of the subcontinent. Both the dove and the nightingale are passionate lovers and heartbroken, so what attire is the sign of love? Ghalib wants to convey that love is a matter of soul and heart, not attire. The lover’s attire is love itself.

It is a great pity that most of the eminent writers and poets remained aloof from the Pakistan Movement. These great poets and writers were generally rationalists and, as a matter of fashion, indifferent to national affairs. The Hindu was steadfast in his identity; he was a Hindu in every party, group, and platform. Among the Hindus were also communists, but when it came to Hindu interests, they were just Hindus. Among the Hindus were also Rai Bahadurs and Sirs, but they were in harmony with their national aspirations. Their community never regarded them as enemies of Hindu interests. There, the Congress and Mahasabha were essentially one. All those leaders were the common leaders of their nation; they were polytheists but practically monotheistic. On the other hand, Muslims were monotheists but divided, and thus practically polytheistic (the Quran regards those who create division within the Ummah as polytheists). The Pakistan Movement had spread beyond just being a matter for the Muslim League, yet the majority of our senior scholars saw it not as beneficial but as a source of corruption for Muslims. Why was this so?

The primary cause behind the disconnect of our esteemed scholars from contemporary issues is their educational curriculum, which has no link to history—neither Islamic history nor the history of the Indian subcontinent. They are also unaware of their immediate surroundings and their own historical context. Their knowledge of geography is equally lacking. In 1965, while I was a matriculation student, the head cleric and principal of the largest mosque and madrasa in Faisalabad (formerly Lyallpur) asked me about the location of Hitler’s homeland, “Jermal” (Germany). I had no answer, so I purchased a world map from a local bookstore and hung it on the wall of the madrasa’s library. The principal gathered all the senior teachers and students. They all loved and cherished me, treating me as their own son, and I still hold them in high esteem and remember them in my prayers.

When the esteemed scholars and students assembled around the map, I was astounded to learn that they could not even identify the north and south directions on it. Despite their mastery in religious sciences, especially Hadith and Fiqh, and their expertise in logic and grammar, their knowledge of geography was nonexistent. This madrasa held a prominent position in the country, and its graduates are now respected scholars, jurists, and some are even members of provincial and national assemblies. If the curriculum of this esteemed institution was modeled after that of Deoband, it is evident that the graduates of Deoband, with few exceptions, were largely ignorant of the socio-economic and political affairs of their surroundings. Nonetheless, they insisted that all political decisions of Muslims should be made under their guidance.

Even then, I pondered and still do, expressing my views both then and now, on how many of our scholars had experience with affairs beyond the mosque and madrasa? How many were aware of the workings of even a small town committee? Had they ever worked alongside Hindus in any office, commercial or academic institution? Therefore, it was essential for them to focus on their area of expertise. When did Quaid-e-Azam or other Muslim League leaders ever claim that scholars lacked knowledge of Arabic or could not interpret Quranic and Hadith texts? However, they did assert that scholars should not give expert opinions on matters outside their expertise. “Stick to your area of expertise,” they advised. Yet, the scholars did not entrust the Hindu-Muslim issue to those who had practical experience in trade, municipal affairs, legislation, academic fields, and politics, working alongside Hindus, and understanding that while Hindus sought liberation from British rule, they were also determined to subjugate Muslims.

Muslims who witnessed Hindus’ dominance in every field realized that Hindus could not tolerate the existence of any non-Hindu society as an active element in their midst. Having come to India and subjugated its original inhabitants, relegating them to the lowest social strata, they eradicated Buddhism and Jainism. Despite ruling large parts of India for centuries, Buddhists were annihilated when Brahmanism regained dominance. They still exist in China, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, but not in their original homeland, where they had once ruled. However, most of our scholars were unaware and indifferent to this historical context. They argued for expelling the British first and dealing with the Hindus later. But visionary leaders who understood the Hindu psyche realized that if Hindus were fighting on two fronts—against the British and Muslims—then Muslims also had to fight on both fronts. They recognized Hindus as equally hostile as the British, necessitating early preparations to prevent Hindu domination post-British rule.

