Secular Pakistan as envisioned by Jinnah:

On the question of what view Quaid had in his mind of his country's constitutional structure, and the foundations or the pattern on which it was to be erected or the direction either Western or theocratic as regards the system of governance Pakistan was to set out for, there so far have been two poles, to be more candid, the liberals/ seculars and the islamists/ orthodox mullahss, always going at hammer and tongs with the former demanding a secualr and a liberal state as to them, envisioned by Jinnah, and the latter arguing that Jinnah's vision was out and out an islamic state.
Things, however, should no longer be obscure if we adopt impartiality and neutrality in our approach towards the treatment of facts of history. Before going on the course of that, I would like to add here that Muhammad Ali jinnah's vision pertaining to which kind of state he thought Pakistan to be is perhaps as equally mysterious and ambiguous as his political career, a part of which was when Jinnah was the staunch supporter of Indian ‘Nationalism’ and the next decade more or less starting from 1916 was when he rose as the sharp advocate of “Hindu Muslim Unity” and the later age when his role was that of the ardent activist leading a nation for the independence.
There, we cannot deny some occasions are there where Jinnah has couched in ambiguously the terms Islam/ Islamic while explaining the arrangement for the future constitution of the country , but in the face of the statements and his speeches where his stance and vision is towards the formulation of a liberal and secular state, the former fall short.
Before involving ourselves into the above enunciated question, here we need to have a clear insight of the term secularism. It generally implies a state that is not partisan on the religious issues and thus tolerant of the religious minorities. In dictionaries we also find the exposition “ Materialistic/ worldly things or order in which religion has no place.” Oxford dictionary of English defines secularism: “ Religion as the private concern of every citizen, cannot and should not attempt to encroach upon the matters of state, be of government, of education, or of any other sphere of public life.” Secularism brings about complete divorce between state and religion with the presumption that individual may have a concern with a religion in the individual sphere, but a state which has no religion has nothing to do with the religious affairs which, to it , are the private matter of citizens.
It is a pity to say that we have always suffered from the psychological syndrome of thinking and conceiving things to be what we ourselves want them to be. What we have been doing for sixty six years so far is the same practice of drawing our own conclusions and then contriving to peep into the history to find out the facts compatible with our own conclusions in order to prove us. We develop the perceptions of something to be detestable and spiteful and then bother to look for the facts to support our deductions. Exactly the similar has been the case with a particular political ideology that may be secularism, or any one else.
Coming to the point, we have a long history of 66 years to observe that other than adopting the nomenclature of “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” , and proclaiming Islam as the state religion, no measures have ever been taken in the true context for the enforcement of Islamic shariah and law. The reigns of the state since its inception have always been in the hands of the liberal elements , be Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan or Musharraf with his enlightened era, neither have the moves been made to replace the inherited British law with that of the Islamic. This perhaps due to the apprehension or fear of being ruled by the theocrat mullahs, or simply because the people of Pakistan want a liberal and secular state. But it does not end here,; the situation further deteriorates when those meeting total debacle in tricking people so as to seize power attempt to give false coloring to the statements and thus, the vision of the founder of the nation by preaching that Quaid dreamt of a theocrat state to be ruled by theocratically extremists and even by those who were amongst the inveterate opponents of its establishment.
At many places , Quaid very explicitly made a mention to a state resting on the liberal and secular foundations, imbued with the Islamic conception of social justice. Chairing the first session of the constituent assembly he said: “ We are staring in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and the other, no discrimination between one caste or creed and the other. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all and the equal citizens of the state.”
Quaid-E-Azam did refer to the Islamic dogmas and the philosophy of fraternity, tolerance, equality, and social justice as the fundamental or guiding principles embodied in the constitution, but there is no evidence for toffee where he overtly or covertly made any reference, or talked of establishing a theocratic state as is claimed so vigorously today.
In the broadcast talk to the people of the USA, recorded on February 1948, Jinnah blatantly expressed the sketch of the constitutional position, nature of the state and the rights of the citizens including minorities: “ In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by the priests with the divine missionary. We have many non-Muslims, Hindus and the Christians, etc but they are all Pakistanis. They would enjoy the same rights and privileges as enjoyed by any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”
Jinnah’s words here are clearly axiomatic and definitive so much so that they need to be taken to mean something else. Addressing the the central legislature on February 7, 1935 he said: “ Religion should not be allowed to meddle with the policies (of the state). Religion is merely a matter between man and God. When I speak of minorities, I speak of secular things.” The following statement of his delivered in the constituent assembly should leave no margin for any uncertainty and doubt as to haunt our minds that whether Jinnah aimed at a theocracy or a secular state, or himself was at sixes and sevens as regards the constitutional structure and the nature of the state.
“ Now you are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in the state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste, or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”
He further elaborated: “ Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time, the Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and the Muslims would cease to be Muslims not in the religious sense that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as the citizens of Pakistan.”
Javed Iqbal ( Justice retired) interviewed on a T.V channel backed up the the same notion in the words:
“ Jinnah envisioned Pakistan to be a secular state.”
It goes beyond one’s common sense that had he really meant Pakistan to be left to the hands of theocrat Mullahs as a theocratic state, would it have been possible as well as acceptable to give the law portfolio to a Hindu minister, viz,. Jugindrath, an eminent Hindu lawyer from East Pakistan.
All this crystal-clear account should be adequate for a sage person or a man with a bit of common sense to make out or draw the conclusion of what our beloved founder destined Pakistan to be. If people are still denying the ground reality, It simply means they are denying solely for the sake of denial.
The innumerable problems and the crises we have been mired in today are preponderantly because we have deviated from the core ideal of our great leader, of fraternity, peace, equality, tolerance and social justice in terms of religion, caste, and creed, letting the country drifting away to the wrong direction , the harvest of which we have been reaping in the form of extremism, suicide attacks, bomb-blasts, Talibnization, sectarian conflicts, and blah, blah blah. It is very high time for not merely for the policy-makers and the stake holders but for each and every person enjoying the right of citizenship of the state to realize, and do his best as role of citizen to save the beloved country from the current inferno in order to make it really a holy land of peace and prosperity.

