Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jinnah Later Converted to Sunnism

He IS A SUNNI! He became a sunni!

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/may/09jinnah.htm

I am afraid this is based on an account by Sharifuddin Peerzada- whose credentials as some sort of a secretary to Quaid-e-Azam were contested by Fatima Jinnah herself. The article in question does not give its opinion.

Actually, in his Sister's book, My Brother it does not mention he became a sunni. http://www.fatimajinnah.gov.pk/Books/Fatimabook.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.32.193 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well He was a Shia he died a Shia, i don't understand why people start making up stories about him being a Sunni, well every one who has a clearer picture of Jinnah knows he was a Shia-Muslim. Even if some one needs a practical example he can kindly visit the Shia Mosques at Khorasan and Kharadar in Karachi, in the mosque at a board for designated people who served the Mosque, name of Muhammed Ali Jinnah is mentioned and no one can change that authentication, even on his Nikah nama it was mentioned he was a Shia-mulsim and he died a Shia then why people speculate of him being a Sunni, just because his public namaz-e-janaza was by a Sunni Mulana Shabbir Usmani?! Well if so is the case i may let you all know that he also had a namaz-e-janaza in private in a Shia Muslim way at Kharadar. Even a renowned American historian Vali Nasr states clearly of him being a Shia-Mulsim in his book The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future (W. W. Norton, 2006), pp. 88-90 ISBN 0-3933-2968-2. Paki90 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I understand that is your opinion on the matter! But there is also proof that he converted to Sunni Islam and not Shia Islam, so can you please display BOTH sides, rather than suppressing one side of the matter!

Comment: quaid was never a ithna ash'ari shia! Yes, he was born in an ismaili shia family but he soon renounced shi'ism. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi sent some of his senior followers (like maulana shabbir ahmad usmani mufti muhammad shafi', etc) to jinah, so that they could examine jinnahs views nad character more closely--the conclusion they reached was that jinnah was a sincre muslim, though he lacked the deeni knowledge. therefore, maulana thanwi sent upto 3 delegationnsto him plus many letters, teaching islam to jinnah and clarifyng some of his misconceptions (e.g. secularism). (This has been mentioned in a number of books and jinnahs thankfulness to maulana thnwiz support has also been witnessed by some other of jinnahs supports).(hayat-e-imadad by professor anwar, published by maktabah thanwi).

If jinnah would have been a shia, maulana shabbir would have never lead his funeral prayers. And, why would have jinnah asked the latter to lead his funeral prayers if he wanted his funeral prayers to be lead by a shia, afterwards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.216.29 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You people are talking with any definate prove, Jinnah was a Shia died a Shia history conformns it, historians admit it. And again i may remind you Jinnah had two Funeral Prayers one in private the Shia way, while one for the general public mostly Sunni. Benazir also had two funeral prayers one in private, while the other one for the general public, it doesn't makes him or her a Sunni.||||

This is not true. Jinnah renounced Ismaili shiism but became a Shia ithna ashari in 1921. He remained one till his death. Fatima Jinnah signed and filed an affidavit which has been mentioned above. Please stop this distortion of history and let the Quaid be in peace.221.132.117.17 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll kindly request the wikipedia admin to take an action against those who are repeatedly changing facts about Quaid-e-Azam with out any definite reference, please stop this! Quaid-e-Azam was born a Shia Muslim he died a Shia Muslim and there are many practical evidence of it. Stop changing the accurate info. Quaid was a Shia, that a historical fact. No more arguments or biased editing done by some immature intolerant members who show sectarian hate towards Shia Muslim and info regarding them. Admin please take a notice. Thanks Paki90 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009

This discussion here is pretty old. There are discussions below (Talk:Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah#Shia_or_Sunni.3F_NPOV), including a 3O, where the view seems to be not to list anything more specific than Islam. There is a source in the article which says he was neither Shia nor Sunni. Gimmetrow 15:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Founding Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Some anon inserted a large excerpt from The Nation in the middle of the section "Founding Pakistan" and changed the title of the section to "Founding Islamic Republic of Pakistan". This excerpt was neither relevant to the section nor neutral. Some of the information contained in it could have been useful if referenced properly and presented in a neutral fashion. Please edit your contribution for POV, and place it in a relevant section or create a section if necessary. Aslamt 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

if he would have die 2 years earlier. Would save millions lives ...

http://www.deccanherald.com/Archives/jan282006/singh.asp read Jinnah’s ghost by By Khushwant great english lawyer and indian writer..

Jinnah’s ghost

Biographers and publishers of MA Jinnah’s life must thank LK Advani for reviving sales of their books long out of circulation. To him also goes the credit of encouraging new authors writing on the subject —among them Jinnah - Secular and Nationalist by Dr Ajeet Jawed, a first venture by a new publishing house Faiz Books.

There is little about Jinnah that remains unknown. Ajeet Jawed has nothing new to add as her version is entirely based on secondary sources. Nor does it give the reader a new angle of vision. Nevertheless, it is a valuable addition to Jinnah’s bibliography because it clearly brings out the three phases of his political career: the nationalist, regarded as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, leader of the Muslim League who sowed the seeds of the partition of the country, and the man who lived to regret what he had done.

Comparisons between Nehru and Jinnah are pertinent. Both were nationalists and indifferent to the religions they belonged to. Nehru, born Hindu, was an agnostic and never bothered to visit temples. Jinnah was a Shia Muslim who never bothered to go to a mosque, did not know how to perform namaaz and never fasted during Ramadan. Both ignored religious taboos against certain kinds of food and drink.

After he lost his wife, Nehru had several lady friends, Jinnah married a Parsi girl and made an indifferent husband. Many maulanas condemned him as a Kafir. Both men were trained to be lawyers. Jinnah loved to win cases he argued. He won the argument in favour of creation of Pakistan. Nehru and Jinnah had one thing in common; they hated each other. Nehru did his best to steal Muslim masses from Jinnah’s Muslim League in favour of the Congress. He failed miserably and let Jinnah get his Pakistan to be rid of him. Jinnah was landed with the baby he had sired but really did not want. He wanted to live in his mansion in Bombay.

Both men thought once Muslims got the State, both India and Pakistan would be freed of communal tensions and live at peace with each other. Both men were woefully wrong in reading the future. Millions were rendered homeless, over a million died for the blunder they made.