Thus, Allama Iqbal and Maulana Hasrat Mohani clarified this long ago. Subsequently, Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar parted ways with Congress, followed by Shaukat Ali, Maulana Zafar Ali, Maulvi Tamizuddin, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, Khan Abdul Qayyum, and Maulana Muhammad Akram, among others. Quaid-e-Azam himself distanced from Congress in 1923 after recognizing its true nature.

The majority of religious scholars failed to grasp this simple concept. However, today’s Pakistani public has the right to question why those scholars who aligned with Hindus and embraced English democracy were unwilling to accept the democratic decision of the Muslim majority in favor of Pakistan. Even today, some scholars and their followers prefer Western democracy over any system, even a consultative one, but are reluctant to accept the democratic choice of Muslims of the subcontinent. If scholars lose politically, democracy becomes unacceptable, much like how the United States supports democracy unless it threatens the rise of orthodox Muslims. We’ve seen this hypocrisy in Algeria and Egypt.

The Muslims of the subcontinent sincerely undertook a religious jihad, seeking a homeland for themselves. Thanks be to Allah; the majority of the Muslim population firmly believes in Pakistan. It is a different matter that secular scholars, followers of Gandhi and Nehru, who were ignorant of Hindus, and other such arrogant scholars, had termed this movement a fraud and labeled Quaid-e-Azam as a “fraudulent chief”. The descendants of these esteemed individuals are not ashamed to say that they were not involved in the sin of creating Pakistan, as the saying goes, “What harm is there if one follows in the footsteps of their father?” But do they not also regard the struggle of the Muslims of the subcontinent from a democratic perspective? What a travesty it is that the democratic decision of the Hindus is accepted, yet the democratic decision of the Muslims is rejected!

What attitude did those who considered themselves the guardians and defenders of Islam adopt during the 1945 and 1946 elections? Was it not that they did not care whether the Muslim League won or another party, whether Pakistan came into existence or not, and that their concern was solely with the service of Islam? They were staunchly committed to the service of Islam, but they failed miserably. Even today, these esteemed individuals maintain that whether the Muslim League wins or loses, it is of no concern to them; they are indifferent to whether a traitorous political party wins, or whether Jewish, Brahmin, and American interests are strengthened. They continue to hold steadfastly to their stance on serving Islam, even though their perspective has only further strengthened the influence of Jews, Qadianis, and Brahmins over Pakistan.

صاحبِ گنبدِ خضریٰ میں فریادی بن کر آیا ہوں

تاج و تخت ختمِ نبوت بیچ  دیا دینداروں نے

I have come to the Lord of the Green Dome as a supplicant,

The crown and throne of the final prophethood have been sold by the pious.

These are the people who ask the cursed question: What clear benefit could have been gained if Pakistan had not been created, in terms of religious, moral, political, economic, etc.? Such people have now found allies among the Qadiani community. A self-styled leader of a linguistic party in Karachi, who is an agent of India and Israel, has traveled to India to malign Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding Pakistan and has enjoyed the pleasures of governance with every ruling party. This person is now present here, and every member of this party, big and small, male and female, is piling up rational arguments against Pakistan. They are in a hurry, perhaps because they might not get such a favorable government again or such a sympathetic and supportive government may not last.