which secular state do you see as a model for Pakistan?

Jinnah was a means to an end.He led the muslims of subcontinent to achieve an end;a state where we wanted a laboratory to conduct experimentation on islamic principles.
The basic meaning of achieving pakistan was LA ILAHA ILLALLAH,not the so called secularism.There were many a muslim country with secularism in vogue,even the India having the greatest number of muslims as compared to pakistan,herself was going to be a secular state.So why Quaid-e-Azam and his team struggled along to have pakistan.On 18th June 1945,Quaid said,”Pakistan does not mean freedom and independence only,but the islamic ideology as well which has to be preserved,which has come to us as precious gift and which we hope others will share with us.”Addressing the karachi bar association on Jan 25,1948 on the eve of Eid Millad-un-Nabi,the Quaid said,” I cannot understand a section of people who deliberately want to create mischief and make propaganda that the constitution of pakistan will not be made on the basis of shariat.Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1300 rears ago.”
That was a section of people,the secular one,that created the mischief we now envisage in the above article “secular pakistan as envisioned by Jinnah.”Unfortunately,at the advent of pakistan,secular mafia had dominated the constitutional assembly,not representing the people of pakistan.Owing to their dominant position and economic strength they came out of the woodwork and presented the idea of secularism with full strength.Quaid-e-Azam wanted earnestly to make pakistan an islamic state but all his efforts were retarted by this powerful secular mafia.Albeit,he struggled on and was met with a planned death,still an unvieled mystery.

you are saying Islam for Pakistan. the gentleman above prescribes a secular Pakistan.

If we were to know now that the Quaid left no instructions whatsoever for the future of Pakistan, what would you recommend for Pakistan then: secularism or Islam?

