Of course, we would certainly like to broaden the scope, the deeper this discussion goes the more interesting it would be but first let's get done with the actual question

From my posts you can see clearly that my understanding of the vision of Quaid is that he wanted something between theocracy and secularism, I have tried to produce some evidence in this regard. Similarly Zia has also emphasized that Secularism was not in the mind of Jinnah when he was struggling for this country.

Now before we proceed further to the implementation of these ideals, we need to know what you believe and how you defend your opinion regarding the vision of Pakistan

Preventive P.S @ All - We are all youth trying to find out where we wanted to be and where we are; the credit for this confusion of ours goes to some other people so keep this discussion cool, no need to fight with each other

Agreed partially.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Sir Allama Iqbal and The Great Leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah all these three great men were nationalists in the beginning. But the attitude of Hindus and The British Raj forced them to fight for the rights and just demands of Muslims like equal treatment, seperate electorates, positions and vaccancies in higher government posts & civil services, access to better education and freedom to perform religious rituals like cow zabiha etc.

Now lets go further back to history. From Muhammad bin Qasim to Delhi Sultanate and from Babur to Shahjahan, Muslim rulers maintained a secular form of government. There was complete religious freedom, no forceful conversions and minorities were somewhat treated equally. But Islam expanded and Muslim civilization was at its peak culturally and religiously. There was an atmosphere of tolerance. Great Islamic mercenaries contributed to the expansion of Islam. But most of the rulers were weak morally and indulged themselves in many un-Islamic activities.

Coming back to Pakistan now. Pakistan's creation was a pure reaction to the indifferent attitude of Hindus and the British. And mind you not all Indian Muslims were in favour of Pakistan or Muslim League. Jamat Islami and Deoband scholars were not happy with the demand of Pakistan. But the visionary leadership of Jinnah was enough to create an independent state in the face of all odds.

Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a model state for the whole world. Where Muslims who were marginalised at the hands of Hindus and Britishers would would attain the hight of advancement and development following the golden Islamic principles.

Now let me draw an analogy. As the pure western democratic model in its original form cannot be implementd in developing countries like Pakistan, India, Brazil etc. Similarly the western secular model or for that matter the Indian secular model is not implementable in Pakistan. Secular Pakistan means a progressive and modern Pakistan just what the Quaid envisioned. But modernity does not mean vulgarity as most of us think.

What Sir Syed preached to Indian Muslims was exactly the target of Jinnah's Pakistan.

Jinnah never wanted Pakistan to be theo-democracy as Maulana Moududi or Dr. Israr advocate.

Agreed fully

regards,
floydian

__________________
Police Service of Pakistan (PSP)
39th Common Training Program

Well we're back on track to some extent

What I have been able to understand from your post is that you are advocating a secular Pakistan but your definition of Secularism is not the one prevalent in the West or in India. One the other hand you do not agree with Islam playing any role in the affairs of the state as well. I am not sure if you agree with the Objective Resolution being made a part of the constitution or or not (and with that Islam playing a role in the constitution of this country)

My reply to your post is that you have not replied to the statements of Quaid posted by myself and Zia, I mean why do you have to say that these statements are "Hollow Slogans"

Secondly, how do you support from the statements of Quaid or from the circumstances of the Pakistan Movement (after the Pakistan Resolution 1940) that this movement was for a secular Pakistan (according to any definition of Secularism)

The examples that you have quoted from history, I agree with them, and they do not reject the idea of an Islamic state but I think you would not disagree that the decisive things in the making of Pakistan began to happen after the 1940 Resolution. After 1940 were the Muslims actually thinking what Pakistan was going to be or why are we going to sacrifice !

Here's another very good article on why we are having this debate today, but even this article does not bring the 'culprits' to the surface.


Happy 62! Why Debate on Pakistan Ideology continues?
Happy Independence Day to all!

