Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Copy Edit Early Life

I've copy edited the first two paragraphs of the "Early Life" section. Here is the version before the copy edit:

“ Jinnah was born as Mahomedali Jinnahbhai in Wazir Mansion, Karachi, Sindh (now in Pakistan). The earliest records of his school register suggest he was born on October 20 1875, but Sarojini Naidu, the author of Jinnah's first biography gives the date December 25 1876. Jinnah was the eldest of seven children born to Jinnahbhai Poonja (1857–1901), a prosperous Gujarati merchant who had emigrated to Sindh from Kathiawar, Gujarat. Jinnahbhai Poonja and Mithibai had six other children—Ahmad Ali, Bunde Ali, Rahmat Ali, Maryam, Fatima and Shireen. His family belonged to the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shi'a Islam. Jinnah had a turbulent time at several different schools, but finally found stability at the Christian Missionary Society High School in Karachi. At home, the family's mother tongue was Gujarati, but members of the household also became conversant in Kutchi, Sindhi and English.

In 1892, Jinnah went to London to work for Graham's Shipping and Trading Company. He had been married to a distant relative named Emibai, who is believed to have been either 14 or 16 years old at the time of their marriage, but she died shortly after he moved to London. His mother died around this time as well. In 1894, Jinnah quit his job to study law at Lincoln's Inn and graduated in 1896. At about this time, Jinnah began to participate in politics. An admirer of Indian political leaders Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Jinnah worked with other Indian students on Naoroji's campaign to win a seat in the British Parliament. While developing largely constitutionalist views on Indian self-government, Jinnah despised the arrogance of British officials and the discrimination against Indians.

”

And here is the copy edited version:

“ Jinnah was born as Mahomedali Jinnahbhai in Wazir Mansion, Karachi, Sindh—then a province of the Bombay Presidency of British India. Although his earliest school records were to state that he was born on October 20 1875, he himself later in life would give December 25, 1876 as his official date of birth. Jinnah was the eldest of seven children born to Mithibai and Jinnahbhai Poonja. His father, Jinnahbhai (1857–1901), was a prosperous Gujarati merchant who had moved to Sindh from Kathiawar, Gujarat shortly before Jinnah's birth. The firstborn Jinnah was soon joined by six siblings—brothers Ahmad Ali, Bunde Ali, and Rahmat Ali, and sisters Maryam, Fatima and Shireen. Jinnah's family belonged to the Ismaili Khoja branch of Shi'a Islam. Their mother tongue was Gujarati, however, in time they also came to speak Kutchi, Sindhi and English. The young Jinnah, a restless student, studied at several schools: at the Sindh Madrasatul-Islam in Karachi; briefly at the Gokal Das Tej Primary School in Bombay; and finally at the Christian Missionary Society High School in Karachi, where, at age sixteen, he passed the matriculation examination of the University of Bombay.

The same year, 1892, Jinnah was offered an apprenticeship at the London office of Graham's Shipping and Trading Company, a business that had extensive dealings with Jinnahbhai Poonja's firm in Karachi. However, before he left for England, he married, at his mother's urging, a distant cousin, Emibai, who was two years his junior. Tragically, the marriage did not last long, for Emibai died within a few months of Jinnah's departure in November 1892. In London, Jinnah found the apprenticeship not to his liking, and soon gave it up to study law instead, by joining Lincoln's Inn. The following year, he received more devastating news: his beloved mother, Mithibai, had died. Despite the losses, he persevered in his studies and, in 1896, became, at age 19, the youngest Indian to be called to the bar in England. Around this time, Jinnah also became interested in politics. An admirer of the Indian political leaders Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, he worked, with other Indian students, on the former's successful campaign for a seat in the British Parliament. Having developed largely constitutionalist views on Indian self-government, Jinnah nevertheless came to abhor both the arrogance of British officials and the discrimination practised against Indians, a perspective that would shape much of his future political life.

”

Please let me know if you have questions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First World War

Jinnah did not overtly support the war effort in the first world war because he wanted Indians to be inducted in the army as officers.

He did give British overt support in the Second World War though.

Race

Anyone know what his race/ethnicity is in modern terms? He certainly doesn't look Indian, I was wondering if he was of British or European descent. 134.82.86.6 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He sort of looks like Aragorn from Lord of the Rings? Does anyone know if there is a relation? 24.44.59.155 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.59.155 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any specific "Indian look" - Indians can "look" like Chinese, Burmese, Thai, Europeans as well as the common South Asian appearance. Hair colours vary from black, brown through light brown. Eyes - every shade known to man. I am a Hindu Gujarati and my DNA haplotype is R1a1 - which is found from Eastern Iran to India and our ancestors came via Russia. I have grey eyes and look very European (as do many in Pakistan and Iran) -- it is entirely possible that Jinnah shared a similar gene. --Ash (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bengali language of Hindus

A better source, than SAAG, is needed to put that in the article. IP198 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with SAAG as a source. However, I have added another source. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen mate, the problem with SAAG is that it seems to be the only source on the net that states this. I looked for a while and i just couldnt find any other source that staes this. When a extreme right wing article states something that is not widely known, you cant give it credibility. Anyway, i will try and get a copy of the book of you sourced, as i want to know more about this. IP198 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SAAG is not an "Extreme Right-Wing" site. Please do not malign the sources without evidence - a bit strange, given your insistence on double-sourcing a fact about Jinnah. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing this FA

In the absence of user:Rama's Arrow watching over the article, I have noticed a number of IP edits being made. I had my disagreements with RA, but I am nonetheless aware that he was chiefly responsible for this article being a featured article; accordingly, I have rolled back the current version to his last edited version. Like any other featured article, please discuss on the talk page first before you blithely make major changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC

To user:Embargo, Believe me when I say that I will take this article either to an RfC or to the Village Pump, if you persist in making non-trivial changes without discussion on the talk page. This is a WP:FA and requires careful additions. It has already been worked over by many editors over the years and their input needs to be taken into account. That is not to say that new inputs are not welcome, but significant edits should be discussed on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this featured article in the last stable state. If there are unresolved issues that have caused the recent edit war, I would request the users to discuss the issues here in the talk page without resorting to edit warring. Please keep in mind that it is an FA and all large scale changes should be discussed in the talk page. Thank you. --Ragib 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jinnah

I have just created the Template:Jinnah, please revise. —Sohailstyle 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

edit request now that this page is locked in stasis

Please change Pakistan's "Father of the Nation" & "The Great Leader in the infobox to Pakistan's "Father of the Nation" and "The Great Leader" . Ampersands are unencyclopedic, and the latter title has no end-quote. Chris 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Important points missed from the article

The article misses the following aspects of Jinnah's life-

• Jinnah's grand-father converted to Islam for the reason known to him, else Jinnah and Gandhi would have been born in the same caste.