regards

Dear cool down! There is no such a need to be grim and to be at your wit's end..It is democracy wherein every individual is entitled to the freedom of expression..I just wrote the above piece of writing from my viewpoint, gathering the facts from the skeleton provided by history..your comments seemed harsh, trampling on the right of expressing one's opinion. It is said that the falsehood if not exposed is taken and believed to be the truth.
Dear i myself am a Muslim, with full fledged pride in the glory and eminence of our culture and civilization, but reality is after all reality and that bitter reality is that the country like ours owing to people like us and the so-called mullahs and religious bigots is not conducive as well as capable of having islamic system of governance enforced in it..
Dear first let me know what faction of religion by which i mean " Sect" will you pick to conduct the experiment over..since there are colossal of sects, divisions, firqas with their own outlooks and even interpretation of Quranic Ayats and Ahadiths...?? sorry to say but the sour fact we willy or nilly have to embrace is that the mullas and molvis being themselves at dagger's drawn, appearing always in the search of finding a loophole of either of their opponent to pull its legs, by issuing fatwa against it declaring it " Mushrik- Bidati, Kafir, blah blah blah.. so do you think these people will let your islam function in the country smoothly.. No in no way... you said there was a section of people, absorbed in making machinations, and most probably were at the bottom of the mysterious death of Jinnah---(to you) let me consider it true for a moment, but do tell me what the religious bigots have so far done for the promotion of islam, to cause it to flourish in the country ???
Dear be mature and come out of the dreadful idealism.. the country has been turned in to an inferno, a place where the quest for food of 1 time compels the marginalized and downtrodden poor to sell the honour of their daughters and sisters to make both ends meet, a person getting out of his house is not sure of whether or not he will return alive...airports, mosques, markets, public places are not safe...there we go! sir temporal needs do matter.. sir who should be held accountable for all this state of affairs..???

dear friend you do not seem to be ready to change yourself, how do you expect others to do so?

can you point out the differences between the sects?

what can they do? they have already been stereotyped as mullas. who listens to them? go to IIUI some day and you will know...


so Islam is dreadful idealism. but your prescription of secularism is real? are you not asking us to follow the ideal of secularism?

implement islamic economic system and more than half of your problems are over.

and if you think that your version of Islam is "real" and "true", then why don't you begin to preach Islam. why have you given up on the truth? The Quran claims to be a guidance for all humanity not just Pakistan. according to Quran all human beings should follow it not just Pakisatan. if the Quaid prescribed Secularism then he left it upon us to decide our future. so let's decide our future and stop waving Quaid in front of everyone as a prophet

sorry if my words seem harsh but there was no other way for me to articulate them

regards

My answer is Islam.It is an irony saying to have a full fledged pride in the glory ang eminance of our culture and civilization,but will not believe in its practicability and dub it as idealism.
Islam is not idealism.The Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad(PBUH) founded the first islamic state in the city of Madina.He announced that Madina is the headquarter of the new state.Masjid-i-Nabvi was the first sectretariate of this state.When the new state was formed,the Holy Prophet addressed the Jews there and described the ends of the islamic state.The Prophet(PBUH) said that islam is neither to attack the non muslims nor to entangle human beings into problems.Islam is based on freedom,equality,and justice.Islamic state based on the described principles is to protect life,property and interests of all the individuals.The Holy Prophet also announced that all citizens of this city would be provided protection irrespective of any discrimination on the basis of colour,race,or religion.There will be no revengeful and severe policies for the non muslims.All the minorities were given protection.Justice and equality was ensured to all alike.
Now,the question,here,arises whether establishment of an islamic state under the present political system of democracy is possible.I will say YES.There is no eminent obstacles,by and large,in the way of establishing an islamic state in the present day world.The notions and values of islam are the same as that of the present political system of democracy.Islam believes in liberty.equality,justice,fraternity,welfare of the society,consultation,dignity of the human beings.There are only two things that brings confrontation:Residence of Sovereignty and Secularism.
According to western democracy,Sovereignty resides in the people(The best,modernist,and prevalent definition).In islam,Sovereignty belongs to Allah almighty.In spirit,the purpose of both Sovereignty is the same;welfare of the people.Islam makes rulers accountable to Allah for their dealings with people while democracy also does so by making the PM or President accountable to a representative assembly of people directly or indirectly.Rulers,in islamic perspective,are not void of people,s scrutiny;instead, they are doubly accountable:to Allah,and to the people.
As far as SECULARISM is concerned,it may be viable in relation to other religions,but islam denies it outright.Islam is a complete code of life.Islam says Religion and politics are twin brothers.They can not be separated.In christian circles,there developed the belief that one could be a secularist,while being a christian;As such Jesus is reported to have said,”Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,and to God what is God’s.”(Matthew 22:15).Hindus,Budhists,and all other religions,by and large,believe in seclusion;but Islam forbids this practice and enjoins upon His believers to participate,also, in worldly affairs.