Well obviously that’s not why I’m writing. Well, almost not. Actually if it hadn’t been for the overdose of television yesterday, I wouldn’t have been “inspired” into thinking. If it hadn’t been for the repeated assertions about the liberal country Pakistan was supposed to be (whatever that means. Not Musharraf’s version of enlightened moderation I hope!), about the ideals Quaid wanted the new nation state to represent (definitely not Musharraf’s attempts at qualifying for sage-hood through his sermons-no doubts on that one), and the debate between “theocracy” and “secularism” in context of the Two-Nation theory, a debate that interestingly developed in the last seven to eight years, I wouldn’t have been compelled into writing. And also, some journalists/intellectuals’ reminiscing about the bygone days when bars and clubs were common, how drinking would be permissible for Muslims in “Quaid’s Pakistan”, and right then on some other channel Liaquat Ali Khan’s sons reiteration that Pakistan was supposed to be an Islamic country.

It is almost a tragedy those 62 years on, we are still squabbling over the ideology of this country. Always having been told that ours was an ideological country, one of just two in the history of the world, the debate over the existence of any such ideology almost puts the whole raisin deter of this country in doubt. Maintaining the liberal viewpoint on the Quaid’s speech on the 11th of August to prove some definitive justification for this country’s existence is a little too simplistic. For that speech in no manner, rules out the possibility of an Islamic state. If at all, by some fling stretch of imagination it does, didn’t the Quaid also say that Pakistan was supposed to serve as a “laboratory in which Islam will be practically demonstrated for the world to see and adopt…” That to me spells out a very clear vision for the country. And there are many more instances where the Quaid made a case for an “Islamic” state in very unambiguous terms.

However, the discussion above is not meant to prove somehow the Quaid’s personal inclination towards Islam or his devotion to the religion, because in all practicality of the issue, that isn’t important. And besides nothing discussed above describes the Quaid’s spiritual inclinations. What’s more relevant and somewhat suggested by the paragraph above, but still not necessarily important today, is the motivation behind the migration of millions to this part of the Indian subcontinent to find their identity in the new nation state, behind the “Pakistan ka matlab kia, Lailaha Illallah” slogan, behind the tireless efforts of many Muslim leaders in the league of the Quaid. Pakistan was an effort of a nation under the able guidance of a group of men who looked up to the Quaid as their leader. One man may have had his own priorities but his own speeches suggest that the concept of this new country was shaped by the collective wisdom of a people who made the sacrifices on ground. And this wisdom was expressed in 1949, through the Objectives Resolution.

To say that the Objectives Resolution somehow hijacked the concept of Pakistan is to deny the right of voice to the millions who made this country. To say that the first clause of this resolution compromises on the democratic principles this country’s political system was to be based on is lack of knowledge on the part of those who believe that the only alternative to secularism is theocracy. Not a single Muslim country in the world practices theocracy although Iran comes somewhat close to that model. Neither was it practiced in the times of the four caliphs which leave just the Prophet’s period (P.B.U.H.) which could be so much of everything although it did lay down the fundamentals of democracy even in the practical constraints of those times.

Whether an Islamic state or a secular one, it’s not for me to decide and neither is it for all those historians and intellectuals poring over records of speeches of the Quaid, in all honesty only to justify their own vision derived from their individual ideological leanings and present their findings as some substantive irrevocable concept conceived by the founding fathers, to be accepted by a nation of 160 million. This issue has till now been nothing more than a debate on history, which one needs to understand, is a fact not to be altered by the conclusions of any individual or a group of people. Deciding on the ideological moorings of a nation should be a more thought provoking exercising than competing against each other to come up with the most apt statement from 60 years ago.

And for a country in which the line between the two sides has unfortunately been getting deeper as time passes, this question will never be settled. For me, the fact that religio-political forces have never been elected into office in this country (although even they do not represent or advocate a theocratic Pakistan), or that a couple of years ago M.P. Bhandara’s suggestion that alcohol be legalized in the country for whatever reason did not draw much attention in the lower house, is a clearer manifestation of the choices Pakistan of today, wants to make.