Bigamy

“You have been acquitted of the charge of bigamy,” said the judge. “You can go home to your wife now.” “Thank you, Your Honour,” said the free man. “Which one?” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.54.38 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop all this shia sunni things. The main thing is that we all are muslims and islam gives the freedom of actions if you want to correct anyone then please dont force them if shias dont want to change their views let them live as they want As concidered with quaid i think that he was a true muslim...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.168.234 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Secularism and Nationalism

Whoever put in this quote "It has been argued by many people that in this speech Jinnah wanted to point out that Pakistan would be a secular state as mostly people think that an Islamic state is a theocratic state, this perception is however wrong and is miss interpreted, the reason is because a true Islamic state is not a theocratic state ,as rightly stated by Jinnah in his speech. Because in a theocratic state the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with god, which is contrary to the principles of an Islamic state." to interpret the prior statement displays a very naive theory of heremeneutics and a gross violation of the letter and spirit of wikipedia's NPOV laws. You haven't cited any interpretation of this and I challenge you to find one that is remotely credible. Indeed, what is prima faciae striking about the cited Jinnah quotes in this section, is how much they may appear to show a belief in the possibility of a truly secular Islam, a secular morality derived from Islamic principals much as America's founding fathers and Enlightenment writers thought Christianity could transform into something that non-secularly moral. This interpretation is confirmed by even a basic understanding of Jinnah's life story and his reaction to Pakistan he helped give rise to. But these "interpretations" are besides the point. If you are going to provide an exegesis or interpretation of any primary source statement in this venue, you need to have a clear and authoritative source from which you cite the interpretation and you need to cite any equally authoritative source with a contradictory interpretation. This is not a place for original research, yet that is exactly what your nonsensical, novel hermeneutic interjection about Mr. Jinnah is. -SSG

I find this section to be quite biased and having no neutrality of view at all. It basically slanders a large section of the population by calling them illiterate and accuses another section of misrepresentation of facts. It also naturally implies that wanting to make a state "Islamic" is inherently an evil idea, which is quite an insulting proposition for a lot of people. It also assumes that Islamic parties, just by virtue of being "Islamic" do not have moderate views; whereas Jinnah, whom the author has claimed to have had secular views, is moderate just by virtue of being secular. The section just sounds like it was written from the secular point of view, without consideration of other opposing, yet quite legitimate, point of views that might exist out there. The section should either be edited for POV or just deleted if no useful efforts can be made. MHusaini 10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MHusaini the section is not biased, these are simple facts. It is not saying that all pakistanis are illiterate, and dont you think the the islamic parties in pakistan exploit people in the name of islam. If you can argue that pakistan was created for islam, then give me one place when jinnah said that he wants to make pakistan an islamic republic. Pakistan was created for the muslims of south asia and not for islam, as jinnah's quote in the section says so. --Mm11 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The principle of neutrality dictates that personal opinions be kept out, so what I think is of little consequence here. I am sure the religious parties have a point of view, regardless of whether you and I think it is justified or not. And since that POV is not represented in the section, it makes the whole section biased. Furthermore, facts can be manipulated by selection of facts to be presented. I am currently not able to contribute in the form of verifiable facts, but I am sure there are quotes from Jinnah that are presented by religious circles saying that he wanted Pakistan to be the fort of Islam and a laboratory for its experimentation. To me personally, it doesn't make sense for a country founded for Muslims to be run according to anything but Islam. Imagine demanding that a country created for capitalists be run according to communist principles. It's an absurd idea in itself. If a secular country was intended, I do not see a problem with having stayed with secular India. Why go through all this trouble to get a country that is no different in its founding principles from what was being avoided. But again, that is just me, and I would prefer to have that complimented with the opposing perspective if it is to appear in an encyclopedia. MHusaini 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Islam and secularism is not an issue. When the Pakistani secularists speak of Jinnah's secularism, they are speaking of Jinnah's assurance that every Pakistani regardless of religion caste or creed would have equal rights and equal opportunities and that the state would remain completely impartial to the faith of the individual citizenship. One may argue that this view is completely Islamic... in which case, it can be said that Islam endorses secular principle of citizenship. Teabing-Leigh 07:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To the second sentence in the comment above: if Jinnah believed so because he was Muslim, wouldn't that give him Islamic and not secularist leanings? Some information on his motives might clarify. 71.162.81.20 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jinnah favored a state which would be impartial to a citizen's faith. In other words all citizens would be equal citizens of the state regardless of religion or ideology. This is secularism. Whether the motivation was Jinnah's own understanding of Islam or his training as a barrister in England is irrelevant... given that the above forms the irreducible minimum of a secular state. We should not assume that secularism and Islam are involved some sort of zero-sum game.203.99.179.125

Spiritual leader?

Jinnah might have been spiritual - that was his personal matter but exactly does "spiritual leader" mean? I have changed this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Spelling

Someone is continously changing the way Jinnah wrote his name.

Jinnah spelt his first name as "Mahomed". Live with it. It is there in every primary source. I don't even understand why this was diverted to "Muhammad" when Jinnah never wrote his name "Muhammad" but was Mahomed Ali Jinnah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.49.122 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this is how his name is spelt in most history books in English. In the three books I have on my desk at the moment (four but one constantly refers to him as Quadi-), they all spell his name as Muhammad Ali Jinnah or Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Pepsidrinka 17:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this image... it is a card/souvenir from Mahomed Ali Jinnah himself.

http://www.ya-hussain.com/int_col1/others/1942imgs/majin.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.49.122 (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that if we were to go by what he himself used, the article would be Mahomed. But the general policy is to use common names on Wikipedia, provided there's no real chance for confusion. From looking at the sources, it appears that muhammad is the more common name in the literature. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Related to such disagreement on names, the history of edits/development of this article is unfortunately incomplete, going back only to 14:41, 11 March 2006, when there was a name change, i.e. a version that had been developed under another title was copied in. Is it possible to see, somewhere, the prior history? Congratulations to all who worked on this featured article, recognized or not in the current history....  :) Don 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes and Contemporary views

Does anyone see any value in either of these two sections. I for one don't think quotes are encyclopedic on their own. And the contemporary views section could probably be eliminated while still remaining some of the content if it can fit in other sections. Pepsidrinka 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they are unnecessary - I don't know of any FA biography having these sections. On top of this they are extremely POV and unverified. Rama's Arrow 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased in favor of West Pakistani sentiments. The article seems to forget that when Jinnah ruled Pakistan, Pakistan included Bangladesh, and that Bengalis compromised the majority of the Pakistani population. It does not at all discuss Bengalis' opinion of Jinnah, and their vehement oppositon to many, if not most, of Jinnah's policies, including the Two-nation theory, the Partition of Benagli, and Jinnah's denegrating attitude towards the Benagli language and culture. Jinnah's policies towards Pakistan's Bengali population must be much more thoroughly discussed. The "legacy" section must include Benaglis' perception of Jinnah.67.102.1.90 (talk)

Sir Sikandar Hayat

Sir Sikandar Hayat is stated as a "critic" of the Lahore Resolution. Infact it was Sikandar Hayat who officially moved the Lahore Resolution on 24th March 1940 at the League convention. Under an unofficial pact... Unionist Party was operating in Punjab under the League banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.49.122 (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for this? Unless you do, I will be forced to retain this explanation becoz Hyat Khan was the leader of the Unionist Muslim League, which had an explicit problem with the AIML on this question. Hyat Khan was Jinnah's competitor in the Punjab, and Jinnah did not get much standing there until Hyat Khan's death in 1942. Hyat Khan was also heading a coalition government with the Akalis, Congress in Punjab, and his son Khizr continued this. Rama's Arrow 19:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also for your Lord Wavell comment - please add a ref, or else it will have to go. Rama's Arrow 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wavell's comment is not an indicator of figures - its his POV (Wavell was in fact accused of being pro-League during all this). A simple denial statement from him cannot suffice. Rama's Arrow 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1- About Sikandar Hayat- there was no Unionist Muslim League.. the article on "Unionist Muslim League" is some sort of a parallel universe -somewhere else with little or no basis in reality... yes there was a unionist party. Sikandar Hayat Khan was infact one of the authors of the Lahore Resolution and this can be confirmed from "Sole spokesman" by Ayesha Jalal, K B Sayeed's "Formative Phase" or "India: From Curzon to Nehru" etc... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lahore_Resolution also documents this.

