Originally Posted by SADIA SHAFIQ

I have argued repeatedly and I stick by the position that Jinnah wanted a state that can only be described in modern parlance as a secular democratic state. My claim is not based on 11 August 1947 alone and in fact I will go as far as to say that Jinnah’s vision of the state would have been secular even if he had not made that extraordinary pronouncement where he merely put it in black and white.
My claim is based on all of the following:
1. Jinnah’s record as a legislator in the central Indian legislature spanning over four decades.
2. Jinnah’s role in the Indian Independence movement and in trying to forge a united Indian nationality which earned him the title of “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”.
3. Jinnah’s record after he took over the Muslim League as its president.
4. Jinnah’s clear pronouncements as the Governor General and the first president of the constituent assembly.
5. The symbolism deployed by Jinnah in his choice of his cabinet.
Record as a legislator and a leader of the Indian Independence Movement:



Jinnah started his political career as a liberal nationalist and a moderate in Indian National Congress in 1906. His opposition to the Muslim delegation’s demands in 1906 placed before Lord Minto is well known and documented. He opposed initially the separate electorate in principle as being divisive only to reconcile later with it as a necessary and temporary evil which would be dispensed with in due course. For a detailed discussion on Jinnah’s politics I encourage everyone to read “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” by Ian Bryant Wells, probably the best book written on Jinnah’s early politics



As a legislator, Jinnah always put progress above faith. In1912, Jinnah alienated many of his Muslim supporters by giving his wholehearted support to the Special Marriage Amendment Bill, which sought to provide mixed religion marriages legal protection. He argued that the bill would provide equality but he was opposed by many members on the grounds that the bill contravened the Koran. Undaunted Jinnah asked the law member who had opposed the bill if he “would deny that there is a certain class of educated and enlightened people who rightly think that a gravest injustice is done to them as long as liberty of conscience is held from them”.
This is a very important issue not that personal choices are relevant. It also lends us an important insight into Jinnah and debunks another myth. Many Pakistan ideology and Islam-hawks in Pakistan claim that Jinnah objected to his daughter’s marriage to a parsi on grounds of faith. This is only partially true. If Jinnah was all bothered about faith, he would not have ensured that his daughter grew up in a British boarding school and learned in British (not Muslim culture). If Jinnah’s anglicization was deliberate, his daughter is in very real terms English and there is absolutely no indication in Jinnah’s life that he tried to have his daughter schooled in religious dogma. His objection to his daughter’s marriage was on legal grounds. The law in India did not allow interfaith marriage unless one of the spouses converted to the other faith or both renounced their faith. For a leader and politician waging the battle for Muslim community interests, and increasingly a target of Mullahs already questioning his lifestyle and his minority Shia faith, this would have been embarrassing.


A conflict has aroused in Pakistan about whether Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state or an Islamic state. His views as expressed in his policy speech on August 11, 1947 said:

“There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should entirely and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long ago. No power can hold another nation and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State".

Originally Posted by Ahmed_2007_Cool

Yaar baaki sab chorro... Jinnah's lifestyle was exactly like that of an English aristocrat - he smoked, drank, wore Western clothes, played billiards, spoke English, never prayed, etc. Are you really suggesting that such a man wanted to create a theocratic state out of Pakistan? And yes, any state based on any religion, whether Christianity or Islam, is a theocratic state. If there is a state that bases itself on Christian or Islamic principles but the law-making process is secular, then it is not a religious/theocratic state but a secular one.

Theocracy: Theocracy describes a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion

And Jinnah said, Pakistan will not be a theocracy. Those are his clear, unmistakable words.

Lastly, during his 1.5 years in power in Pakistan, what steps did Jinnah take to implement Islamic theocracy in Pakistan? The answer is none. He wanted to create a liberal democracy.

Originally Posted by suman

We can just say that Quaid wanted an Islamic state with the golden principles of Islam like democracy,equality and justice but he never desired a Shariah based system that Taliban want to impose thats why he did not try to islamise the state completely.

Originally Posted by pureapak

@ Fatima.

According to you SHARIAH is Allah's revelation on the Holy Prophet (Peace Ever be upon him)...

How about Ahadis , qias, ijma and ijtihad????

Those who believe Shariah coming out of these sources are wrong when it comes to your definition of Shariah...

Well.
The message of Quran is symbolic not in immediate range of a common understanding...
We knew about namaz, zakat, hajj and various obligations ordered in Quran but the way to carry them out is paved by Ahadis and the rest of Shariah tools. . . . .

if we neglect AHADIS and other sources of Islamic law... i am afraid to think what shariah would be left with us !!!!

i want to know how many laws we have which Islamic society has derived from Quran directly and do not involve Ahadis, qias,ijmn or ijtihad......?

Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi

What fatima has said is in no contradiction with you are saying. Please go read a good book on Islamic Law and Jurisprudence. There are many available online.

Originally Posted by pureapak

@ Fatima.

According to you SHARIAH is Allah's revelation on the Holy Prophet (Peace Ever be upon him)...

How about Ahadis , qias, ijma and ijtihad????

Those who believe Shariah coming out of these sources are wrong when it comes to your definition of Shariah...

Well.
The message of Quran is symbolic not in immediate range of a common understanding...
We knew about namaz, zakat, hajj and various obligations ordered in Quran but the way to carry them out is paved by Ahadis and the rest of Shariah tools. . . . .

if we neglect AHADIS and other sources of Islamic law... i am afraid to think what shariah would be left with us !!!!

i want to know how many laws we have which Islamic society has derived from Quran directly and do not involve Ahadis, qias,ijmn or ijtihad......?

Originally Posted by pureapak

Brother .
by typing this satirical sentence you meant to make a sense of your expertise in the Islamic Jurisprudence !!!

It really does not relate to the topic if i begin replying you in the same manner...

i just wanted to ask FAtima for revisiting the words with which she defines Shariah..


Any ways...

We can not ignore the best results that the world community enjoys after isolating their religious teachings based on conservative , traditional and hand made concepts.....

Originally Posted by pureapak

Brother .

i just wanted to ask FAtima for revisiting the words with which she defines Shariah..

.

Originally Posted by Fatima47

The other sources you have mentioned come under Fiqh. Who says that Traditions or Ahadith do not come under revealed sources?

Having an experience of discussing such things, I suggest you to read some good book on Islamic law or Jurisprudence to know these basic things.

Originally Posted by pureapak

leme tell you that you called Shariah revealed knowledge.

All the sayings of HOly Prophet (peace be upon him) are taken from Quran ?

please refer me to the Quranic verse which describes the rules of performing Salah,

establishing an Islamic State
rights of neighbours
haququl ibad
and the like various others principles of life that we had from Ahadis , and other sources of Shariah while keeping in touch with changing times.


why should the Islamic law makers bother about ijma.. as sharia is all about Quran..

i do not know why were you confusing me with fiqah in this context..

yes i admit i am not a degree holder in Islamic Jurisprudence nor do i know all the books that you guys might have gone through... i just want to ponder over the words and match them with human wisdom so that i can be able to make my non muslim fellows understand our religion.. a secular mind does not believe in spiritual existence they want the demonstrable arguments... i just do not want to know Islam only by the words of Molvis.. as they are based on abstract ideas..