• Ironically Jinnah, the creater of Islamic state of Pakistan, drank whisky, the practice is discouraged in Islam. He could not speak Urdu as well.

Source-Freedom at midnight Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stateofart (talk • contribs). at 14:06, 24 July 2007

• Every one in the subcontinent converted to Islam, all muslim leaders had ancestors who converted to islam from buddhjism, paganism, etc. to islam. Allama Iqbal's (the visionary of Pakistan) grandfather was akshmiri brahmin who converted to Islam. As regarding Jinnah's personal habbits they are irrelevant as Iqbal the great islamic sufi poet and ghalib etc.. consumed alcohol at some point in their lives sparingly. And there is absolutely no documentation of jinnah consuming pork apart from a pejorative used by a fundamentalist muslim cleric since Jinnah was a occidentophile. And Jinnah's main langauge of comunication was English, but he also spoke persian, urdu, gujrati, sindhi to some extent.Omerlives

why are these points important? They are irrelevant to his achievement. If they are true, which is not entirely certain, given that the source is Lapierre and Collins, they belong, at best, to the category of trivia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This points are important because Jinnah is known to be messiah of Indian muslims who created a new Islamic nation against all odds. His Hindu origins and his unislamic behaviour against his achievement should be known to all,as a fact and not a POV. In addition to that Jinnah's involvement in Kashmir problem is also not included here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stateofart (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 Jul 2007 (UTC)

I have scored Jinnah's biographies. Jinnah did not speak a word of Urdu, he spoke English and Gujrati. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEMTEX85 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jinnah's later evaluation and vision of Pakistan

Two points: 1. I've read in various places on the net one of Jinnah's dying remarks was "Pakistan has been the biggest mistake of my life". I also vaguely remember reading a column in the US based Time magazine from the mid nineties, stating something of this nature. Could someone please verify the source this and add it to the article? I believe it would provide insight into Jinnah's thought process in the final days. 2. In 1948 Jinnah visited the agitated city of Dhaka in East Bengal (later renamed East Pakistan) and proclaimed "Urdu, and only Urdu" to be the national language of Pakistan- sidestepping Bangla language. This caused massive uproar among students and made a bad situation worse. In fact, one could say that the rift between East and West Pakistan which led to the independence of Bangladesh in 1971 started here with this speech. This was a significant event in Pakistan/Jinnah's part. This episode should also be included in the article. Details of this can be found in the Wikipedia article "Bengali Language Movement".

Since I'm pretty inexperienced in Wikipedia contribution, and since subject matters like the above seem to be very 'touchy' for some people, I'd ask more experienced Wikipedians to think about my suggestions and perhaps make additions to the article accordingly. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thinking-ape (talk • contribs) 12:58:33, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

The first point is baseless and totally unverifiable despite my repeated attempts both from scholarly journals and primary sources. On second point he proclaimed Urdu, as Pakistan especially west Pakistan was an extremely ethinically diverse country with a myriad of langauges, giving natinal langauge status to any one would've caused strife so Urdu, which was a legacy of muslims in in the sub continent and heavily symbolic and identifiable with muslim culture was chosen as a neutral.Omerlives —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I request to include the information given by Dominique Lappierre in his book 'Freedom at mignight' about Jinnah's roots, his eating habits and igmorance of Urdu. Few people are reverting the sourced info. (Stateofart 08:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Protected forever?

The article has been protected for more than two months now. I can't even add a link to my article in Russian Wikipedia. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The project is free for everyone to edit. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Ragib 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Indian/Muslim? When I went to the biography portal it said these exact words. How can Muslim be a nationality when there are billions of Muslims throughout the world. why the slash? why can't it be Indian Muslim? I'm sure that people in Britain or the USA who are Muslims are not a separate nationality if they were born in these countries... LOTRrules (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Shia or Sunni? NPOV

I want to discuss this issue at the talk page instead of being involved in edit war. I believe listing any factions of Islam in this article will be wrong per this references [1]. Please have a look at the this webpage and give your ideas. --SMS ^Talk 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the source is not reliable and unfit to be used in an encyclopedia. It is as reliable as a blog or a forum. Second, the source itself states that Jinnah was born into an Ismaili Shi'a Muslim family and later converted to Twelver Shi'a Islam. So you have to learn to read the whole article before posting it because, obviously, it backfired. LahoreKid (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have some language problem! You need to read it again or even you can use Translator if it supports your native language. --SMS ^Talk 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondly are you the one to decide that source is reliable or not? And do read these too [2] and [3], may help you in gathering facts! --SMS ^Talk 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources are reliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. LahoreKid (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And here are some additional sources from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Hudson Institute (in an article written by Husain Haqqani) and the Middle East Forum, among others. LahoreKid (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

