State must be secular - Page 27

SADIA SHAFIQ · #**261** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

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".

Saleeqa Batool · #**262** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Quote:

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".

I totally agree with you and seek to add further that during his governor general ship none of his action manifested that he wants "Shariah Based" System in Pakistan. Though was over occupied with the problems confronting the nasacent state but it it was his priority to islamise the state then he could put ban on Liquor, Night Clubs etc. But he never expressed any intent of doing so.

Suman · #**263** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saleeqa Batool

I totally agree with you and seek to add further that during his governor general ship none of his action manifested that he wants "Shariah Based" System in Pakistan. Though was over occupied with the problems confronting the nasacent state but it it was his priority to islamise the state then he could put ban on Liquor, Night Clubs etc. But he never expressed any intent of doing so.

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.

STRAIN2 · #**264** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

@SADIA SHAFIQ & Saleeqa Batool
As mentioned by many other members, participating in this discussion, i must also say that it seems that both of you sisters did not read all our previous posts definitely.

I would not like to comment any part of your previous posts (as i consider that we all have already replied your concerns on solid basis) providing solid proofs. Not to use any hard word, but i must say you failed to provide us any single proof in which Quaid has used any such word as SECULAR. Instead we have provided many many of his speech referenced clearly mentioning ISLAM, QURAN, ISLAMIC RULES, KHALAFAT-E-RASHIDA etc.

Finally, i would like to again challenge you if you can prove your claim right againt what i posted in my last post. I will again post it for your reference.

PS:
Please stick your reply to my last part of the post i.e. I challenge you if you can prove your claim right againt what i posted in my last post. (See attachement)

Fatima47 · #**265** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Quote:

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".

Unfortunately, your posts give all of us (who have been posting in this thread for quite a time now) a feeling that you did not care to read previous posts. Case of Roman Catholics and today's secular countries has been explained in detail in one of my previous posts. Throughout this debate I did not, for a single time, drag in Allama Iqbal or Quaid-e-Azam, though few members including Strain2 and Shahzaib have brilliantly explained the context of their speeches and lettes. I, being a Muslim, believe that working for Khilafah or an Islamic state is farz on me and on every Muslim What Quaid believed in does not make much difference, but I have to see what Allah wants from us.

Apart from that, have already proved Islam's link with democracy as well as secularism for people who think that they are ideal systems.

STRAIN2 · #**266** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

As i've been repeatedly mentioning in my previous posts that i want to only stick to the topic. Thats why i did not touched the very fine point raised by sister Fatima.

Ab baat chal hi gayi hai tou .....let me also share my views on this, which are 100% in-line with sister Fatima.

Baat niklay gi tou phir dur talak jayey gi.

Now lets trun this debate into a purely quranic discussion. Or you want me to start a new thread.

Ahmed_2007_Cool · #**267** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

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.

STRAIN2 · #**268** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

maa'zrat ke saath...but..i would say gole gole ghoomtay jayo ab...between 11th August speech - secular person - theocracy.

Bhai kisi aik taraf tou aajayo.

Chalo baki batien chor dein. I would request Ahmed_cool_27 to give me any authentic proof of his statement regarding Jinnah's drinking. Hum nai itnay references de diyey...ab aap bhi sirf aik reference de dein.

Baki lets put drinking aside for a moment, how all other things you listed about Jinnah (smiking, wearing english clothes etc.) can be taken as some on to be secular. Funny isnt it? Is tarha tou aadhi se zayada dunya secular ho gayi.

If you have any reply on my tens of references qouted above, i would be happy to have further discussions with you. Thanks

Fatima47 · #**269** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by STRAIN2

As i've been repeatedly mentioning in my previous posts that i want to only stick to the topic. Thats why i did not touched the very fine point raised by sister Fatima.

Ab baat chal hi gayi hai tou .....let me also share my views on this, which are 100% in-line with sister Fatima.

Baat niklay gi tou phir dur talak jayey gi.

Now lets trun this debate into a purely quranic discussion. Or you want me to start a new thread.

I think someone created a thread that "State must be Islamic" which was deleted by the moderators. Plus, I believe few members have already made valuable contributions as far as concept of Islamic state is concerned. So if at all you want to pour out your views, I am sure you can do that in this very thread.

Edited Later: The thread was deleted because the moderators believe that this particular thread is relevant to Islamic state as well. So, lets stick to this very thread.

Fatima47 · #**270** Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by STRAIN2

maa'zrat ke saath...but..i would say gole gole ghoomtay jayo ab...between 11th August speech - secular person - theocracy.

Bhai kisi aik taraf tou aajayo.

Chalo baki batien chor dein. I would request Ahmed_cool_27 to give me any authentic proof of his statement regarding Jinnah's drinking. Hum nai itnay references de diyey...ab aap bhi sirf aik reference de dein.

Baki lets put drinking aside for a moment, how all other things you listed about Jinnah (smiking, wearing english clothes etc.) can be taken as some on to be secular. Funny isnt it? Is tarha tou aadhi se zayada dunya secular ho gayi.

If you have any reply on my tens of references qouted above, i would be happy to have further discussions with you. Thanks

Spot on!

By the way, Islamic concept of state has been discussed in detail by few members. Surely, none of us is going to iterate that time and again.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Constitution of the United States	Muhammad Adnan	General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests	3	Saturday, February 01, 2020 02:25 AM
Asma Jilani ---- Vs---- Govt. of the Punjab	sajidnuml	Constitutional Law	5	Saturday, November 11, 2017 06:00 PM
Islamic Concept of Govt?	Maha Khan	Discussion	9	Friday, April 30, 2010 02:25 PM
CONVENTION of OIC on combating international terrorism	MUKHTIAR ALI	Current Affairs Notes	1	Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:10 AM

The Following User Says Thank You to SADIA SHAFIQ For This Useful Post:
Ahmed_2007_Cool (Tuesday, October 04, 2011)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Saleeqa Batool For This Useful Post:
Ahmed_2007_Cool (Tuesday, October 04, 2011), SADIA SHAFIQ (Tuesday, October 04, 2011)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to STRAIN2 For This Useful Post:
Fatima47 (Tuesday, October 04, 2011), game on (Tuesday, October 04, 2011), usman khalid (Tuesday, October 04, 2011)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fatima47 For This Useful Post:
game on (Tuesday, October 04, 2011), STRAIN2 (Tuesday, October 04, 2011), usman khalid (Tuesday, October 04, 2011)

The Following User Says Thank You to STRAIN2 For This Useful Post:
Fatima47 (Tuesday, October 04, 2011)

The Following User Says Thank You to Fatima47 For This Useful Post:
STRAIN2 (Wednesday, October 05, 2011)