2- As for Lord Wavell... he was accused of being Pro-League later in 1947. It was after direct action day that wavell shifted to being pro-League... before that he hated Jinnah and the Muslim League intensely. In his diary he had referred to Jinnah in most derogatory terms.. till after DAD when he realised that the game was bigger... Wavell's comment was not POV. He was commenting that there was no evidence in front of the Government to suggest that League - and remember it was Suhrawardy they were blaming- was responsible.

A detailed discussion on DAD can be found on page 166 of H V Hodson's "Great Divide".

Funny....Wavell was replaced in 1947 with Mountbatten - while the Congress leaders were under arrest from 1942 to 1945, it was Wavell who was cooperating with Jinnah. And Wavell was working intensely to form an agreement on the Cabinet mission plans that would include the League in government. And why should one accept Wavell's statment as anything but POV? - Narendra Modi denies that VHP and BJP leaders were involved in the Gujarat riots, contrary to police reports, NHRC allegations, etc. I don't know what to say on Sikandar Hyat Khan - he was a critic of Jinnah and the main League so he formed his "Unionist" unit. Until his death, he was leading the Punjab's Muslims, and governing in an alliance with Congress and Akalis. Khan had also warned Jinnah as per Ayesha Jalal's book to keep out of the Punjab, and Jalal indicates that Jinnah wasn't popular in Punjab until Khan's death. Rama's Arrow 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rama's Arrow,

The Unionist Party was founded in the late 1920s by Sir Fazli-Hussain - who was formerly of the Muslim League. It was not the Unionist Muslim League since Unionist Party had many great Hindu landlords like Sir Chotu Ram etc. My great grandfather, Pir Rang Ali Shah, was a member of this party till 1939- till he switched over to the Muslim League. Sikandar Hayat and Jinnah agreed that on the all India level Muslim League would represent the Unionist Party and that Unionist Party would call its government in Punjab a League ministry. Sikandar Hayat and Jinnah had a difficult relationship... but it was Sikandar Hayat - who at Jinnah's orders- left Viceroy's war council. Unionist Party under Sikandar Hayat was a part of the grand coalition that called itself the Muslim League. I suggest you read Ayesha Jalal's book very carefuly. It was Lord Linlithgow who had put the Congress leaders in jail btw. Also if Lord Wavell's comment is POV (even though it is a statement of fact that there was NO evidence of Muslim League's involvement) ... then why should we treat Gandhi's grandson's evidence as anything more than a POV? H V Hodson's book page 166 shows that Jinnah's plan for direct action day was of civil disobedience movement of the kind Gandhi had launched in 1942... nothing more. All over India ... things did remain peaceful - except Calcutta... and in Calcutta all figures point to the fact that 3 times as many Muslims were killed... that shows that the violence that broke out was not planned as such - as many Indians like to claim- but was an unfortunate occurence where mobs on BOTH sides went crazy. If anything, Sumir Sarkar, an Indian historian, has quoted a letter in his book from Sardar Patel in which he gloats over three times the numbers of Muslims getting killed... and we know that Patel was not your usual machivellian but a man of some integrity. So what does that tell you?

Dear "Anon IP number.." (1) Gandhi's grandson did not issue his own opinion or statement, but cited facts from other sources. And he said the same thing I wrote in this article - that League activists were blamed by media and other political parties for causing the violence. When Wavell made his comment, Patel was arguing with increasing frustration on how British officials were impeding his ministry's efforts to stop the bloodshed. No official inquiry was launched for DAD riots. And it does not strike me as odd that Wavell could make such a statement to P-L, whose support was necessary in order to force the Congress to bring the League into the ministry, and not make a public statement.

[[[Answer]]] Gandhi's grandson expressed a point of view. On the other hand Lord Wavell merely said that there was NO evidence of it in reports sent to him by the British police.

(2) On the number of Muslim deaths being 3-times greater than Hindu deaths - I'd love to say it was all an unfortunate series of events, but if Jinnah had not issued a call to "Direct Action," or talked of how "Muslims are no believers in non-violence," we would have no unfortunate occurence. And I cannot understand how a man who criticized Gandhi's "civil disobedience" from 1918 to 1946, suddenly would use the same course, albeit his continued lack of faith in non-violence, to achieve his noble goals. And please do not go on to say that Gandhi's campaigns could have caused similar violence - Gandhi cancelled a national campaign in 1922 over the deaths of a number of people far fewer than the DAD riots claimed. And Gandhi was responsible for bringing peace to Noakhali.

===Answer=== Jinnah did not make the statement "Muslims are no believers in non-violence" - Sir Feroz Khan Noon did. Jinnah's statement of 14 August 1946 (2 days before direct action day) very clearly outlined the fact that Direct Action Day was to be peaceful day of civil disobedience which it was except in Calcutta. Jinnah dismissed Suhrawardy by the way for negligence. As for your claim about Jinnah not believing in non-violence- Jinnah's commitment to non-violence was constitutional.

(3) Patel's comment was that it was a "good lesson for the League" that Muslims suffered more casualties than Hindus, owing to the League's own ideas of how Hindus and Muslims could not co-exist. Patel hoped Jinnah would think twice about provoking communal passions again. And the only reason that so many people were killed was because British Raj governors refused to allow the provincial and central governments to sufficiently attack the unruly mobs and protect innocent civilians. There is plenty of evidence citing Nehru's and Patel's frustration with Wavell and other officials, given that as home minister it was all his primary responsibility to stop the mobs.

===Answer=== It is amazing how Nehru and Patel were not all frustrated when the first governor general of Independent India , Lord Mountbatten, refused to deploy the boundary force which he had promised ... and when V P Menon went to the UN and declared that "it was mere communal disturbance" when Pakistan's foreign minister Sir Zafrullah Khan called for an international investigation into communal holocaust in Punjab.

(4) Why do you think that the Congress had to concede the League's entry as a way to stop the violence, if the League was not the root cause of it? If it was all an unfortunate occurence where both sides went crazy, there would be no basis on which to think that the League's entry could solve problems. (5) Things were not peaceful in Punjab, where owing to strikes and uncontrollable violence, the Khizr Hyat Khan ministry was dismissed. (6) Given that Khizr Hyat Khan's ministry was a target of the violence, and that Sikander Hyat Khan had established coalitions with the Congress and Akalis at a time when Jinnah had called Congress-led governments "Hindu Raj," gives you the proof of Sikander Hyat Khan's political independence.

Answer

1-There was no uncontrollable violence unless you think thousands of Muslim women marching peacefuly is uncontrollable violence.

2- As for Sikandar Hayat... between 1939 (when Jinnah-sikandar pact was supposed to have come into existence and Sikandar Hayat became a Muslim Leaguer however nominal) till his death in 1942 Sikandar Hayat did not establish coalitions with Congress or the Akali.

3- I am afraid you've gotten your dates of League's entry confused. Congress did not concede anything. The talk of Muslim League being in the government was there before the DAD. Congress joined the government in August/September after DAD ... It was not until the December summit in London that Muslim League came into the interim government... by then the DAD situation had already abided. Congress agreed to the League's entry only because it was the second largest party in the country and also - as Gandhi conceded in an agreement with Jinnah- that League alone represented the Muslims. I can produce the agreement at some later time if you continue this discussion.