In this particular case, I would suggest simply leaving the religion info as Islam, rather than stating which sect within Islam. I cannot speak to the reliability off all the sources above (sources from that area of the globe are not really my speciality), although I will say in that regard that "as reliable as a blog or forum" is unreliable as far as wikipedia is concerned - per WP:RS. That said, the court proceedings described do seem factual - and the conclusion being that Jinnah did not clearly fall into one classification or the other. I think that is, as I read it, the most NPOV way of approaching this one. Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the religion should remain as it is, because the sources I provided (Husain Haqqani, Council on Foreign Relations, Middle East Forum and Vali Nasr) are reliable and state that Jinnah was a Shi'a Muslim, whereas the sources User:Smsarmad are not reliable according to WP:Reliable sources. Thanks for your help. LahoreKid (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that, the High Court of Pakistan must have made the decision after long hearings and probe and Wikipedia is not bounded to that decision, but still the decision reflects a true example of a Neutral Point of View. --SMS ^Talk 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that he was a twelver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.27 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/ahmed-jinnah.html (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.28 (talk)

The source is evidence. LahoreKid (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)BUR

There is no reliable proof about Muhammad Ali Jinnah being a Shia Muslim. Encyclopedia Britannica states: "It was nearly 10 years later that he turned toward active politics. A man without hobbies, his interest became divided between law and politics. Nor was he a religious zealot: he was a Muslim in a broad sense and had little to do with sects." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304020/Mohammed-Ali-Jinnah

The source added for Shia claim in the article by Vali Nasr is POV of Shia Iranian and cannot be verified. We must remove the Shia claim.

By the way, User:LahoreKid is indef blocked for being a disruptive sockpuppet, most likely he is a radical Shia forcing us to believe that Jinnah was Shia.--J Chaudry (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right man, someone is adding that Jinnah was Shia but the sources say, when you read them, that Jinnah was NOT SHIA NOR SUNNI. His family belonged to Khoja Ismaili (a cult that follows Agha Khan as their Imam or spiritual leader). His family is not him, we are trying to determine what his religious sect was and not his mother's or father's. Everywhere it says he was NOT SHIA OR SUNNI, that he had no specific sect. His family could have been Hindus but does that means he was also a Hindu?--119.30.79.189 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Mehdi Hassan a renowned scholar told in "Shahid Namaa" Dr Shahid Masood's TV programme on 24-03-2012 "Muhammd Ali Jinnah submitted an affidavet in Bumbay (Mumbay)Court of Magistrate in 1898, that I and my sister Fatima leave Ismaili Maslik and joine Asna Ashri Maslik."

http://www.awaztoday.com/News-Talk-Shows/21234/Shahid-Naama-Part-2-24th-March-2012.aspx or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeLmfa1k_4w&feature=related or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqnCw29CLAw&feature=relmfu

And yes I read a book in Urdu written by Khawja Razi Haider "Rati Jinnah" He wrote there love story of Rati and Muhammad Ali Jinnah and wrote every thing which happened then. He was Shia Muslim. Nazim Shirazy Pakistan (Living in Spain 30-03-2012)

Pak govt

Given that Jinnah founded Pakistan, and is still ubiquitous in the country, pictures in parliament walls, Musharraf's walls, walls of the high court etc, I don't think the Govt of Pakistan is a third party reference. I think this is in the same boat as an official CCP biography of Mao Zedong or a Zanu-PF biography of Mugabe. The same goes for a book by his sister. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The ref to his sister is used to support what languages he spoke. Hardly seems controversial, and could easily be justified even under the stricter requirements of a BLP. The Franklin D. Roosevelt FA quotes his wife. The govt refs were written probably 50 years after he was dead, and were in the article when it passed FA. Do you remove UK and US govt refs about UK and US politicians? Gimmetrow 04:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

JINNAH IS A SUNNI

Its obvious! He went against the Aga Khan's wishes, when demanding for the independance of Pakistan. This is a huge sin in Ismaili Islam. He is a sunni.

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

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Muhammed_Ali_Jinnah/

HE LATER CONVERTED TO SUNNI ISLAM AFTER REALIZING THAT THE AGA KHAN WAS NOT A GOOD LEADER! He formed Pakistan and went against the Aga Khans wishes! Open your eyes, you Ismaili liars. He was a SUNNI!

THe latter is a mirror of wikipedia. --Ragib (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No. We've already discussed this above. He was not a Sunni.124.109.47.105 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By talha:

Well, jinnah was not a very religious person hence we can not say it definitely wether he was a sunni or a shia. Yes, he was born in an ismaili family but no concrete evidence suggests that he later converted to Twelver-shiism, infact his request to maulana shabbir ahmad usmani to lead his funeral prayers and maulanaz acceptance is an evidence that jinnah later become more inclined towards sunniism. (Dr. Israr approved of the above view in one of my personal talks to him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.163.244 (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 118.103.239.12

Week ago User:118.103.239.12 changed the birthplace, among others. Could someone review this and others edits by this user - it seems to be pure vandal - and possibly nominate him for blocking. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The page could be semiprotected. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambassador of Hindu - Muslim Unity

I think there was a time in Qaid e Azam's life when he was called as Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

if that is the case then this article should have a section on this, as it would be important to lay a relation ship on how he transformed into becoming a voice for Pakistan later on in his life.

I myself have very little knowledge about the subject otherwise i would have done it my self, therefore I request some knowledgeable member to kindly do it.

--Hussain (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My favorite quote from Jinnah, a man who spoke openly and honestly

"Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu embraced Islam, he was an outcaste, not only religiously, but also socially, culturally, and economically. As for Muslims, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society . Throughout the ages, Hindus remained Hindus and Muslims remained Muslims, and they had not merged their identities; that was the basis for Pakistan." Source: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Address to University Students, Impact International, Islamic Journal, Aligarh Muslim University, March 1944.