The real decision makers in this backdrop have to be the people of Pakistan, the true heirs to the destiny of Pakistan. There was a Pakistan in 1947, there is this Pakistan in 2009; the decision to make it any different or similar should be all theirs. Let the debate on the ideology of this country be a question left at the behest of history, to be decided by history, for history.

Source of the article
http://www.chowrangi.com/happy-62-wh...continues.html

__________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. ~ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Quoting excerpts from the Allahbad address of Allama Iqbal, the writer has tried to answer the same question we are debating here

Why Was the Islamic Republic of Pakistan formed?

Why Was the Islamic Republic of Pakistan formed? This question keeps on nagging me. Also, why was it decided to name it ‘Islamic’ Republic of Pakistan?

Let’s go down the memory lane of the history of Pakistan and search for answers. Flashback. Whoa, where am I? The place seems to be set up for some conference. It says on the banner that it is the Muslim League’s Annual Conference in Allahabad. History tells me that it must be the conference that was held on 29th and 30th of December 1930. Dear me, is that Allama Muhammad Iqbal (B. A. (Arabic and Philosophy) - Government College, Lahore. Awarded Jamaluddin Gold Medal for securing highest marks in Arabic, and another Gold Medal in English;M.A. (Philosophy) - Government College, Lahore. Secured first rank in Punjab state and awarded Gold Medal.Reader in Arabic, Oriental College, Lahore;Ph.D., Munich University, Germany (Thesis: Development of Metaphysics in Persia)). Shush, apparently he is about to give a speech. Let’s hear what he has got to say…

“It cannot be denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity – by which expression I mean a social structure regulated by a legal system and animated by a specific ethical ideal – has been the chief formative factor in the life-history of the Muslims of India. It has furnished those basic emotions and loyalties which gradually unify scattered individuals and groups, and finally transform them into a well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of their own. Indeed it is not an exaggeration to say that India is perhaps the only country in the world where Islam, as a people-building force, has worked at its best. In India, as elsewhere, the structure of Islam as a society is almost entirely due to the working of Islam as a culture inspired by a specific ethical ideal. What I mean to say is that Muslim society, with its remarkable homogeneity and inner unity, has grown to be what it is, under the pressure of the laws and institutions associated with the culture of Islam.

“The ideas set free by European political thinking, however, are now rapidly changing the outlook of the present generation of Muslims both in India and outside India. Our younger men, inspired by these ideas, are anxious to see them as living forces in their own countries, without any critical appreciation of the facts which have determined their evolution in Europe. In Europe Christianity was understood to be a purely monastic order which gradually developed into a vast church organisation. The protest of Luther was directed against this church organization, not against any system of polity of a secular nature, for the obvious reason that there was no such polity associated with Christianity. And Luther was perfectly justified in rising in revolt against this organization; though, I think, he did not realize that in the peculiar conditions which obtained in Europe, his revolt would eventually mean the complete displacement of [the] universal ethics of Jesus by the growth of a plurality of national and hence narrower systems of ethics.

“Thus the upshot of the intellectual movement initiated by such men as Rousseau and Luther was the break-up of the one into [the] mutually ill-adjusted many, the transformation of a human into a national outlook, requiring a more realistic foundation, such as the notion of country, and finding expression through varying systems of polity evolved on national lines, i.e. on lines which recognize territory as the only principle of political solidarity. If you begin with the conception of religion as complete other-worldliness, then what has happened to Christianity in Europe is perfectly natural. The universal ethics of Jesus is displaced by national systems of ethics and polity. The conclusion to which Europe is consequently driven is that religion is a private affair of the individual and has nothing to do with what is called man’s temporal life.