On a personal note, I am not going to continue this argument as we are ent ing into the "no man's land" on the India-Pakistan border. I appreciated the note of thanks you (I think) posted on my talkpage. Given that you are a consistent contributor to Jinnah and Pakistan-related topics, and that you have access to valuable information, I strongly advise you to obtain a registered account, so that we may have better opportunities to work together and learn from each other, even if we may hopelessly disagree on a lot of things. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 11:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is very sad... I think we should continue this argument for the sake of dialogue. Also I continue to be grateful for doing such an excellent job with this page...

For the sake of correctness, I'm removing the reference to him as a critic of the Pakistan demand, even though I personally believe its true. Rama's Arrow 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to anon

It is very tempting to thwart all your replies with facts, but I must adhere to my pledge of restraint. I must also ask you to restrain yourself, becoz a revert war will definitely jeopardize this article's elevation to FA status and main page display. It is not POV to state what happened as a result of DAD - violence broke out across India. The sentence is very clear in stating that Jinnah called for strikes and protests, not attacks on Hindus. And again I strongly encourage you to obtain a registered account - I, and a lot of other people will feel more comfortable with you as a regular colleague. Rama's Arrow 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

--

Dear Rama... I don't want to get into any war and I am very sorry to hear that this is the impression that has been brought about. The violence that broke out was in Bengal and later in Bihar - not all over India- as H V Hodson's narration of facts on page 166 (Great Divide) as well ... but I leave it to you to consider how you would want to incorporate different perceptions of the same fact. I am sure the sense of fairness you've displayed will compel you to change that sentence ... As for a registered account I do have one but I'll have to dig it out from my email - so give me some time.

--

Re-worded the sentence. Now its better. Rama's Arrow 14:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you ... The word "degenerated" is fairer and I agree with its usage - the fundamental point of disagreement being the specific scope of DAD violence.

People feel more comfortable with registered users, who are taken more seriously. Since you've been with us for so long, what's the harm in making a simple account? You will also do a lot of good for Pakistan-related articles, which seem to be your basic interest. Join us, Rama's Arrow 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd note to anon

Hi - signing up for a new account will take 30 seconds! When I talked of revert war, it was becoz of my concern that edit wars here will delay this article's rise to FA status. Its not an observation about this debate or you. It will be easier for people to communicate if you get a registered account. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Early life

Many sentences like about him dressing in European clothes does not belong in his early life section. Also the source about Jinnah consuming alcohol and pork needs a better quote than the one given. A columnist paper from a news source is not a correct source especially if this is to be featured. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the reference about Jinnah's non-observance of Islam with another. Rediff.com, I maintain, is still a credible news site and source. Rama's Arrow 20:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That source is also not a correct source because it's a personal essay or review and the reference actually points to a quote by a completely different author and even then it's still an allegation. Rediff.com could be a source for a news story like a building being burnt, but the references is to a columnist paper which means that a writer, not a scholar, submitted it. It would not be a correct source to use for something that is a historical fact. The problem here is with sources, so if you can find a history source which correctly states that he did then that source would be fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor has a point. The publication may be credible most of the time, but if you look further, they cite Ibn Warraq as the source. I'd be hard pressed to believe something by Ibn Warraq relating to Islam and/or Muslims that wasn't confirmed by another independent, nuetral source. Pepsidrinka 21:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that Ibn Warraq was a constant critic of Islam. I will search for a more credible source, but I don't believe there is a need to remove the note and Rediff citation as of now. Rama's Arrow 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Language

Rama- According to M C Chagla, who wrote "Roses in December" which I read a long time ago, Jinnah, who could speak English better than many native English speakers, nonetheless was maserly in Gujurati and Cutchie.

Please research this issue. Again great work man. Thanks.

Hi - I have a citation from Rajmohan Gandhi's book that Jinnah had to "stammer" a speech in Gujarati during a 1918 Gujarat Political Conference in Gujarat, after Gandhi asked speakers to use their native language instead of English. The author also provides evidence from his own research books (also with a quote by Gandhi) that Jinnah almost only used English and grew distant from Gandhi after this experience. As to Kutchi, I strongly doubt it becoz its a rural, region-specific dialect which I doubt Jinnah would have ever known becoz his father was from Kathiawar and Jinnah never lived in Gujarat. Rama's Arrow 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

M C Chagla, a famous Indian lawyer and judge.. was Jinnah's junior in law and his apprentice. He broke with Jinnah when Jinnah made his own break with Indian Nationalist movement and became a separatist. I think M C Chagla's view ... as Jinnah's junior, supporter and finally opponent is more accurate than Ramohan Gandhi's... who after all wasn't even born then.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

I do not desire to offer any comment about the contents of this article. My attention was drawn to this page, and I am just giving links to my responses:

• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhadani&diff=52800776&oldid=52800754
• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rama%27s_Arrow&diff=prev&oldid=52837721
• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.25.124.253&diff=prev&oldid=52837354

As of now, I am not interested in this FA - I know that if certains editors continue to destroy the contents, the FA status may be lost, and that shall be a great loss to wikipedia, and wastage of time and resources of the wikipedians. Regards. --Bhadani 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More coments - some may not like these information: Does anyone has any doubt that Jinnah went abroad several times before the partition of India with a passport issued by the-then Government of India, then under the control and management of the Great Britain, and he was a citizen of India before he became a citizen of Pakistan after Pakistan was formed? Any comments please. --Bhadani 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC) crossed as not relevant perhaps. BTW, someone vandalisizing this page, also vandalized my talk page: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhadani&diff=53017930&oldid=53008091

Jinnah remained a citizen of India even after the creation of Pakistan.

I again request users to please register, and edit to avoid confusion. Thanks. --Bhadani 09:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

Congrats all contributors for this featured articles!!! :) --Pratheepps 04:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to everyone to make Muhammad Ali Jinnah a featured article. --Spasage 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

JINNAH

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHETHER INFORMATION ABOUT JINNAH'S RESLIGIOUS AFFILIATION AS AN AGHA KHANI IS THAT SHOULD BE ON HIS SITE, FURTHERMORE THAT THE MUSLIM LEAGUE HE LED WAS FORMED BY AGHA KHAN, WHOSE FATHER WAS UNDER A DEATH SENTENCE BY THE KING OF PERSIA FOR HIS RELIGION CLAIMING TO BE GOD ON EARTH. INCIDENTLY THE SAME KING TOOK THE TITLE AWAY FROM AGHA KHAN WHICH HE HAD GIVEN TO HIM. fINALLY, AGHA KHAN HELPED THE BRITISH QUELL HTE REBELLION IN SIND PROVINCE BY MUSLIM THEREFORE GETTING THE TITLE PRINCE OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS INFORMATION IS RELEVANT.

TRUEBLOOD786trueblood 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Agha Khan's history and role with the League is NOT relevant to a personal biography of Jinnah. Jinnah was a member of the Ismaili Khoja sect, and the events you speak of did not affect his life and thus do not merit inclusion in this succint biography. Thank you for discussing this. Rama's Arrow 04:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

'Seems to me that a persons religion who formed a country soley on the basis of religion is completely relevant, if on the otherhand he had made a secular country than his religion would not be relevant. Here Jinnah had made a statement that when one converts from Hinduism to Moslem he automatically becomes part of a different nation, thus his religion which is not mainstream islam should be relevant.'