Cheers Gorkhali (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is constantly being vandalised (most recently by a user called KhanBaccha), can an editor please put this article under protection. Khokhar (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

he was a sunni

he was with the group of suni muslim ulmaa;s like shabbir usmani , syed suleman nadvi, allama iqbal , and some others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.188.223 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion about Quaid e Azam being Shia or Sunni should be stopped in view of this incident. Once Quaid e Azam had a meeting with mahatma Ghandhi on 21st of Ramadan. This was a Shahadat Day of Hazrat Ali(R.A.) For some reasons it was postponed and a news reporter wanted to exploit the situation by asking to Quaid "Sir 21st Ramadan is a Death Anniversary of Hazrat Ali (R.A.. Was this the reason this meeting was postponed and Sir are you a Shia or a Sunni Muslim" Quaid said to the repoter that first you reply my question and than i will tell you who i am. The question to the reporter was "Tell me our Great Prophet Hazrat Mohammad Mustafa S.A.(May Peace be upon Him)was Shia or Sunni" When the reporter had no reply Quaid said "I am just a follower of the Great Prophet means am just a MUSLIM" Yes he was born in Shia Family but after acquiring worldly and religeous knowledge these small things were meaningless for him. A person like him is born in centuries. If we all identify ourselves as MUSLIMS only than all the problems of Muslim Ummah can be solved easily and Ummah can come up as a Super Power in the world. aboobakeri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboobakeri (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Your sentiments smack of fundamentalism, I do agree his sect is irrelevant, but you highjacking this forum for a Lal Masjid sermon is morally reprihensible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.168.3 (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

His love for Law

In 1947 after Pakistan came in to existence there were Hindu Muslim Riots in India as well as very few in Pakistan also. In Karachi because of the riots there was Curfew imposed. Quied e Azam Governor General of Pakistan wanted to visit the effected areas and to see the arrangement for the safety of Hindus so he decided to have a round without any protocol and security Guards. At one spot a Police man stopped the car and said to the driver that there is a curfew and how come you are driving the car in this area. The Driver replied to the police that cant you see who is sitting in this car. On this Quied became angry on driver and said that the police is doing his duty why dont you show him the curfew pass which we are carrying. Just think a Head of the state was also observing the rule and was carring a Curfew pass. Aboobaker Ismail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboobakeri (talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Bravo, another irrelevant piece of information with regards to the article

incorrect picture

the picture for this article lists muhammad ali, the boxer. it should be muhammad ali jinnah. Royksoppin (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia; you've caught your first WP:VANDAL (diff). Thanks for pointing that out. --Dynaflow babble 02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Material removed from article

I've removed two large passages recently inserted into the article. [4] [5] I don't think they belong in the article, although some parts may be appropriate. Gimmetrow 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Failure to discuss

A cited source in the article says:

"So only the Quaid and Fatima Jinnah had abandoned the Ismaili faith. Both carefully avoided a sectarian label. Both said they were neither Shia nor Sunni, but `Mussalman'. The Quaid was at pains to gather the Muslims of India under the banner ofa general Muslim faith and not under a divisive sectarian identity."

The Karachi high court apparently went back and forth on Jinnah's religion and how it applies to inheritance (although this source seems to be regularly removed). Furthermore, we have a 3O above which says to avoid sectarian labels. So, why is an editor repeatedly adding "shia" to the infobox without discussing and obtaining prior agreement? Gimmetrow 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jinnah and Fatima were Shia

It doesn't matter if you people believe it or not the fact is that he was a Shia Muslim, though he tried not to make it public. If you can read and understand Urdu well, here is a neutral reliable source where it gives you the fact that he was a Shia he died a Shia. And that he had two separate funerals one privately with Shia rituals, while the other one was public for the Sunni Majority of Pakistan this article. There are more practical evidences of both, Muhammed Ali and Fatima being a Shia since the "Alam" and "Panja" (Shia symbols) were discovered from there residence, Mohatta Palace and still remain there.

And I.H. Ispahani, a family friend of the Quaid and his honorary secretary in 1936, and Matloobul Hassan Syed, his private secretary from 1940 to 1944. Ispahani revealed that Jinnah had told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted from Ismaili Shiism to Isnha Ashari Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai by Shia ritual. Ispahani was present when Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He arranged her ghusl and janaza at Mohatta Palace according to Shia ritual. Her Sunni namaz-e-janaza was held later at the Polo Ground, after which she was buried next to the Quaid. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Here are some facts for you. Witness Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the ghusl of the Quaid. He led his namaz-e-janaza in a room of the Governor-General's House at which Yusuf Haroon, Hashim Raza and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside.

And On September 24, 1948, after the demise of Quaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatima Jinnah and Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan submitted a joint petition at the Karachi High Court describing Jinnah as a `Shia Khoja Mohamedan' and praying that his will be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On February 6, 1968, after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah's demise, her sister Shirin Bai moved an application claiming Fatima Jinnah's property under Shia inheritance law because the deceased was a Shia.

If people still need practical evidence and if you are in Pakistan and residing in Karachi do pay a visit to his home and the Khorasan Mosque in Karachi, which was build by Quaid-e-Azam and he severed it for a short period of time, outside of the Mosque there is a list of people who served it in which it clearly states his name. That Mosque is a Shia Mosque in Saddar town of Karachi.

While Humayuan Gauher a well known historian, Journalist and writer in Pakistan clearly stated on the state TV of Jinnah being a Shia in a show with Faisal Qureshi. The 1984 Courts decision is quite evident for being politically motivated false, since it was issued during the Zia regime which was openly against Shia Mulsim and was funded and supported by Wahabi ideology, As you may know they reversed the previous decision of their own that Jinnah was a Shia. His Nikah Nama states him being a Shia Muslim.

Paki90 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't matter what we (or you) believe, what matters are the sources. That "neutral reliable source" may indeed make your point, but unfortuantely I can't read Urdu, and I wasn't even able to verify that source's reliability. What type of source is it? Apparently not some sort of newspaper.

Concerning the "Alam" and "Panja" on the palace, I'd again ask for sources, both for the presence and for the significance of those signs. Our articles on Alam and Panja currently indicate no significance to Shiism nor what an Alam would actually look like.

Concerning the funeral rituals, why is the fact that both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Fatima Jinnah had both Shiite and Sunni rituals performed an indication that they're Shiites? Wouldn't it rather be an indication that they preferred not to be associated with either denomination exclusively? Asked in another way, if they preferred such ambiguity, what would, what could they have done differently?

