Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi

This is accusation leveled against Quaid-e-Azam by those who don't know Islam very well, contrary to Quaid-e-Azam.

Islam is not a theocracy. There were no Aalim certificates distributed among the Khulafah nor was there a select group of Ulema who formed a theocracy in an Islamic State.

Secondly, Islamic does not regulate the religion (set of beliefs) of even Muslims, example, in the last known caliphate, i.e. the Ottoman Caliphate, people of the Madahibs (religion) of Maliki, shafai and Hambali existed even though the Ottomons themselves were Hanafi. Of course there were jews, christians etc who also lived in that caliphate and none of them were harassed in respect of their religion.

The Islamic state regulates and governs the social life of a human being, not his religious life.

Hence, you see Quaid telling the constituent assembly that everyone was free to go their places of worship and state would not interfere in their Madhab.

Thus, Quaid never contradicted himself. People today are not just as knowledgeable as Quaid was.

Originally Posted by Ahmed_2007_Cool

Was Jinnah's personal life that of an ideal Muslim?

What did he mean when he said "Pakistan will not be a theocracy"? Can you explain that to me please?

How will Islamic Law govern our social life? The way it's done in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh or Egypt? These are all 90%+ Muslim countries but people's social values differ drastically from one place to another.

Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi

Are we here to talk about Jinnah's personal life or his public life? Of course one's personal life falls into the sphere of Haqooq-Allah and nobody has the right to question those. But I feel Jinnah was not the same Jinnah who was once called an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity ever since he "converted" to the ideals of Iqbal. Were he a secular person he wouldn't have disowned his daughter who married out of Islamic Law.

You have to look into the definition of theocracy. I can define it for you but I'm not here to educate you. But for the record, Islam has never had a theocracy; a clergy, a group of learned men who "legislate" for other people and are supreme. In Islam Allah S.W.T is supreme and only HIS laws are implemented, not of man.

Now, to your last and lengthy question that mentions numerous "Muslim" states (not Islamic)... Islam will shape our lives in an Islamic State according to Islam, whereas in the countries you mention, custom and culture shape people's lives (at times with the label of Islam).

Originally Posted by Ahmed_2007_Cool

You didn't answer my question. What did Jinnah mean when he said Pakistani will not be a theocracy? If he knew that Islam isn't a theocracy, what was he talking about - Christian theocracy?

You said that our lives will be shaped according to Islam. And who will decide what that is? There are dozens of different interpretations around? Which one will we choose?

Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi

To clarify things more, the Caliph will not tell people whether to offer Salah with hands open or closed, he can not ask them to "believe" in a set of beliefs. However, the state will observe foreign policy, economic system, energy supplies, penal code and land reforms etc in accordance with Islam (these being the societal issues and former being personal issues). In these there is no contradiction among the different schools. For instance, ribah is forbidden in all schools of thought, gambling and liquor are also forbidden without exception etc etc.

Hence, the issue often raised by secularists as to "what kind of Islam" is pure rubbish.

Originally Posted by STRAIN2

Speech delivered to Muslim's of Goa - 13th Jan., 2011

liberty, equality and fraternity."