TRUEBLOOD786

to TRUE BLOOD

dear sir i would like you not to express such views 'thus his religion which is not mainstream islam should be relevant.'' because shia islam is recognizd to be a part of islam by all the main religious authourities shiism or sunnism reflect a persons viewpoint nad are not in any way related to basic religious values although some ignorant people may associate them to be such--Pak Genius 18:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniGenius (talk • contribs)

Contradiction

The article says:

"Jinnah was the eldest of five children born to Jinnahbhai Poonja (1857–1901), a prosperous Gujarati merchant who had emigrated to Sindh from Kathiawar, Gujarat.[3] Jinnahbhai Poonja and Mithibai had six other children—Ahmad Ali, Bunde Ali, Rahmat Ali, Maryam, Fatima and Shireen"

How can he have been the eldest of five when his parents had seven children?

Hrm. The citation at the end of the sentence which states that he is the eldest of five is merely a reference to his father/father's occupation and includes no information about being the eldest of five children. I'm not sure where that information comes from. It seems to me that such a glaring contradiction in two sentences right next to each other would have been picked up by someone in the peer review and nomination for featured status, but apparently not. -- 63.167.255.231 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor phrasing issue

Two sentences in the introduction begin with "Disillusioned by the failure...", with only a single sentence in-between them as a buffer. There is nothing technically wrong with this, but it is repetitive and indicates a lack of linguistic creativity in writing. One of them can probably be tweaked to use different verbiage. -- 63.167.255.231 12:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bengali view of Jinnah

Hi everyone,

I've included a Bengali view of Jinnah paragraph. Very important as Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan upto 1971 and it was Jinnah's decisions in creating a country where one ethnic group (Punjabis) who ruled over everyone else which ended the Pakistan concept in 1971. Please do not start an edit wars over this.

Habz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habz (talk • contribs)

Ive removed your comments as they were highly insulting, Jinnah was the founding father of Pakistan not Bangladesh, He was a statesman that achieved Pakistan through completely democratic, peaceful means, he was never imprisioned unlike Gandhi or Sheik Mujeeb.

"Very important as Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan upto 1971"

East Pakistan was part of pakistan federation until 1971 not Bangladesh.

"it was Jinnah's decisions in creating a country where one ethnic group (Punjabis) who ruled over everyone else which ended the Pakistan concept in 1971"

It was S Mujeebs decision to create a country where one ethnic group (Banglas) who ruled over everyone one else (ie Biharis).

Please look up the demographic statistics of 1950s or later Pakistan (ie Bengali/Punjabi distribution) and the current Bangladesh statistics of Bengali and non-Bengali people. You'll see that in Bangladesh almost cent percent of the population (98%) are Bengalis. So, you're comapring apples with oranges. The oppression of West Pakistan (mostly by Punjabis) over East Pakistan (Bengalis) is a well-documented history of bigotry. And the Biharis stranded in Bangladesh are stranded because Pakistan government refuses to take them to Pakistan or even properly acknowledge their claim of Pakistani citizenship even today. Please look up related articles in Wikipedia and elsewhere if you still have any doubt on the subject. Also, I think the Bengali view of Jinnah should be at least mentioned (if not discussed in detail) somewhere in the article to form a 360 degree view of the person. Thinking-ape

Read the rules of wiki86.131.108.49 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Ad

"peaceful means"... lol, are you kidding me? Tuncrypt 14:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether by peaceful means or violent, East Pakistan decided to join the country on its own and not by coercion. And how could Jinnah have decided to create the country to be ruled by one ethnic group (Punjabis) when he a) was a Gujrati himself; and b) died a year and a half after Pakistan was created, before he was able to leave a remarkable imprint on the country's policies? One should weigh their arguments and not just give in to national propaganda and sentimental, yet baseless claims. It was however, unfortunate that a certain class exploited the right of people to govern themselves and formulate their own policies that resulted in the unfortunate split. Let's all mourn for that. MHusaini 09:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gujarati

As a Pakistani citizen he had no link to Gujarat whatsoever and neither he officially accepted Gujarati as his language. He endorsed Urdu that is why Gujarati is irrelevent. Some historians claim that his family was basically from Sahiwal which is now in Pakistan. Szhaider 07:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

neither he officially accepted Gujarati as his language..

Can you back this with a reference, please? --Ragib 07:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I guess I agree now that it shouldn't be there. It was just his mother tongue, he never lived in Gujarat, identified too strongly as a Gujarati, and probably never wrote anything in the Gujarati language (unlike Gandhi for example), or (most importantly) in the Gujarati script. Tuncrypt 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) /But btw, why do you bold the Urdu? It looks so lame, lol

I don't think there is an obligation (to begin with) to provide transliteration in national and mother languages in biographies. What is really being pushed around here is India/Pakistan attitude differences - some Pakistani editors don't want Jinnah to be associated too closely to Indian influences, while some Indian editors want to attach him to Indian culture. Both want to prove a point that's entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 15:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I take the attitude that transliteration in any language is basically more information. We should choose to be selective only because (a) we don't want the first line to be crowded with scores of transliterations and (b) the links in other language Wikipedias are already present. Rama's arrow 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though he might have been the founder of Pakistan, Jinnah did not know Urdu [1]. I do not wish to remove the Urdu script, but I feel that the Gujarati script is appropriate as Gujarati was his mother tongue [2]. I agree with the fact that we should be selective, but when certain things are beneficial, it is alright to keep them. For this reason, I have restored the Gujarati script. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything, but to say Jinnah didn't know Urdu is quite unbelievable and likely to be absurd. A reference from a credible and reliable source would have been a lot better to support this The reference you added is from a Hindutva site (as I see in the site's banners). Dependable historic information is something NOT coming from any ideology-based site, but rather referenced academic/historic work. Jinnah's article suggests that his mother tongue was Gujrati, so no problem in keeping that here. --Ragib 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Gujarati is not relevent as Jinnah never used it in his political life and considered Karachi his city (predominantly Urdu speaking city, many Sindhi Pakistanis rever him as Sindhi). There is no historical proof whatsoever of Jinnah's personal inclination towards Gujarat. He liked to be identified as Muslim more than anything. Szhaider 10:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Ragib: Sorry if the reference was from a Hindutva site. I did not know that. A more reputable source is the Encarta encyclopedia: Mohammed Ali Jinnah Quick Facts. Mr. Szhaider, even though many Sindhi Pakistanis may revere Jinnah as Sindhi, it is best to be neutral here. Jinnah was born an Indian Muslim, with his mother tongue being Gujarati. Whether or not he used it in his political career is irrelevant. Urdu should stay in the article because it is the national language of Pakistan (with Jinnah being the father of the country) and Gujarati should stay on the article because it is Jinnah's native tongue. Before you revert my changes, I would like all three of us to come to a consensus here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me put this straight for you. He was born in Karachi. He had no connection to Gujarat whatsoever. He could speak Gujarati but did not speak it. He always spoke English. He chose Urdu as preferable language for Pakistan and made some speeches in Urdu to stress his point. He never identified himself as Gujarati. Why do you stress for Gujaratai script? Only his parents migrated from Gujarat where they originally came from Sahiwal (a city which is now in Pakistan). Moreover, Gujarati script has no relevance here as his importance to have an article about him is because he created Pakistan and there is no recognition for Gujarati in this country. Szhaider 05:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

i dont see why we cant add sindhi and gujarati after the urdu. its pretty obvious from the conversation here that he had many different ties. Pirus 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Content Selection

I realize this may not be totally relevent but I need some help in selecting what information to use for a research paper. The topic is: 'Quaid-e-Azam - An Architect of Pakistan'. Can anyone please guide me as to what sort of content I should use in the paper? I'll be very grateful!! Beeny 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Beeny