Concerning the inheritance claims, we all are aware of them, and we also all are aware that the court, while first accepting them, later retracted its verdict, explicitly noting Muhammad Ali as "not a Shia". Given that the people making the claims had a financial interest (ie they could only gain the full inheritance if the deceased in each case was ruled a Shia), I wouldn't assign too much significance to them. And if the court made its decision not based on the facts but based on political pressure, surely some scholar would have mentioned it. Do we have a reliable source casting doubt on the integrity of the court's verdict?

I couldn't verify several others of your claims. For example all my attempts to search for a reasonable combination of "Khorasan", "mosque" and "Jinnah" didn't produce a single relevant result. Neither did "Humayuan Gauher", and "Humayun Gauher" produces a single Google hit mentioning him as the ghostwriter of Musharraf's autobiography. For a well-known historian, that's very little.

For the record, I don't doubt that the Jinnahs have a Shiite background and probably once were shiites, including when Jinnah married his second wife. But apparently later they consciously decided to avoid sectarianism and exclusive association with either denomination. I see no reason not to follow Jinnah's decision in this regard.

As a final note, you might want to look up the use of the <ref> tag. On the one hand, it's unusual to add references to talk pages with that tag (because talk pages usually don't have references sections and the references aren't displayed), on the other hand you seem to misuse it. The proper way is <ref name="FootnoteName">This appears in the footnote!</ref>, which produces (in combination with a <references/> tag or the reflist template in the references section) a footnote stating "This appears in the footnote!" When you want to refer to the same footnote again, you can do it by simply adding <ref name="FootnoteName">, which won't add another footnote but just another link to the same one. Huon (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well brother if you are unable to read Urdu, its not my problem. The fact is that the info given on that site regarding Muhammed Ali Jinnah being a Shia is quite evident. The source this article is a neutral site of the Amroha community in Pakistan, they are one of the most renowned Muhajir community in Pakistan and have produced the likes of Rais Amrohvi, Qaem Amrohvi, Nasim Amrohvi, Sadequain, General Tanwir Naqvi, Jon Elia and many others. For further verifications and conformation you can kindly pay a visit to their Community Center and Office at Gulberg, Karachi. The source is to be considered reliable even if you may not agree with it.

If you are arguing on the fact that weather Jinnah associated himself with certain sect or certain ambiguity. Then i guess the debate leads us to a dead end, and we should start questioning things related to this fact that people didn't preferred themselves to be labeled as Shia or Sunni or that is what we think, though they did practice and followed their believes respectively! Its not about the fact weather he accepted it or not, its about mentioning what is true and hence i am struggling to stop people from concealing facts relating him which should be public and shouldn't be distorted for personal means or motto.

Now it hardly makes a sense, if you go on relying on a single Google hit. Its not necessary that you may find everything on the first page of your search. Sometimes it might even not mention the result, so it doesn't means there is a concealment of facts. If you live in Karachi go to Shrah-e-Khorasan to the Imam Barghe and have a look. But if you aren't living in Karachi and no even in Pakistan then you don't have a right to talk about the issue since you heavily rely on Google hits rather then Practical and Historical evidence relating him. Humayun Gauher is a highly reputed writer. Infact your Google hits are too distorted. Humayun Gauhar is son of Altaf Gauhar who is famous for being a Ghostwriter of Ayub’s book, "Friends not Masters", Not Humayun (for "IN THE LINE OF FIRE") who is infact considered a far more reputed writer then his father. Now for god sake stop the undo of his sectarian domination. He was a Shia and people should know it.

And do Google "Alam", its commonly an Arabic surname. 'Alam means "flag" or "sign" in Arabic. Search the Images by typing "Shia Alam", "Panja", "Panja-taan" or "Muharram Processions" you will certainly agree then after having a look at the "Alam" and one that's shown in the Article of Jinnah's Death.

Paki90 (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I don't live in Pakistan, but articles should be sourced so that people outside Pakistan can verify the content. And concerning the Urdu source: Why is it to be considered reliable? It's not a government publication, not a news source, not an academic source. What makes it more reliable than the average website when not speaking about the organization that maintasins it? WP:RS is our guideline dealing with reliable sources; I can't see how it supports that website's reliability on Jinnah's religion.

Concerning my Google searches, they're the easiest way to look for sources, though of course neither the only nor the best way. For example, when looking for sources on Gauhar, I stumbled over a typo: You had given his name as "Gauher". On the other hand, if the searches turn up useful results, those are easy to incorporate in the article. For example, I found a Jinnah biography by Prakash Almeida which states: "Jinnah ignored the fundamental differences in religious philosophies of various sections of the Muslim community (Shias, Sunnis, Wahabis and others.)" (p. 234) Jinnah may "technically" have been a Shia by birth, but the distinctions between different branches of the Muslim faith apparently meant nothing to him. Huon (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read more than enough biographies that say he was non-sectarian or "neither Shia nor Sunni". If we had a section which discussed various opinions and included multiple views, that would be fine, but such a dispute is difficult to capture in the infobox. With similar disputes in other fields (eg, genre of musical artists), the normal solution is to give in the infobox a generic term which includes the sub-possibilities. In this case, that would be simply "Islam". The "third opinion" above seems in accord with this view. Gimmetrow 00:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Image gallery

Noman488 added a gallery of photos of Jinnah. I think it's too much and does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. The images are completely devoid of context, don't illustrate the article text, nothing. I believe the images we had before were sufficient to show what Jinnah looked like at different times in his life; we don't need 50 variations of this theme. Thus, I removed the gallery. Huon (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The article says that the 25th of December "is now officially accepted as his birthday." Does that mean the Pakistani Government and Pakistani Historians? His birthday maybe celebrated on the 25th of December and apart from Jinnahs claims the evidence does not point to his being born on the 25th of December. It maybe in the interests of people who admire Jinnah to deny or airbrush over the fact that Jinnah may have fabricated his date of birth like a good percentage of the current population of Pakistan and indeed other countries in the region. I have removed this line. (Sublimeport (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