The Hindus did not recognize Pakistan. The followers of Hindu leaders also did not recognize this blessed land. European and Christian nations, especially the British, were not ready to accept the emergence of any state in the subcontinent in the name of Islam. Their progeny, the Qadianis, and their spiritual leaders still hold this stance. Just as during the Pakistan Movement the prominent scholars failed to understand the attitude of the Hindus and the British, particularly Mountbatten and Atlee’s government, are they still so oblivious or deliberately adherent to secularism? Why does this cursed question arise: “If Pakistan had not been created, would we have been better off?” The Pakistani people consider this question a challenge to their faith, and they regard it as an insult. Hence, they have rejected secular elements who adorn the pulpit and offices, casting them aside. The overwhelming majority of the people of Pakistan had and continue to have full faith in Pakistan, and this faith will remain steadfast until the Day of Judgment, God willing. The scholars of ill-repute and the so-called defenders of religion had hurt the Muslims’ hearts during the Pakistan Movement, and today they have repeated the same painful actions.

May God grant the ability to discern the truth and protect from disbelief, Yes, there is a difference between then and now. During the Pakistan Movement, the community had a towering leader whose insight, sincerity, intelligence, and, most importantly, trustworthiness was fully trusted by the Muslims of India. Today, there is no such central figure who can be a focus of trust.

Professor Beni Prasad wrote that Muslims have maintained their individual existence, unlike earlier groups and nations that merged into Hindu society. He also wrote that it was apparent that Muslims could not give India an Islamic color like Turkey, Iran, and Egypt, primarily due to Mughal Emperor Jalaluddin Akbar, who saved Hinduism from disappearing from India. Otherwise, if Aurangzeb’s rule had persisted, the map of India would be entirely different. Cyril Modak said that Muslims, like other non-Hindus, would be absorbed into Hindu society due to Hindu affection, meaning they would be annihilated. Dr. Radhakrishnan (the philosopher President of India) said that Hinduism had embraced Buddhism and extinguished it like a brother. Swami Dharm Teerth Maharaj said: Dr. Radhakrishnan may say anything, but the truth is that Brahmin Hindus killed Buddhists, destroyed their homes, killed their animals, burned their crops, and exiled the majority. Shyam Prasad Mukherjee, almost a year after the passing of the Pakistan Resolution, stated, “I am hearing calls for partition from here and there. If Pakistan is established, we will not let it survive.”

Swami Dayanand Ji stated that India is the homeland of Vedic religion and must return to the Vedic tradition, and those living here must adapt themselves to Vedic dharma. RSS leader Raj Madhok expressed regret that the Hindu nation did not create a statue of Muhammad (peace be upon him) a thousand years ago and place it in temples, markets, etc. If Muslims had come to worship their Prophet, their hatred for our idols would have been removed, and they would have gradually been absorbed into us, just as the Buddhists were. We accepted the Buddha as an incarnation and included his statue among our own. The addition of one statue among our thousands did not change the status of Buddhism (although Buddhists were forcibly eradicated, as previously mentioned by Swami Dharm Teerth Ji). Gandhi Ji said that the letters of the Urdu language resemble the letters of the Quran, so Indian languages should be adopted, and also in Devanagari script. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who claimed to be a great intellectual, said, “In India, there is only one nation, which is Indian. The two-nation theory is a creation of a few individuals. I have looked closely, even with a microscope, but I do not see a second nation.”

Where is the two-nation problem, i.e. total denial of the separate existence of Muslims! In 1937, when the Congress ministries were established, the Vidya Mandir scheme was implemented in six provinces. It was an educational project to expel non-Indian elements from Indian life, to bring Indian heroes and also Hindus to the fore. Hindi language should be enforced, the song Bande Mataram should be sung in Madrasas, this Bande Mataram was declared as polytheistic song by Quaid-e-Azam. The entire story of Bande Mataram, which was taken from Anand Mutt, is full of anti-Muslim poison. The Muslim people and the Muslim League leaders shouted at this blatant Muslim-killing attitude of the Hindus. Yes, Gandhiji’s statue was also decorated in the madrasas, which was said to be teaching and training, including standing in front of it with folded hands and offering prayers, Muslims. Girls and boys were also forced to commit shirk, so the Muslims had to sit regular commissions and these commissions published research reports, Sharif report and AK Fazalul Haq report were related to the same scandal, but Sahib Bahadur, Communists etc. classes of Muslims remained one, the religious leaders did not listen to the Muslim people and their beloved leaders. The representatives of the scholars continued to say that Bande Mataram is the national song, we will continue to sing it. Elders like Hazrat Abul Kalam Azad refuted the research report mentioned above, and when the Muslims celebrated Liberation Day in December 1939 after the end of the Congress ministries, the Hindu Jati It had to be sad. Scholars also termed this action of the Muslim people and the Muslim League as rebellion against the conquest of the spirit of united nationalism. It should be remembered that the untouchables also supported the Muslims on the Day of Liberation as mentioned by Dr. Lanka Sundaram in his book “A Secular State Farandia”.

