It is a never ending debate Every body starches it in its own intrest. Quad Azam was not proponent of two nation theory in the initial phase but later on he realized the only way which could lead them towards their objectives was two nation theory.

@Lion King

Thanks for sharing such valuable information. If you kindly prescribe me books and other material on Quaid e Azam and Allama Iqbal thoughts about Pakistan, I will be much thankful.

Although in the last section you provided some thoughts of Allama Iqbal and Quaid e Azam, some of which are hard to swallow like that of Class less society, Spirtual Democracy (As earlier you talked about Socialist Democracy), Soverignity of people only etc. So if you come up with references about those claims, it will make this discussion more interesting.

Regards

Theocracy is not an Islamic concept. It is a concept evolved from Christianity. It means that the secular authority of the state is subjected to religious authority of the Church. For the first time in history it was propounded systematically by Saint Augustine in the days followed by the decadence of Roman empire. Kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of earth are connected through the church. Secular power of the King and the religious power of the pope above it for the fulfillment of the cause of Christian Commonwealth thi is the doctrine which is termed as THEOCRACY. As a reaction to this concept SECULARISM emerges as an alternative of it. It removed the distinction between christian and non Christians and only crietaria of equality before law set upon was humanity. Secular state mean all are equals irrespective of faith believe and ideology they hold.

Lets come to the Theocracy first, Why Jinnah and Iqbal criticized it? Because in modern world the only example of the religious state is theocracy. It was misunderstood by many that Muslims are also moving towered the Muslim common wealth. An exploitative, Oppressive and conservative Imperial power. As humanity regarded it as a worst crime of history. Many Scientist, Intellectuals and non believers were hanged burned and brutally killed in that age. Heinous crimes of Theocratic reigns in Europe not only made the people Atheists in west but also defamed the name of religion .

Muslim movement of independence were at the stage where such questions were inevitable. Type, Purpose and structure of that government. Iqbal and Jinnah just answered these notions. It is same as Mao in china asserted that he is not going to establish National Socialism(Nazism) But intended to formation of Socialism in the China. He was not denying the very idea of socialism but just clarifying and specifying it.
Lastly it is always misunderstood that RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE is anti Islamic slogan. In fact this is spiritual democracy. Firstly established by Prophet PBUH in Madeena. Pact of Madeena contained the same wordings of SECULARISM. According to this pact all Jews Christians and Kufar were equal to Muslims in all aspects of social, political and economic activities as an equal citizen of the state. Even Hazrat Ummar gave ranks to non believers in military with equal privileges to Muslims. Iqbal has rightly said in his address at Lahore in 1932 that islamic society is established on the equality of souls not on the equality of faith, cast, creed, race and nation. Islam crushes all the idols of ignorance.
when accused by Lowes Dickinson of being exclusive in his thinking, Iqbal denied the allegation and said:
The humanitarian ideal is always universal in poetry and philosophy, but if you make it an effective ideal...you must start, not with poets and philosophers, but with a society exclusive in the sense of having a creed and well-defined outline.... Such a society according to my belief is Islam. This society has so far proved itself a more successful opponent of the race-idea which is probably the hardest barrier in the way of the humanitarian ideal.... All men and not Muslims alone are meant for the Kingdom of God on earth, provided they say goodbye to their idols of race and nationality and treat one another as personalities. The object of my Persian poems is not to make out a case for Islam: my aim is simply to discover a universal social reconstruction, and in this endeavor, I find it philosophically impossible to ignore a social system which exists with the express object of doing away with all the distinctions of caste, rank and race.
So here is no confusion if we understand these terms in their historical context. Jinnah and Iqbal were neither Theocratic nor Secular but were profound aspirants of renaissance. Their maxim was not to establish Pakistan as a communist or capitalist state but as a modern Islamic state. Motive behind this great cause was to reconstruct and reform the Islamic thoughts not to revive the age old orthodox ideals of Imperialist Islam.
Regards.

The dilemma with Iqbal is that his all the work is scattered in Politics. Iqbal has no where clearly explain his political ideology. But his addresses in Lahore and Alla bad provides us some basic lines of action in this regard. I would suggest you to pass through his address in Lahore(21March, 1932). You would be clear on my points also. Spiritual Democracy and distribution of the wealth in the society both are well explained there.
Reconstruction of modern Islamic thoughts instead of reviving orthodoxy was his Intend. For this read the book of Iqbal Reconstruction of Religious thoughts in Islam."


Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jNJ2zHRdFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7O_D...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gdMd...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uygZh...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uygZh...eature=related

Also check these links Dr Javeed Iqbal, Son of iqbal is explaining the political Ideology of Iqbal.
Spiritual democracy and modernization of Islamic thoughts.
Regards

__________________
"Ubherta ha mitt mitt ka naqsh e hayat"

@Lion King

You can correct me if I am wrong. What I comprehend about Allama Iqbal on Pakistan is that:

1. He wanted to establish a state where Islam would be its system.
2. He was against theocracy.
3. He wanted to have a parliament which would have one third of its members who belong to lawyers community or related in any way to judiciary.
4. He was a staunch proponent of Islam as a system. But that system should not be run by theocracy, however the system should be according to Islam and run by people representatives.
5. He foresaw seeds of Islamic renaissance emanating from Pakistan.
6. Although I didnt saw his writtings supporting socialism, but in his poetry he didnt considered it to be an ideal one.
7. He opposed the capitalism in his poetry.