QUAD I AZAM,ULMAS & KASHMIR:

QUAD AZAM, ULMAS & KASHMIR: If we delete Islam in the formation of Pakistan, then what was problem with united India? If we go through history, it was only the spirit of Islam & the ability, wisdom & dedication of Quad Azam with Islam, which motivated Muslims of sub continent to sacrifice & support the movement of Pakistan. For proof please go through the News papers, lectures & magazines of the period from 1940 to 1947. Here let me mention the book written by F.K.Khan Durana “MEANING OF PAKISTAN” in page No 10, he writes that Pakistan is not only for to Islamilise its own territory, but as base camp to impose Islamic justice to India also, as Islam doesn’t believe on boundaries. Even leading congress leaders like Dr Rajander Parshad in his article in “PAKISTAN PAR IJTEMAYEA NAZAR” in Urdu magazine NEYEA ZINDGEA special Number 1946,admits the agenda of Muslim league is to frame the Pakistan an Islamic state. As neutral analyst while going through the biography of Quad Azam, it is clear that QUAD AZAM, the man of this century & asset of Muslims were complete Muslim, with high moral values of Islam. Quad Azam, who after observing Chankyan policy of congress were fed up & under spiritual directions of Allama Iqbal, accept to lead Muslims for PAKISTAN. And was supported by leading Ulmas of Sunny & Shea like, Ashraf Thanvee, Shabeer Usmane, Peer j. Ali, Peer of Golda & Manak Shareef, Quad Azam, were serious to impose Islamic justice Law, as indicated via his various speeches & meetings. And few Muslim scholars & Ulmas were not ready to limit Islam within boundaries, intention of both were fair. As the both different school of thoughts were sincere with Muslims, without self interests & desires. Quad Azam being man of principles, fair & honest leader never try to cheat even his enemies. So it is impossible for such fair & true leader like Quad Azam to deceive Muslims via slogan PAKISTAN KIA MATLAB KEA LA ELLA H ELL ALLAH. In case as claimed by present few secular scholars, that intention of Quad Azam was never to impose Islamic law in Pakistan. If so Quad Azam would have never said that we don’t need to import any Law as we have our Shrea Laws & would have stopped masses to raise such Islamic slogans in favor of Pakistan. Now the question arises, what was the reason behind the opposition of few Ulmas. For such serious issue, we need to research about the situation of that period. Then it can be clear that Quad Azam & those few Ulmas, both school of thoughts were sincere with their mission, with one goal to safe guard the rights & culture of Muslims, with different agendas. No doubt many leading Ulmas opposed Quad Azam, without any research, we are not authorized to commit against such noble Muslim scholars. These Ulmas, showed concerned about Quad azam & the limited geography of Pakistan only, not the agenda of Muslim League. As we need, not to compare those fair Islamic scholars with self desired Ulmas like Fazalul Rehman, In the book FORMATION OF PAKISTAN, author William admits that Molana Madne in addition to charity & other religious activities was engaged in spreading Islam in India & succeed to convert more than thirty thousand non Muslims to Muslims. We are supposed to understand the concerns of Mulana Madne via his articles & famous booklet titled as MUTEHADEA QUMYAT AUR ISLAM. For leading Ulmas scholars like Molana Modode engaged in providing right direction to Muslims via his literature & newly formed Jamat Islame, it was impossible to limit the message of Islam within boundaries before partion, as the blessing of Allah ISLAM is for all human beings. Regarding the genius Islamic scholar Allama Mashreqe, the founder of Khaksar Tehreek, it is added that his mission was to spread the boundaries of Pakistan by force, so showed concerned regarding Muslim League. Majorty of such Ulmas & Muslim scholars were concerned about the rest Muslim populationof India & not in favor of such weak Pakistan, which can be utilized by West for their interests. After formation of Pakistan Mulana Modode & Molana Mashreqe prefer Pakistan & Muslim scholars like Molana Madne, Molana Azad, India. It was unfair to leave a great Muslim population alone without any sincere leadership in India. After the formation of Pakistan in addition to Education, Charity, Tableeg, there is a huge history of sacrifices of Jamat Islame for Pakistan in East Pakistan, Afganistan & Kashmir, which none can deny. Khalafat is only with solution for oppressed human beings. May be those secular elements, which, are allergic with our Islamic heroes, can’t digest these facts, that Islamic laws ensure justice & provides chance to common person to verify about the dress of Khalefa. Ummer R.A, & none can deny about the biography of Imam Ali R.A. as symbol of Islamic justice. But, sorry to say as mentioned by Imam Khumane, that anti Islamic forces, who are criticizing Islamic heroes are actually opposing Islam. Regarding Ali Brothers Khalafat tehreek, we need to understand the background behind the plans of Jews & other anti Islamic forces, which were against Usmanyea umpire, via name as, KHALAFAT. As, U.KHALAFAT refused to allot land to Jews in Philistine. So Mustafa Kamal , the son of a Jew mother was utilized by anti Islamic forces against Usmanya khalafat, for eliminating the power of Muslims & the consumption of UMMAH & KHALAFAT & for creating Jew state Israel. So the attempt of Khalafat tehreek was fair but no doubt result was not good for Muslims as consequent measures were not taken. Same situation in present Kashmir movement, without major reforms for affected families of martyrs, migrants, disable, prisoners…& some leaders in the name of sacrifices of Kashmires enjoying luxuries in both sides & throughout the World. No doubt, same tragedy with many present Islamic movements, throughout the World. As, human activist served for oppressed people in Kashmir & Afganistan, being victim & eye witness of the brutalities of enemies I do admire that there is lack of justice, wisdom & charity within few present Islamic movements.