Dear,Below I am posting a column from Dawn Newspaper which is well worth reading.

Democracy and Islam
By From the Newspaper
Published May 12, 2011 09:21pm

IT is said by some that democracy has no place in the political system of Islam. Islam is not only a religion, rather it is a complete code of life. All aspects of Muslim society, individually or collectively, are covered by the social structure of Islam.
Hence a political system, an important aspect of human society, also comes very much under the banner of the Islamic hemisphere. The great Muslim thinker and poet Allama Iqbal has rightly said, “Juda ho deen siyasat se to reh jaati hai changezi” (take religion [morality] away from politics and you have despotism), for religion is the source of all morality, individual and collective.
The important manifestation of a political system is vindicated through the establishment of a state and the way of its governance. Our Holy Prophet (PBUH) established a state at Madina, of a unique type, based on consultation, justice, equality and accountability. After his passing his righteous successors maintained the same system of governance. The Holy Quran has mentioned the word ‘shura’ for governance. “They govern with mutual consultation.” The essence of a true democracy is also consultation.
The governing system of the Righteous Caliphs was the manifestation of this democracy. Today there is much talk about western democracy, but the aforesaid democracy presented by Islam is more accomplished. The basic pillars of a true democracy, i.e. consultation, justice, equality and accountability, are found in the governance of the Righteous Caliphs, Abu Bakar, Umar, Usman and Ali.
Presently, the UK and the US are regarded as the pioneers of western democracy. Are their rulers questioned so openly and bluntly by the common men in public places as the aforesaid caliphs used to be? Nowadays in a democratic system, the rulers are elected through votes and the candidates offer themselves for their election, utilising all kinds of sources for winning elections while none of the rightful caliphs offered himself for election. Each was selected by a majority of the people, after the proposal of their names by other people. Neither did they display any desire nor made an attempt to win their elections.
Furthermore, their deeds verify the highest democratic values in governance which are extinct today in the governance of so-called democratic rulers. The day after his election as the caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakar came out with pieces of cloth on his shoulder to sell, because before his caliphate, this had been his source of income. Hazrat Umar met him on the way and asked, “What are you doing?” He replied, “I have to support my family.”
The right of criticism and freedom of expression before the ruler, which are important features of democracy, were evident in the governance of these caliphs. Hazrat Salman Farsi, a respected companion of the Prophet (PBUH), questioned Caliph Umar in a public gathering, asking why he had taken two sheets while everyone else got a single sheet from the spoils. Hazrat Umar instantly called his son Abdullah who clarified the position of his father by replying that he had given his sheet to his father due to his tall height.
Hazrat Usman had to face very severe criticism by the people during his caliphate, but he did not attempt to stop them by any means; rather, in reply to their criticism he always clarified his position publicly. Hazrat Ali as the caliph tolerated the extreme abuses of the Khawarij.
Once the caliph saw a Jew selling his lost chain armour in the market. Being the ruler, he did not snatch his armour from that person but submitted his complaint in the court of a judge. The judge asked for the evidence and Hazrat Ali produced the evidence of his son, Hasan, but the judge did not accept this evidence as the latter was the son of the caliph, and gave judgment against the caliph. The Jew, observing this rare example of justice, accepted Islam at Hazrat Ali’s hands.
Today, out of the aforesaid examples, can any ruler of a democratic state present such an example? The leading pioneer of India’s independence, Mahatma Gandhi, had once said that he wanted such a democratic state whose ruler followed in the footsteps of Hazrat Umar. Famous jurist Armanus Von Marie had confessed that Islam was the only religion among the universal religions to have democracy for its system of governance.
It may be rightly said that the true democratic government established during the early period of Islam had been that of the Righteous Caliphs. However, it has been a sad aspect of Muslim history that such an ideal rule concluded after the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali. It was succeeded by monarchy and despotism with the exception of the three-year rule of Umar Bin Abdul Aziz amongst the Umayyads, who wanted to revive the same justice, equality and accountability as found in the rule of the Righteous Caliphs.
Thereafter the system of governance prevailed on the same track of the preceding Umayyad rulers, subsequently succeeded by the Abbasids, and then successive rulers in the Muslim world who were either absolute monarchs or dictators, although a few of them individually established justice and equity in their governance. Nevertheless, the system remained undemocratic, which the Muslim world at large still has to contend with.
In conclusion, it may be said that Islam had been the pioneer of democracy, but its followers in general have forgotten their own values along with the democratic system of governance. Now vast swathes of Muslim lands exist under absolute monarchies or despotic rulers. It is an irony of history that contemporary Muslim political thinkers and intellectuals, too, should now begin to see western democracy as a model.