Well sir this is a biography of Jinnah, which summarizes his personal life and political career and offering a brief analysis of his legacy. You are free to use any information given here, but please do not plagiarize. As for your research paper, only you or a colleague can decipher which information will be useful. Rama's arrow 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For "Architect of Pakistan," I assume the sections "Leader of the Muslim League" and "Founding Pakistan" will be helpful. Cheers, Rama's arrow 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased in favor of West Pakistani sentiments. The article seems to forget that when Jinnah ruled Pakistan, Pakistan included Bangladesh, and that Bengalis compromised the majority of the Pakistani population. It does not at all discuss Bengalis' opinion of Jinnah, and their vehement oppositon to many, if not most, of Jinnah's policies, including the Two-nation theory, the Partition of Benagli, and Jinnah's denegrating attitude towards the Benagli language and culture. Jinnah's policies towards Pakistan's Bengali population must be much more thoroughly discussed. The "legacy" section must include Benaglis' perception of Jinnah. 67.102.1.90 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of "Quaid-e-Azam"

The insertion of "u" after "q" is a convention of English orthography. The traditional spelling is "Qaid". Sarayuparin 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See Official Website about Quaid-e-Azam Szhaider 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating contribution from IPs and new comers

I have seen some edits from IPs which make sense. Many people can't contribute to wikipedia regularly becuase of their resposibilities, but often they come across info on some articles when they are just browsing it (As wiki pages rank high on google), and find it necessary to make correction. I have seen that many times its correct and that was the idea of wikipedia that any person could contrbute from any place and regular contributers make sure that they respect them and also maintain the article. It was just a comment to improve articles. --Falcon007 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Changes Second Paragraph Lead

I have made stylistic changes to the second paragraph in the lead. They are mainly in the nature of correcting (minor) usage or tense inconsistencies and smoothing transitions. All are explained in the edit summaries. Please let me know if there are any questions. Here is the original version:

“ Jinnah rose to prominence in the Indian National Congress expounding Hindu-Muslim unity. Helping shape the 1916 Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim League, he was a key leader in the All India Home Rule League. Differences with Mahatma Gandhi led Jinnah to quit the Congress. He then took charge of the Muslim League and proposed a fourteen-point constitutional reform plan to safeguard the political rights of Muslims in a self-governing India. Disillusioned by the failure of his efforts and the League's disunity, Jinnah would live in London for many years. ”

and here is the final version:

“ Jinnah rose to prominence in the Indian National Congress expounding ideas of Hindu-Muslim unity and helping shape the 1916 Lucknow Pact with the Muslim League; he also became a key leader in the All India Home Rule League. Differences with Mahatma Gandhi led Jinnah to quit the Congress and take charge of the Muslim League. He proposed a fourteen-point constitutional reform plan to safeguard the political rights of Muslims in a self-governing India. His proposals failed amid the League's disunity, driving a disillusioned Jinnah to live in London for many years. ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

It should be Karachi, Sindh, British India, or Karachi, Sindh or just Karachi. 198.7.249.101 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I think it should be Bombay Presidency, given that Sindh was part of that province at the time (90% sure). The India (disambiguation) link has been provided to distinguish the India of Jinnah's birth from ROI - it is not necessary to use any other term but "India" because (1) that's how the land (British colony and otherwise) was known in conventional history and (2) other encyclopedias use the term "India," even in articles about Jinnah. Rama's arrow 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sind (the spelling in British times) was a division of the Bombay Presidency when Jinnah was born, but it was commonly referred to contemporaneously as "Karachi, Sind" and not "Karachi, Bombay Presidency." (In the same way that during the relevant years—i.e., before the United Provinces was created—Lucknow was commonly referred to as Lucknow, Oudh, rather than Lucknow, Bengal Presidency). As for the "British India" vs. "India (disambiguation)" debate, there are many contexts where the latter usage makes more sense, but in an information box, where the goal is to give maximum information up front, "British India" is apt. In the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, the article on Karachi begins with: "KARACHI, or Kurrachee, a seaport and district of British India, in the Sind province of Bombay." (See here.) I think "Karachi, Sind, British India" is a better option. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've made two minor changes: changed "Mahatma Gandhi" to "Mohandas Gandhi" in second paragraph, since in 1918 Gandhi wasn't a full-fledged "Mahatma." I have also changed the second occurrence of "disillusioned" to "tempered." This is not only because (as someone observed above) two "disillusioned" within a few sentences is repetitive, but also because "disillusioned" hints at "embittered," which might not have been the case. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not really a problem (I am of the opinion that Gandhi must always be referred to as "Mohandas Gandhi") but there was a reason behind using the term "Mahatma Gandhi." First off, its the conventional name used in this encyclopedia for the man - notice how his bio is titled "Mahatma Gandhi" - there was a big debate about this some time ago. As the link you changed is the first mention of Gandhi in the article, it is introducing him to the reader for the first time and it should introduce as "Mahatma Gandhi." This is the case in every article that discusses him. Also, your reasoning that in 1918, Gandhi was not yet "Mahatma" is flawed. In fact, that title came into popular use around that time - but the point is, we don't set names chronologically (I frankly think it is tedious and over-analysis - how do we readjust all mention of Gandhi and others?). Rama's arrow 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did consider the question of "first mention of name," however the problem is that it is mentioned is a well-defined context (newly returned Gandhi, recently crowned Mahatma in 1915, that's why I said "full-fledged Mahatma," both in INC etc etc.) What if Jinnah and Gandhi had met as students? Clearly "Mohandas Gandhi" would be preferable to even a qualified version like "a 20-something Mahatma Gandhi." As for generalizing to all other references to Gandhi in Wikipedia etc., why do we need to do that en masse? People can do that if the context is right. I'm guessing in most cases "Mahatma Gandhi" would be just fine.

Also, you didn't respond to my first post above (i.e. about Karachi, Sind etc). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your first post - [3] - I think Britannica sets a good precedent: Karachi, India (now in Pakistan). "British India" was commonly referred to simply as "India." EB-1911 treats the issue differently from EB-2007, perhaps because British rule in India existed at the time, while EB'07 has to take the broader history in view. Rama's arrow 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too in EB2007 and was going to mention it in my last post. So, why don't we go for "Karachi, India (dab), now Pakistan?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Its fine with me, except that its not really necessary. The infobox contains his place of death, which is stated to be Karachi, Pakistan, which explains the transition. I don't see how it can confuse or misrepresent anything. Rama's arrow 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have changed it and removed Pakistan from death info (same as Britannica). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I do not agree with this edit. I think Pakistan should be mentioned in place of death. Szhaider 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Encarta Quick Facts (closest thing to information box) says: "Place of Birth: Karachi, British India (now Pakistan)" See here. So, I will change it to just that and change death info to: Karachi Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As you mentioned Encarta, first online encyclopedia and still more accurate than Wikipedia in many aspects, uses "British India" rather than India (which unavoidably refers to present day India as it is known). Shouldn't we be following Encarta's approach? Szhaider 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

This really needs some kind of addition... the one thing he is to be criticized for, his separatism, is missing. LOL. Tuncrypt 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well basically he can't be criticised as essentially he was perfect. Apparently.