Regards

AOA
I have been thinking on the issue for quite some time. The first question which comes to my mind is why the young genereation doesnt have a clear concept of ideology of Pakistan. I find the following reasons.

1. Misinterpretation of Jinnah's statements regarding the ideology of pakistan.

2.Military has played a negative role. Time and again it has projected the different ideology of pakistan. Compare Zai's religious fundamentalism with Musharaf's enlightened moderation.

3. Mullahs and so-called religious leaders have always projected pakistan as a theocratic state and when these mullahs came to power they intentionally molded the opinion of people which suited their interests.

4. Our liberal democarts have used ideology as a foriegn policy tool. To garner the support of public they shuttled between the extremes of religious fundamenatlism and secularism.

5. Not a single effort of indoctrination of actual ideology of Pakistan was made in our history.

6. No proper knowledge of history.

Before i go further and jot down my opinion about the ideology of pakistan i have few questions to ask from both sides, those who believe pakistan was made a liberal democratic state and those who consider pakistan should have Islamic system of govt.


For those who think pakistan was made for liberal and secular demcratic values:

1.Why appeal for a separate nation was made on the name of islam?

2. If pakistan was to be made a secular country, so was the call of Congress regarding secular india, then why to make a separate country?

3. If pakistan was to be a secular country, why those who joined the cause were predominently muslims, why non-muslims didnt contribute?

4.Why there was a call "Muslim hay tu league mein aa"? why not non-muslims?

5. Why Muslim league was in the forefront with respect to the issues of Muslims all over the world?

6. Why british were so easily convinced that Muslims and Hindus will never live together dispite they had the same ideology of Liberalism and secularism?

For those who think Pakistan was made in the name of Islam

1. Quaid himslef was a non-practising shia, how it is possible that he would have advocated a religiously theocratic state?

2.Quaid not a single time refered Pakistan as "Islamic Republic of Pakistan"?

3.At 11 august,1947 he unequivocally proclaimed that religion has nothing to do with the business of state?

4. Why famous religious leaders of India refused to join Muslim league and why they rejected the idea of a separate "Muslim" state??

5. If muslims thought that they are different from hindus and they cant live with them in any case why they came with idea of a separate country so late?

6.Muslims who joined Muslim League were not that much practising, why they would have considered the option of a country with strict religious laws?


AFter your response i will jot down my own point of view regrading the ideology of Pakistan.

__________________
Whatever mind can conceive,it can achieve - W.Clement Stone

what came to my mind after reading your queries, is the historical misappropriation of facts and nothing else. Just think Muslim League was not a party of common people, it was made by Muslim nobles, who were not getting their desirious status in india against the mighty congress. secondly, religious clerics were against Muslim League, becasue they were in a nostalgia for Khilafat and pan-Islamism. they were quite sure about the politics of muslim secular minds like Quaid.
Muslims who were living for centuries side by side with hindus, infact with exceptional harmony, were not facing religious problems of practices, rather political leadership for securing their socio-economic as well as political rights was the lacunae. this was the reason, Muslims had demanded for a new country where they could deliver socio-economic justice and political liberty. Unfortunately, after the demise of Quaid, religious clerics came with their theocratic ideology, and henc the very ideological stance of muslim league shattered. that was the reason Muslim League dissappeared from the scene till its revival by Gen Ayub in 1963
.......

__________________
Self-confidence is the first requisite to great undertakings.

Hello All

As this debate is about Muslim Ideology so I would like to say something very short.

1) Muslims were not a nation at that time. yes,they were divide at that time in communities i.e. The one comprised those people whose ancestors had migrated from Central Asia.(The so called NOBELS)Second group was that of the Local people of India.

No unity between these groups at that time....The Nobels were affluent and use to kept the local people at bay ,no matter if they ere their Muslim brethern.Their culture and variant traditions were seen by the local people as a constan source of conflict.

2)The British govt first aroused these Communal Feelings among the HINDU and MUSLIMS.That is ,the British divided the Sub-continent on the basis of Communalism (Religion as a source of Identity).Before this Muslims (HUNDU as wel)were oblivious of their Separte identity.(James Mill in History of British India)

This was the wel known Divide and Rule policy of the British govt,which wsas later exploitecd by orthodox political leaders of both side for their own vested interests.


Let me talk about it in detail later on , for I am in hurry.....Bye



Regards

__________________
You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don't try.

1. He wanted to establish a state where Islam would be its system.
2. He was against theocracy.
3. He wanted to have a parliament which would have one third of its members who belong to lawyers community or related in any way to judiciary.
4. He was a staunch proponent of Islam as a system. But that system should not be run by theocracy, however the system should be according to Islam and run by people representatives.
5. He foresaw seeds of Islamic renaissance emanating from Pakistan.
6. Although I didnt saw his writtings supporting socialism, but in his poetry he didnt considered it to be an ideal one.
7. He opposed the capitalism in his poetry.