How can we justify present so called democracy in Ind_Pak which faculties’ only particular allied class & common public do suffer. Under Islamic justice law during Khalafat there is no room for such injustice. Islam in addition to Nezame Daras guides for modern Education, research, even first Ayat is IQRA, READ. Sorry Ummah failed to practice this main spirit of Islam, so are in back seat. Regarding the services of Islam for modern World let me quote the Book “History of the World” in which non believer author admits that it is the Muslim era in Europe, which promote Education, civilization especially the modern irrigation system in western World. Still I do agree having faith with one Allah, Prophet & Book, UMMAH is divided in sets sub sets. Need of time is to understand the reason behind the upper hand of West & downfall of Muslims, which is lack of spirit of ISLAM; unity, research, patience, modern Education , charity, wisdom……… We are dependable on West, which is not because of the blessings of Allah ISLAM but because of our deeds & we failed to practice this spirit of Islam.

However let us not ignore the services of Muslim scientists in the field of Algebra, sea ships, medicine, but presently no contribution. So, need of time is to follow the path of ISLAM, research & work hard for development in all fields, Then Allah will help us & fulfill His promise to reward UMMAH leading role, as He says, He helps those who help themselves. In present Kasmir freedom movement, Islam is also the main factor, which motivates majority to sacrifice, in case Islam is deleted, and then what is problem with India. Even there are more chances of development with India. Also before 1988, situation was normal & majority was silent. It was only the spirit of Islam, which after the rigging of 87 elections & defeat of USSR in Afghanistan recharged & inspired the Muslim youth of Kashmir against India. Present freedom struggle as chain with 1931 revolution, is continue in the name of Islam & for Islam. India failed to curb Kashmires even after utilized all international brutalities. After huge sacrifices, there is only one option remaining for India, to avoid more destruction in sub continent, to accept the legal demand of Kashmir’s “SELF DETERMINATION”, So Kashmir political freedom leadership should be united, behave & lead the movement like Quad Azam. Pakistan to follow the policy of Quad Azam, about Kashmir “Kasmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan & no nation would tolerate its Jugular vein remains under the sword of the enemy” So even in initial miserable stage of Pakistan with many problems, ordered chief of army to attack India for the freedom of Kashmir. May Allah guide us? AMEEN

Eng.Mehmood Kashmir Study Circle An independent institution engaged in ........, media, research & charity mission, without any publicity & fund raising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.58.196 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

New Pictures

I have changed the main picture of this great man. The previous was not of good quality. Please allow me to add and change this picture. Thanks

Averroist (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jinnah was a Shia

It doesn't matter if you people believe it or not the fact is that he was a Shia Muslim, though he tried not to make it public. If you can read and understand Urdu well, here is a neutral reliable source where it gives you the fact that he was a Shia he died a Shia. And that he had two separate funerals one privately with Shia rituals, while the other one was public for the Sunni Majority of Pakistan this article. There are more practical evidences of both, Muhammed Ali and Fatima being a Shia since the "Alam" and "Panja" (Shia symbols) were discovered from there residence, Mohatta Palace and still remain there. Also present at their funeral prayers as shown in image (A black Flag with a Panja on Top of it).

And I.H. Ispahani, a family friend of the Quaid and his honorary secretary in 1936, and Matloobul Hassan Syed, his private secretary from 1940 to 1944. Ispahani revealed that Jinnah had told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted from Ismaili Shiism to Isnha Ashari Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai by Shia ritual. Ispahani was present when Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He arranged her ghusl and janaza at Mohatta Palace according to Shia ritual. Her Sunni namaz-e-janaza was held later at the Polo Ground, after which she was buried next to the Quaid. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Here are some facts for you. Witness Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the ghusl of the Quaid. He led his namaz-e-janaza in a room of the Governor-General's House at which Yusuf Haroon, Hashim Raza and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside.

And On September 24, 1948, after the demise of Quaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatima Jinnah and Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan submitted a joint petition at the Karachi High Court describing Jinnah as a `Shia Khoja Mohamedan' and praying that his will be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On February 6, 1968, after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah's demise, her sister Shirin Bai moved an application claiming Fatima Jinnah's property under Shia inheritance law because the deceased was a Shia. If people still need practical evidence and if you are in Pakistan and residing in Karachi do pay a visit to his home and the Khorasan Mosque in Karachi, which was build by Quaid-e-Azam and he severed it for a short period of time, outside of the Mosque there is a list of people who served it in which it clearly states his name. That Mosque is a Shia Mosque in Saddar town of Karachi. While Humayuan Gauher a well known historian, Journalist and writer in Pakistan clearly stated on the state TV of Jinnah being a Shia in a show with Faisal Qureshi. The 1984 Courts decision is quite evident for being politically motivated false, since it was issued during the Zia regime which was openly against Shia Mulsim and was funded and supported by Wahabi ideology, As you may know they reversed the previous decision of their own that Jinnah was a Shia. His Nikah Nama states him being a Shia Muslim. And it is well supported by this video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5hEAQE-_ss, which is totally neutral perspective by a Sunni Muslim Pir while giving his speech at Kharadar, Karachi.

Paki90 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I found that video almost unintelligible. Anyway, a Youtube video by some random dude whose name we don't even know hardly counts as a reliable source. Huon (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Come'on every thing thats against you views you declare it being unintelligible and an unreliable source. Grow up.....i even suspect you for not being a Pakistani. The link is not a joke....the guy gives references in the video. Paki90 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the "guy" extremely hard to understand, and I can't even tell whether he speaks English for most of the video - I rather doubt it. If he does give references, we'd probably do better to refer to them directly instead of to this video. But I'd advise you to read up WP:RS, the guideline on reliable sources. Blog posts (or comments on blogs) and forum entries are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, nor are Youtube videos. If I had access to a dozen old men, a green scarf and a webcam, I could probably produce a similar video giving exactly the opposite message (I'd also first have to figure out this video's message, but you probably get my point). Huon (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The video is not a reliable source at all. It seems to show an unknown person giving a speech in a street gathering. Whatever claims the speaker made have no value as a source of information when it comes to Wikipedia. I recommend that you find some other reliable source to support your claims. --Ragib (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you people have to fight on such a small issue that he was a Shia or Sunni?. He was a Muslim and I think that's enough, leave aside the Shia Sunni battle., as no solid evidence exist about any of these claims.--Certified Expert (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