Quaid-E-Azam, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, was a Pragmatic-Modernist-Islamist.

name

Is it Muhammad Ali or Mahomed Ali? This relates to another page where a user is moving the page to have the Mahomed spelling. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a little more detail? Thanks! Szhaider 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some anon was arguing for the page to be titled "Mahomed Ali Jinnah" some time back, but "Muhammad" or "Mohammad" has always been the conventional spelling for Jinnah's name - I've never seen his name spelled "Mahomed." I don't know if we need to change the "u" to an "o," but I don't see a point either. Rama's arrow 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not really remember the source (may be Pakistan Government's TV, PTV's biographical show about Jinnah on his birthday) but I am 99% sure that as a Pakistani citizen official spellings of his name were chosen as "Mohammad Ali Jinnah", however, a Pakistan Government website spells his name as "Muhammad Ali Jinnah". "Muhammad" or "Mohammad" both are fine, but I would prefer "Mohammad" for Jinnah despite my personal inclination is otherwise. Szhaider 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mahomedali Jinnahbhai is the name written on his enrollement register at Sindh Madrasatul-Islam. However contemporary spelling has been more or less standardised as Muhammad (name). --IslesCape^Talk 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

The lead sentence as it currently stand is:

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Urdu: محمد على جناح) (December 25 1876 – September 11 1948) was an Indian Muslim politician and leader of the All India Muslim League who founded Pakistan and served as its first Governor-General.

How about changing it to:

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Urdu: محمد على جناح) (December 25 1876 – September 11 1948) was the founder of Pakistan, its first Governor-General, and a major political leader of the Muslim opposition to British rule in India.

The reasons for the change (Britannica and Encarta notwithstanding) are (a) that his founding of Pakistan is a more important historical event than his status as "politician" or leader of "All India Muslim League," and should come first in the sentence, (b) "leader of Muslim opposition to British rule in India" provides more information (without resorting to links) than "leader of the All India Muslim League." Since the Muslim League didn't represent all Muslims, the text says, "a major political leader" instead of "the major political leader." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I completely agree with the changes you are bringing. I always wanted to change it in the same way but I was afraid of another pandora box of revert wars. Szhaider 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely, most strongly disagree with Fowler. Lemme be clear - the Pakistan movement was the greatest contribution of Jinnah, but not the only one. Until 1940, he was not at all on course to become the founder of a Muslim state. Until the mid-1930s, he was an Indian nationalist politician. I don't think you can judge Jinnah entirely on the last 8 years of his life. Rama's arrow 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Muslim opposition to British rule" that is plain stupid and false. Firstly, the Muslim League "did not" oppose British rule for a long time. Take a case like the Khilafat struggle, it was on behalf of the caliphate and not the independence of India. And certainly the Aligarh movement and the founding charter of the League was entirely loyalist. This is stupid because you cannot have a more loaded, POV statement for an intro to this article - nobody can assert that Muslim opposition was in fact opposition, or that it was separate from Hindu opposition. You must not try to pass judgment - just report the facts. An important fact is that a large number of Muslims did support the Congress, and the communal division was not deep as it eventually became in the 1940s. There is a lot of revisionist history in what you're trying to say - don't push new interpretations. Rama's arrow 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To close, there is a reason why Britannica says "Indian Muslim politician" before crediting Jinnah with being the founder of Pakistan. Rama's arrow 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Muslim League, according to Britannica, was at first, "encouraged by the British and was generally favourable to their rule, but the organization adopted self-government for India as its goal in 1913." That certainly seems like opposition to British rule. What the League did for the first 7 years of its life (which you labeled "a long time"), after its founding in 1906, is not pertinent, since (again according to Britannica) "Only in 1913, when authoritatively assured that the League was as devoted as the Congress to the political emancipation of India, did Jinnah join the league." You can argue about what percentage of Indian Muslims the League did represent, but the League's opposition to British rule was not in doubt during Jinnah's tenure in the League. That is a statement of fact, not a "POV statement" as you put it.

Jinnah was the major political leader of the Muslim League, and the League not only opposed British rule, but also had few Hindu members to speak of, that certainly makes Jinnah "a major political leader of the Muslim opposition to British rule in India." The League's opposition—whether nationalistic in the early years or Pakistan-oriented in its later years—was nonetheless Muslim opposition. Nowhere does the statement say that all the Muslims supported the Muslim League, or that Congress didn't have the support of many Muslims, or that the Muslim opposition demanded a separate state for Muslims. As for the creation of Pakistan, it was the most important event in Jinnah's life, it doesn't matter that it occupied 8 years, it deserves first mention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence has to explain who Jinnah the person was and what he did. Thus,

• "Jinnah was the founder of Pakistan:" what does that mean? Is Pakistan a corporation, founded by this businessman? Is it a charity founded by this philanthropist? Did he just register the name "Pakistan" with some agency and set up shop? Was he alone - certainly not. When you credit Jinnah as the founder, in single tense first and foremost, you are discounting (1) Muslim League (2) Iqbal, (3) Rehmat Ali (4) Liaquat Ali (5) Nishtar (6) Constituent Assembly of Pakistan (7) Mountbatten (8) Congress. You are not explaining the League's role, not the politics or what Pakistan is. You are even discounting who Jinnah was - a businessman? a professor? who?
• What happened for the first 70+ years of Jinnah's life? What was he?
• "Jinnah was an Indian Muslim politician:" between 1905 and 1947, Jinnah was an Indian politician who worked specifically for Muslim interests from 1920 onwards.
• "a major leader of the Muslim League:" Jinnah was the paramount leader of the League from 1932 to 1948. The Pakistan movement began only in 1940. Without Jinnah at the helm of the League, you cannot explain how Jinnah came to be Pakistan's founder.

Your case for change is baseless - Jinnah is in no way misrepresented currently. And your proposed changes are also false and plainly stupid:

• Its in the wrong chronological order.
• It is factually wrong - on most occasions, Jinnah did not lead "Muslim opposition to British rule." He worked for self-government within British rule for most of his life and he was active in criticizing Indian nationalists and people who directly opposed British rule through civil disobedience.
• What does Muslim opposition to British rule in India mean? It gives all the wrong assumptions and gives rise to all kinds of questions. It is a "POV statement" - did Jinnah not speak for both Hindus and Muslims in the 1910s? And Jinnah was the leader of the Muslim League, not of "Muslim opposition."
• What is Muslim opposition? When the Khilafatists protested for the Sultan of Turkey and not the independence of India? When the Aligarh movement and the League's charter promoted loyalty? When Jinnah exhorted Muslims to serve in World War II for the British? When the League pledged loyalty during wars, accepted the British councils and asked for dominion status when all other parties were doing the same? Or did you mean the Muslims who supported the Congress, were jailed in nationalist demonstrations during various civil disobedience campaigns? - when the readers ask such questions upon reading that sentence, how will you clarify this complex set of issues?
• Did you forget that the League-Congress pact of 1916 failed? Did you forget that Jinnah and the League opposed the nationalists, the Khilafatists and were members of British councils? Did you forget that Jinnah had to fight with the pro-British factions of Sir Muhammad Shafi and Sir Fazlur Rehman in the League, through the 1920s? Did Iqbal not suggest that British rule should continue to prevent a Hindu-majority from coming to power in an independent India? Did you forget that Jinnah abandoned the League in 1929? Did you forget that the League had virtually no popular standing until the 1937 elections and did not command a vas majority following amongst Muslims until 1946?

Can you explain to me why all these complicated and different facts are to be generalized in such a fashion that promotes a particular POV - that (1) Muslim opposition was separate from Hindu opposition, that (2) Jinnah was "the founder" of Pakistan and (3) chronologically wrong version of history?

Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta does not feel to make such stupid statements. I suspect this is only because Jinnah is described as "Indian." I don't understand why, when the lead sentence poses absolutely no inaccuracy or misconception about Jinnah, when the lead sentence immediately credits him as a leader of the League and founder of Pakistan (in his exclusive capacity as the League's president and top leader), you want to launch this frivolous debate to change the sentence for the worse. Rama's arrow 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Let me deal with your points one by one.

• Chronological order: I don't think chronological order matters in the first sentence. For example in Encarta the George Washington page begins with: "First president of the United States (1789-1797) and one of the most important leaders in United States history." Only then does it go farther back in history with "His role in gaining independence for the American colonies and later in unifying them under ..." All the arguments you make about Jinnah's first sentence, can be made about Washington's first sentence above. In other words, "what does that mean? Is the United States a corporation, founded by this businessman? Is it a charity founded by this philanthropist? Did he just register the name "United States" with some agency and set up shop? Was he alone - certainly not. When you credit Washington as one of the most important leaders in United States history, in single tense (sic) first and foremost, you are discounting (1) Benjamin Franklin (2) Thomas Jefferson (3) John Adams (4) Patrick Henry (5) John Hancock (6) the Second Continental Congress (7) George III (8) the French. You are not explaining the role of the Continental Army, not the politics or what the United States is. You are even discounting who Washington was - a businessman? a professor? who?" Clearly there is no agreement about "chronological order." Britannica, on the other hand, leads the George Washington page with: "American general and commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775–83) and subsequently first president of the United States (1789–97)."

Should Jinnah be called the "founder of Pakistan" right off the bat? As long as you get to the other facts of his life in the lead, I don't see any problem. The Encarta "Quick Facts" page on Jinnah is titled, "Founder and leader of Pakistan," (see here) and the actual page itself calls him "the founding father of Pakistan."

• "What happened for the first 70+ years of Jinnah's life? What was he?" Well, by the same token, what happened to George Washington for the first 43 years of his life before he became President? He certainly spent more years as a "colonist" (43) than he did as a citizen of the United States.

• "Was Jinnah a major political leader of the Muslim league?" Yes, he was in the same way that George Washington was "one of the most important leaders of the United States." I didn't say he was the major political leader or that he was the "Supreme Leader"—those are your words.

As for the facts:

• Your claim: "It is factually wrong - on most occasions, Jinnah did not lead "Muslim opposition to British rule." He worked for self-government within British rule for most of his life and he was active in criticizing Indian nationalists and people who directly opposed British rule through civil disobedience." Well, fighting for Dominion Status, as Jinnah did, is still fighting against British rule (as it existed then). Criticizing the Congress, or Gandhi, or advocating a less strident approach against the British doesn't make him not oppose British rule (even if there were individual elements in the League from time to time who did). Jinnah was always opposed to British rule since he joined the Muslim league in 1913.

• Your question: "What does Muslim opposition to British rule in India mean? It gives all the wrong assumptions and gives rise to all kinds of questions. It is a "POV statement" - did Jinnah not speak for both Hindus and Muslims in the 1910s? And Jinnah was the leader of the Muslim League, not of "Muslim opposition." I am consistently calling him a major political leader of the Muslim opposition to British rule. Yes, Jinnah did speak to both Hindus and Muslims before 1910, but he was 36 years old in 1910, and this is a lead sentence; his leadership in the Muslim opposition to British rule, which he exercised for all but one of the last 38 years of his life, is more important than what he advocated in his early 30s. Wikipedia does not mandate such extreme generality in a lead sentence so as to account for the entire life of a person, from cradle to grave.

• As for your questions, "Did you forget that the League-Congress pact of 1916 failed? Did you forget that Jinnah and the League opposed the nationalists, the Khilafatists and were members of British councils? Did you forget that Jinnah had to fight with the pro-British factions of Sir Muhammad Shafi and Sir Fazlur Rehman in the League, through the 1920s? Did Iqbal not suggest that British rule should continue to prevent a Hindu-majority from coming to power in an independent India? Did you forget that Jinnah abandoned the League in 1929? Did you forget that the League had virtually no popular standing until the 1937 elections and did not command a vast majority following amongst Muslims until 1946?" the fact of Jinnah abandoning the League doesn't make him less of a major political leader. (Gandhi, in the Wikipedia page, is described as "was a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian independence movement," yet there were many years in Gandhi's life, in the 1920s for example, when he took "time off," as it were, from the Indian independence movement.) Jinnah's differences with the pro-British factions in the League, make him less of a "leader of the All-India Muslim League," (in your version of the lead) and, in fact, more of a "political leader of the Muslim opposition to British rule in India." (my lead). The fact remains, as I have said above: Jinnah was always (beginning 1913) against British rule. He may have had a more benign approach towards the British, he may have urged Dominion Status first, etc. etc., but he was very clear in his opposition to British rule.

If I were simply allergic was to his being called "Indian," I would have asked for the lead sentence to be changed to: "Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Urdu: محمد على جناح) (December 25 1876 – September 11 1948) was a Muslim politician of India and leader of the Muslim League who founded Pakistan and served as its first Governor-General." That would have been a simple fix. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• What Wikipedia doesn't mandate is over-complicating issues and creating problems where there are none. You routinely fail to discount about what is the need for a change. Britannica describes him almost verbatim as this current version. Encarta just says "Indian politician."
• George Washington being the first "president" - president is an office. Its the same title for Washington as it is for the Bushes, Carter, Ulysses S. Grant, etc. Your point about Britannica simply validates my line of reasoning.
• Jinnah was always (beginning 1913) against British rule. Wrong - Jinnah was a nationalist ever since he worked for Dadabhai Naoroji and defended Lokmanya Tilak. I'm not talking about his opposition to British rule - it is your foolish wording of him being a "leader of Muslim opposition to British rule," which is factually wrong.
• Jinnah abandoning the League doesn't make him less of a major political leader, criticizing Gandhi does not mean he doesn't oppose British rule thats exactly my point - how can you generalize him as the "leader of Muslim opposition to British rule" when there are so many twists and complex details about his life and career?
• founder of Pakistan Jinnah is directly credited in the first line, where the sentence's order of him being an (1) Indian Muslim politician who (2) led the Muslim League and (3) founded Pakistan. What is wrong with this? It is in fact the sequence of his career. Also, it CORRECTLY denotes his position in the founding of Pakistan - as the main leader of the party which fought for Pakistan.
• Why do I suspect that all you want to do is remove "Indian?" Because the only thing that has been a matter of dispute is his being described as an "Indian" - which is the only detail conspicously missing from your proposals to change the lead sentence for no logical reason whatsoever.
• The biggest, glaring problem is YOUR POV - excuse me, but declaring that founding Pakistan was his greatest achievement demanding very first mention, that the other stuff doesn't matter is YOUR POV. Rama's arrow 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lemme ask you - don't you see the weirdness of this debate? You want to change the lead sentence supported by Britannica, Encarta and the FAC consensus on this article in favor of a sentence that is full of problems and complications. Rama's arrow 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me make you aware that you are breaking Wiki Policies by using Disambig pages where they are not needed. They page can easily link to British India, and thats the only term you are meant to be referring to when looking up the Birthplace/Nationality of him. India might have a lot of meanings but not in this case. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)