Readers! The Indian Hindu caste and its leadership wanted to wipe out the existence of Pakistan and the people of Islam with this greatness and still after 78 years. Could there be any improvement for the Muslims there in this situation? Is the situation of the Muslims there not a concrete testimony to the fact that efforts are still being made to wipe them out. Our nationalist mullahs have been heard saying that the Hindu nation cannot wipe out the Muslims, it has been 13 hundred years of living together. God knows why the wisdom of our nationalist Mullah is missing? When have we been together with Hindus? We were rulers and Hindus were subjugated. This has been the case for centuries. However, both Muslims and Hindus became slaves of the British, in such a world, Hindus were also helpless and Muslims were also subjugated.

By the way, Hindus and Muslims have never lived together in the same world. The truth is that the time of test and trial has come now, when Hindus have imposed themselves as rulers in India. Indian Muslims are suffering, immense atrocities are being committed on Kashmiris, more than 100,000 of their innocent children, innocent women, young and old have been martyred. Their only fault is that they are demanding the right of self-determination promised by the first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru, to the Kashmiris in front of the United Nations. In schools and madrasas in India, they The curriculum is being taught so that the Muslim child either remains ignorant of the past of his nation or hates them and believes in Hindu Akbar. A few days later, when I turned on the TV, a boy was talking on an Indian channel. My father’s name is Gupta ji and my mother’s name is Naseema Begum, I am Hindu, and my sister is Muslim, we all four are living in our house with great peace and harmony.

Allah has told the Jewish nation more than once in the Holy Qur’an to remember the day when you were in the disgraceful slavery of Pharaoh. Pharaoh used to kill your men and keep your women alive. It is obvious that if men If they were really killed, how would children be born, how would women come into existence. Here, killing is said to be permissible, it means that Jewish men were kept as oppressed and poor and humbled and Jewish women were given good education and training so that They became the luxury goods of Pharaoh’s people. This is what is happening in India now. Muslim girls are given education and training as pro-Muslims with educational scholarships, when they graduate or post-graduate, medical education. Or any other technical education, then the problem of marriage arises. The environment in which education takes place is secular and there is no harmony in the home and relatives. The son is puncturing the bicycle, the aunt is a mason, and no literate relation is available, Lehanda, a Muslim girl, is easily married among non-Muslims and it is made known that the son-in-law has accepted Islam. . Our ungrateful Muslims, the majority of whom are scholars and brave men, now include in this group those whom God has made millionaires with the shoes of the Quaid-i-Azam and honored with a position of honor. Do these people not understand the meaning of Allah’s address to the Jews at all?