‎Jinnah a pork eater??

is it true that jinnah, while nominally a muslim, ate pork (which is strictly off limits to muslims)?

i found this info on the article offensive terms per nationality, in the section for pakistanis.

can someone please clarify? this is really interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.110 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about him eating port but he belonged to a cult that is not considered as muslim organisation by sunnis or shias. for a person to form a country on the basis of religion it seems that people get offended by anyone bringing up this guys religion {{subst:UnsigneedIP|64.173.199.175|18:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)}}

His parents belonged to Ismaili sect but during his period in England, when he was in ‎London for his education to become a lawyer, he realized that Ismaili was not part of ‎main stream Islam, neither Sunni nor Shia. As a result, he quit Ismaili sect to become a ‎part of Sunni Islam which is considered a sect of main stream Islam. He strongly believed ‎in his identification as a Muslim and strived to do everything to be recognized as pure ‎Muslim. In his later life he was clearly more inclined to the religion, though, he was tried ‎to keep his religious privacy.‎ Szhaider 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

All the views above are absolutely wrong. Jinnah was by his own confession a Khoja twelver Shiite... but he did not believe in wearing his religion on his sleeve. As for being identified as a "pure" Muslim, Jinnah never made any such effort.... Jinnah acted very much as the lawyer of a client i.e. Muslims. Teabing-Leigh 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

the view above is wrong on the basis that khoja term is used for shia ismaili nizari and not shia jaafri ithna ashari. shia jaafri are mainstream shias and are known as twelvers, shia ismaili are offshot and are known as nizari/agha khani/ seveners... jinnah belonged to a khjja house but later on beeing the representant of muslims who were in major sunnis ,and over a land which used to be run by a sunni empire he became sunni muslims. although he were moderate and liberal.

little knowledge is dangerous. Khoja Ithna Ashari is a breakaway sect from Khoja Ismailis. Jinnah never became a Sunni... and Fatima Jinnah signed sworn affidavit that he was a Shia Khoja Mohammaden which was presented as evidence in all legislation on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.9.130 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

but it is not truth that jinna eat pork. he dont beleive in god. he beleave in human. the main think who born the pakistan the liberty of muslim. he beleive in freedom within limits and borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.150.57 (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The way this has been discussed in the article is unjustifiable. This, at best, is a disputed claim, not a fact. Following are the reasons: Mahommedali Currim Chagla was a staunch political opponent of Jinnah (a former ally turned opponent, clear to observe fact from his biography). Other than that he is not a reputed historian, his major published contribution is his Autobiography (which is the only source of this claim). Stanley Wolpert in Jinnah of Pakistan has quoted what Mahommedali Currim Chagla has claimed in the book, this is not an independent allegation as this article claims. Moreover other books (Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic identity: the search for Saladin By Akbar S. Ahmed, page 200-201) has refuted these claims as well, citing credible sources and people close to Mr. Jinnah. The remaining reference is from a webpage "outlookindia," and Indian web resource. So this part requires modifications at least.

I agree. There is no evidence to suggest Jinnah ever ate pork. Most Muslims who drink alcohol don't eat pork. This allegation was a mischief released by someone and there is no credible historical evidence to suggest that Jinnah at pork. So leave it out. Poloplayers (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct Spelling of Jinnah's Name

Countless times, countless sources have been produced to show that Jinnah signed his name "Mahomed Ali Jinnah" or "M A Jinnah". "Muhammad" was General Zia-ul-Haq's attempt to Islamize Jinnah... which official historians then took up.

Let us be historically accurate instead of going by popular perceptions. Egopearl (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a discussion to make such drastic changes. I've restored it to previous name. Please start a move request discussion here. --Ragib (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jinnah spelt his name "Mohammad Ali Jinnah", not "Mahomed" as someone above is suggesting. Jinnah used to sign off as "M.A. Jinnah" in his correspondence. My source: The 10-Volume "Jinnah Papers" compiled by Z.H. Zaidi, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative collection of Jinnah's speeches, correspondence and writings. So the title of the page should be "Mohammad Ali Jinnah". Also, the spelling "Muhammad" has nothing to do with Zia-ul-Haq. It was the University of Al-Azhar in Cairo, which decreed that the correct English spelling of Muhammad in Arabic should be "Muhammad. The Jinnah Papers was a Government of Pakistan project started under Zia and it stuck to Jinnah's own spelling of his name, i.e. "Mohammad Ali Jinnah". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poloplayers (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad/Muhammed?

A majority of sources say Muhammad, but there's about 100 articles in Google News Archives with Muhammed Ali Jinnah, some of which are reliable sources, like the Washington Post, the BBC and The Hindu. Can his name be spelled either way? This WP article has both, though majority I think Muhammad. I note Muhammed Ali Jinnah is a redirect, with a move from that name in 2004, but it doesn't say whether it's an alternate spelling. TransUtopian (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jinnah spelt his name "Mohammad Ali Jinnah". My source: The 10-Volume "Jinnah Papers" compiled by Z.H. Zaidi, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative collection of Jinnah's speeches, correspondence and writings. So the title of the page should be "Mohammad Ali Jinnah". Also, the spelling "Muhammad" has nothing to do with Zia-ul-Haq. It was the University of Al-Azhar in Cairo, which decreed that the correct English spelling of Muhammad in Arabic should be "Muhammad. The Jinnah Papers was a Government of Pakistan project started under Zia and it stuck to Jinnah's own spelling of his name, i.e. "Mohammad Ali Jinnah". Poloplayers (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem if you write "Muhammad", "Mohammad" or "Muhammed" but word in Arabic is "محمد" because it's language is Arabic and reading and speaking in Arabic pronunciation. Thanks Nazim Shirazy Pakistan (Living in Spain 30-03-2012)