Dear Farukh
First of all I really appreciate your art of exposition logical reasoning and mastery over English language.
In the first post of this thread you have proved your point of view logically and systematically, but there are some persons which are not ready to accept your point of view.. as I am.
If Quid envisioned secular Pakistan then what was special in Pakistan which was not in India.
What were the basis for demanding a separate homeland... was it a piece of land only?
Do you think Islam is what Mullah explains or Mullah is the only ambassador and preacher of Islam.If yes , then what are our responsibilities as a Muslim. Do you think the name "Islamic Republic " is responsible for all the problems of the country. Do you think Islamic laws are unable to solve the problems of poverty, corruption, nepotism, extremism, etc , etc.
Don't you think Islam is a religion of peace and it a complete code of conduct which has demarcated the clear lines between halal and haram , good and bad. It has elaborated the ways to lead a life as an individual , husband , wife, brother, mother, father, teacher, soldier, statesman, judge and all other walks of life.


I am sorry if My words hurted you.

Regards

MAK

__________________
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Al Rahmaan

The only viable way for a country to exist peacefully in today's world is to be secular, with no intervention of religion in politics, and this is true for Pakistan too. Religious politics always gives way to bloodshed and instability, the things that we've been seeing in Pakistan for a while.

Someone up there mentioned that secular 'mafia' took control of the politics after Jinnah. How do we manage to make such sweeping statements with not a shred of evidence?

This thought of secular Pakistan is the result of 67 years of failure in implementing Islam. On one hand, there is "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" and on the other hand there is almost nothing Islamic in Pakistan. One cannot live with such hypocrisy and discrepancy for long. Now that we have failed till now to established a true Islamic state, we are divided into two (amongst many) groups. One group has given up, sees the charms in the west and think that is the solution i.e. to follow them and become secular. One group is still wants Islam.

Insha Allah we will end this hypocrisy and Islam will prevail. Bro, you think that secular Pakistan is the solution. You also criticized the Mullahs and provided some historical facts to prove that Quaid wanted secular Pakistan. You also claimed to be a proud Muslim.

Quaid e Azam no doubt is our leader. One will find his statements for secular Pakistan. But if you search, you also will find statements of his wishing for a Islamic state. And talking about leaders and inspirations, one should not forget Allama Iqbal. Through his poetry he revived the hearts of many many Muslims. So when you tell your opinion about how Pakistan should be, you are actually telling what you wish for. And you wish for Pakistan to be secular.

You criticized mullah, yes there are problems but you are taking many things for granted. They are keeping mosques alive five time a day without any holidays. Bro, how many Azan you and I have given in our life? How many congregational prayers have we offered? How regular and devoted are we in performing prayer? How many times have we read the Quran and I am not talking about parrot reading? How many people have we taught to learn and read Quran. These are great and noble Islamic scholars who are offering these services not for money but for the mercy of Allah.
The Mullahs have not stored 200 Billion dollars in swiss banks. The mullahs have not caused severs energy crisis, inflation, unemployment. The mullahs did not kill the people in Lahore. The mullah have not taken loans that now each Pakistani has a debt of 87,000 Rs in his or her head. The mullah do not have Multi National Coporations malpractice world wide.

You said you are a proud muslim yet you want Islam not to prevail on social level. You are focusing on what Quaid said. Your opinion did not include what your Allah and Prophet SAW has said. Bro, believe in Islam if your muslim. We are provided with all tools to build a great society better than any non believers, all we need is to have faith.

Islam is not just a religion, it is a life style based on justice and equality. Yes religion can be personal and one can not force it on others. But the government you will form must have principles on which it will govern. These principles should be Islamic. Under these Islamic social, political and Islamic principles, one can follow any religion. That is all.