Some time ago, a gentleman from Rampur UP (India), who was a teacher of English literature in an important institution of Pakistan and now writes in English newspapers, said to me with a confidential and intimate tone, Malik sir. Let us think with a cold heart, how much the Act of 1935 had widened the provincial powers, as if the whole of Punjab and Bengal, including two or three small units, were our own. Why did you take the pain of separation? The same philosophy is repeated by the extortionist of the linguistic community. There are many more intellectuals and brave men among the professors of English. The national policy is implemented by the center, whenever the center wants, it can strangle any province it wants, apart from this, you should see that Punjab got India a little less than half of the original united Punjab. Because of the Sikhs, India got three parts of this Punjab. Do you think that Lala would have let you have Punjab and Bengal in the condition that the majority of Muslims lived there? He would have divided Bengal and Punjab too. He got some parts of Bengal and some parts of Bihar. Karnia would have made the map in the same way by merging a part of UP with Punjab and adding a part to Anbala division to form three provinces and when the Muslim majority provinces were divided, it would have been considered an administrative necessity. Those who do not understand the interest of the Ummah or fall victim to makr or fall into the stomach, would they not support this Muslim-killing strategy of the Hindu government? Indeed, the Muslim people kept shouting. The professor became silent after hearing this.

I asked, after all, while living in Pakistan, instead of giving any suggestion or thinking about the improvement of Pakistan, why do you keep preparing your mind to destroy Pakistan instead? And why are you looking to cancel the Lahore resolution? I explained that the Muslim League in 1921 and then the sixth point included in the fourteen points demanded from the British government that the delimitation of the Muslim majority provinces should not be tampered with in such a way as to affect the majority status of the Muslims there, but Why should the sixth point be important in a united India? I further submitted that if a rational person like you can dare to make these secrets even to a bigoted Pakistani Muslim like me, then I do not know who else you would have said this to Luqmani. Those who call the Quaid-e-Azam a Fajir Quaid should think that God, the Most Gracious and Merciful, gives such an enlightened mind to the Fajirs in the matter of the Muslim Ummah.

Then how can you deny this miracle that the coming into existence of Pakistan on 27th Ramadan 1366 AH corresponding to 14th August 1947 in the blessed hours of the revelation of the Quran and Lailatul Qadr is a great gift of Allah to the great Muslims. It was called the Kingdom of God. After the state of Madina, this second Islamic ideological state came into existence. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, while addressing the Sirat Conference of the Karachi Bar Association on January 25, 1948, said, “I do not understand why this evil was done.” Why is it being propagated that the constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Sharia. Islamic principles are in effect in Pakistan as they were implemented 1300 years ago. Is.

The background of the establishment of Pakistan is based on an unholy nexus of the Muslim hostility of the Hindu Congress and British imperialism and a terrible wasiah chapter. During the London Conference in 1946, under a big conspiracy, Lord Montbatten, a longtime friend of Jawaharlal Nehru, was the governor. To be appointed General, Krishna Menon, an extremist Communist leader who revealed the plot from his deathbed, also revealed to an author of Freedom at Midnight that Mountbatten had been assassinated. In the successful attempt to appoint the Governor General, it was also decided that this secret should not be known to the great Muslims, otherwise the usefulness of Mountbatten would end. The secret was not revealed, the Quaid-e-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan conference. were present there in connection with, they also did not even get a hint of this impure conspiracy.

According to Prime Minister Attlee’s instructions, Mountbatten first tried hard to prevent the division of Burazim. The head of the Muslim League and the leader of the Muslims of Burazim, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, became a rock of courage, courage, courage and determination against the philosophy of Muttahida Burazim. And both Muslim enemy imperialists had to bow down. Partition was decided, but under the cover of it, they did everything that according to Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the enemy wants Pakistan to disappear as soon as it is formed, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad. Rakim saw the evidence of Ali Jinnah’s intuition in the Debt Register of the Parliament in London, in which British Prime Minister Attlee, in his speech on the India Independent Bill, said that, “Dividing the country into two countries is a temporary process, very soon.” Both the two nations will be united in one large dominion and participate in the commonwealth (Col. 1246). Macdonald, the leader of the opposition at that time, also unusually agreed with the Prime Minister and said that the India Independence Bill will not remain separate, column 1242.