All of these hold a modicum of truth but not the hole truth. Iqbal hold a different place as compared to other Islamic philosophers. Concept of Islam before him was totaly diferent as we hold. He intended to transform Muslim society. For an example he said:
Juda ho deen syasat sa to reh jati ha Changeezi
But on other place he said
Deen e mullah fasd e Fee Sabeelilah.

2ndly iqbal supported the maxim of communism in poetry and writings also in his last book of urdu poetry he payed the biggest tribute to Karl Marx never payed by any historian and not even by Socialists themselves. In poem Iblees k Majlis e Shura he said

Wo Kaleem e Be Tajal Wo Maseeh e be Saleeb
Neest Paghamber lakin baghal darad kitab
(ye wo Mosa ha jisey tajali ka moajza nhn mila. wo maseeh ha jo saleeb pa nhn charha. Ya paghamer nhn ha magar isky pas khuda k kitab ha)

Your third point is not correct for me. I never red it. If you would give me some referrence i would be very thankful to you. But Iqbal dreamed of a parliment having the absolute rite of Ijtihad.
Mean Fiqah is expired and new fiqah will be encoded by the people representatives.
Its a wast difference in Iqbal and others who assert the Orthodox versions of Pakistan Ideology.

Regars

what i understand regarding the state of muslim affairs before the establishment of the state very well indicates that religion was *NOT* used as a ploy. The mere fact that Jinnah saw through the shortcomings and prejudice of hindu majority parties and despite the fact that Jinnah was offered the Priministership of the new so called secular Indian state , he stood firm on the idea of a muslim state tells us that he wasn't fighting for just his own ego or the ideology of two nation theory.

Before the breaking of Hindustan in 1947,Muslims were basically way lower than Hindus.On every railway station,there was a separate pot for Muslims to drink water from. Every now and then some kind of feud would take place between muslims and hindus on stupid things like ,Muslims killed a cow so they should be killed. Prejudice was rampant in that society.Jinnah knew very well,that after his demise there was no competent leader to fight for the fundamental rights of muslims(political,religious,social,financial,econo mic,cultural) and he was right that is why Muslims stood with him although there were religious scholars who were against him at that time

If Pakistan was a part of modern day India,could u imagine to have all those civil liberties that you enjoy today. Maybe we don't really have a lot of civil liberties but we still are better off than indian muslims.Real India is not like what we see in Bollywood . All over India Muslims are made to live in ghetto like states (ghetto=where jews lived in pre-worldwar2 europe,and these places were famous for their stink).India is the only country in the whole world where even in this modern era muslims are forced to lived in ghettos.

According to 2007 Sachar commission report,the condition of muslims is worst than the scheduled castes(shodars) living there. 97percent of the muslims in haryana(the rajputs who converted to islam over the years) are illiterate. And of course how can we forget the massacres of 1992 or 2002. Keep in mind that in 2002 or 1992 there was no Jinnah or Gandhi there.

Why Indian Muslims (well the majority) sided Jinnah is a question which has a very simple answer.They were too subjugated by the ruling classes that they needed and wanted emancipation. They did not want to live in the same environment in which they were scared of their life,property and customs once the british left. Jinnah was'nt a brainwasher,he was simply a fighter.His two nation theory was based on the condition of muslims,he did not create it,he merely formulated it. He did not want a personal fiefdom for himself like Baron de Rothschild(father of Israel). Whatever he did , he did it for people,his people and their safety.

Now with every ideology comes the question of implementation. We all know that Marxism sounds good to the ears,the idea of everyone living equally,but real Marxism as proposed by Marx has never been executed. Instead,pseudo communist states and false socialism ruled the world which contradicted the very principles which Marx had provided. If the ideology of Pakistan has become a shuttle cock between leftist and rightist groups,we shouldn't blame it on Jinnah. Because its our fault that we have let a few people take advantage of it and customized it to serve their needs. Pakistan was supposed to be a Muslim state where Muslims of subcontinent could live in peace with justice and the minorities could live in peace too. Now we have let a few so called religious and secular intellectuals to hijack that definition and play with it all they want and in turn they have successfully created a lost generation which does not even know why *Pakistan* was even created. We cannot blame it on Jinnah and company that they used the ploy of religion.Its us who are doing so and letting a few ppl do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcH5_-T-gO4

I could not find the english version which I watched last year.But the first two minutes very clearly explain two nation theory in layman's words.Keep in mind,this movie was made by neither Pakistanis nor Indians but an Indian born British director/producer. It hurts me when I see other people understanding Jinnah's words and actions better than those people for whom he fought almost all his small life for.

I recommend u to watch this whole movie. Because it is not just *any textbook version*

__________________
“Never oppress the one who has no-one but Allah to listen to his/her cries.”Imam syed ZainulAbideen(A.S)

pls share the source w/h helped u farm ur opinion regards

__________________
Stop counting your problems rather raise for their solution and BEGIN JIHAD.