A period of 30 June 1948 was fixed in Dar-e-Awam for the freedom of Burazim, Mountbatten decided to shorten this period and give freedom as soon as possible. The Quaid-e-Azam strongly opposed this haste and insisted on sticking to the period of Dar-ul-Awam’s decision. Mountbatten announced the date of August 15, 1947, without consulting the British and British leaders for his personal pleasure. This date was a day of great joy in the life of Viceroy of India Lord Mountbatten as Viceroy of India Lord Mountbatten was the commander of the Burma front during World War II, on the same date Japan surrendered.

Barazim’s release on the occasion of the second anniversary of this surrender was considered another historic achievement and was intended to write his name among the lucky ones in history. Did he know that he did not care about the opposition of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but the real rulers of Hindu Rashtra would have to surrender to the opposition of astrologers and astrologers. The Hindu leaders remained silent, but this powerful class raised a storm and the cowardly and cunning Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, was frightened by this hostile campaign. His confusion subsided when the astrologers declared August 14 as “auspicious”. The cowardly and insidious Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, while maintaining his desire to stop this flood and by giving a satisfactory method to the astrologers, cleverly presented a new history as the history of independence, the cursed, blessed. ,, fixed the closest midnight of the day at twelve o’clock between the 14th and the 15th. Hindu astrologers adopted the ridiculous method of achieving independence by playing the “Sankh”, which is played during the Pooja pot at exactly twelve o’clock, even though power was transferred to the Legislative Assembly only on August 15 and on the other hand to Pakistan already on August 14. Power was transferred to the Assembly.

These human exercises took place and the Muslim enemy, the coward and the cowardly coward and the deceitful Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten himself, was dragged towards the hour which was approved by Allah Almighty. Thus, on the night between 14th and 15th of August, the 27th of Ramadan began on the 14th of August at sunset. That same night, the auspicious hours of the revelation of the Qur’an and Lailatul-Qadr arrived, and what happened was what was approved by God. In those blessed hours, Pakistan came into existence and was called the Kingdom of God. 14/ August 1947, the child of the establishment of Pakistan knows that it is in accordance with what appeared on the 27th of Ramadan in the year 1366 Hijri. His religious excellence is prominent in the world of Islam and his importance is also very important. Regarding the 27th of Ramadan, the importance of establishing Pakistan to the new generation and preparing an action plan on a war footing at the national level to implement it, after the early death of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, our Actions and greedy rulers have not paid much attention to it, but my conscience still testifies that even now if such a plan is made for this miracle-like state bestowed by nature that we promised our Lord. If so, we can definitely reach our destination.

According to Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, “Pakistan is not a destination but a means to a destination.” “Pakistan is the fortress of Islam” and this fortress is currently under heavy shelling by anti-Islamic forces. In order to protect it, the people who are the source of power will have to return to the same principles that the Lord Almighty has ordered. The servants will have to be taken out of the slavery of the servants and given to the slavery of Allah and for this the Qur’an and Sunnah. Head springs are waiting for us. The day we really implement the Qur’an and Sunnah in our lives and accept Muhammad Arabi as our leader, then this nation will set all the standards of success and success like a strong wall made of lead. May Allah be our supporter and supporter. A’ameen.

There is still time to differentiate between friend and foe. Nothing will remain, only the name of my Lord who is Hayy al-Qayyum and who has miraculously made a kingdom like Pakistan appear on the map of this world.

اک سوال کے اندر ہم نے کاٹی نصف صدی

باندھے لاکھوں حساب

غلط ہی نکلاہر اک حل کا لیکن انت جواب

ضرب جمع تفریق کے سارے کلئے برت لئے

ازروئے تحقیق

ہر کوشش میں ہو جاتا ہے کچھ نہ کچھ تفریق

دیکھ تو کتنا اونچا ہے یہ ردی کا انبار

تو ہی اب کچھ رحمت کر اے ربِ غفار

Within one question we cut half a century

Bind millions of accounts

One solution turned out to be wrong, but it was the answer

Took all the tricks of multiplication and division

By research

In every attempt there is some difference

Look how high this pile of garbage is

So now, have some mercy, O Lord of forgiveness