“Islam does not bifurcate the unity of man into an irreconcilable duality of spirit and matter. In Islam God and the universe, spirit and matter, Church and State, are organic to each other. Man is not the citizen of a profane world to be renounced in the interest of a world of spirit situated elsewhere. To Islam, matter is spirit realizing itself in space and time. Europe uncritically accepted the duality of spirit and matter, probably from Manichean thought. Her best thinkers are realizing this initial mistake today, but her statesmen are indirectly forcing the world to accept it as an unquestionable dogma. It is, then, this mistaken separation of spiritual and temporal which has largely influenced European religious and political thought and has resulted practically in the total exclusion of Christianity from the life of European States. The result is a set of mutually ill-adjusted States dominated by interests not human but national. And these mutually ill-adjusted States, after trampling over the moral and religious convictions of Christianity, are today feeling the need of a federated Europe, i.e. the need of a unity which the Christian church organisation originally gave them, but which, instead of reconstructing it in the light of Christ’s vision of human brotherhood, they considered fit to destroy under the inspiration of Luther… I hope you will pardon me for this apparently academic discussion. To address this session of the All-India Muslim League you have selected a man who is [=has] not despaired of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of man from its geographical limitations, who believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the life of individuals as well as States, and finally who believes that Islam is itself Destiny and will not suffer a destiny….

“What, then, is the problem and its implications? Is religion a private affair? Would you like to see Islam as a moral and political ideal, meeting the same fate in the world of Islam as Christianity has already met in Europe? Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and to reject it as a polity, in favor of national polities in which [the] religious attitude is not permitted to play any part? This question becomes of special importance in India, where the Muslims happen to be a minority. The proposition that religion is a private individual experience is not surprising on the lips of a European. In Europe the conception of Christianity as a monastic order, renouncing the world of matter and fixing its gaze entirely on the world of spirit, led, by a logical process of thought, to the view embodied in this proposition. The nature of the Prophet’s religious experience, as disclosed in the Quran, however, is wholly different. It is not mere experience in the sense of a purely biological event, happening inside the experiment and necessitating no reactions on its social environment. It is individual experience creative of a social order. Its immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts whose civic significance cannot be belittled merely because their origin is revelational.

“The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other. Therefore the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim…

“…Personally, I would go farther than the demands embodied in it. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India…

… One lesson I have learnt from the history of Muslims. At critical moments in their history it is Islam that has saved Muslims and not vice versa.”

Hmm… from what I know about Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, he is not an illiterate. But he has also ended up being on the list of illiterates of this country as he perfectly fits the bill of that category that some elders of Pakistan have formed.

So diagnosis:

Allama Muhammad Iqbal is clearly involving religion in political and social matters and that is supposed to be on of the major symptoms of illiteracy. Therefore, he was an illiterate.

It is very disappointing to know that the gentleman, who envisioned Pakistan turned out to be an illiterate. He even talked of unity!!! That is a criminal offense. The ‘literate’ elders of the country believe in poking fun and demeaning citizens belonging to different provinces. Unity is not supposed to exist, eh?

Well, let’s hope the founder of Pakistan was ‘literate’ and didn’t make such statements—Hark! He is giving a speech. It’s in January of 1948:

“The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago.”

My mind just can’t accept that the founder of Pakistan, Baba-e-Qaum, had such ‘stone age’ thoughts. Or is history lying to us about their beliefs? Seemingly all the educated and prudent personalities in the world are turning out to be illiterates? My intellect simply cannot accept that.

We wanted independence. Why? Because we wanted an independent country where we could practice Islam. But now we consider Islamic beliefs the beliefs of illiterates.

I have been born 40+ years after Independence, but I believe that those principles still hold true in this age. Reason: Islam applies to all times. I am not accountable for other people’s deeds, but as a Muslim I will always stand, or in someone’s words “guard”, my Religion-the Religion that Allah (SWT) has commanded all to follow, the Religion that Rasoolullah (s.a.w.w.) taught us. I S L A M. The only way of life.

Allama Iqbal’s Point of View of Muslims:

نہ تو زمین کے لیے ہے نہ آسماں کے لیے

جہاں ہے تیرے لیے تو نہیں جہاں کے لیے

Momin-A Great Power:

کوئ اندازہ کر سکتا ہے اس کے زور بازو کا

نگاہ مرد مؤمن سے بدل جاتی ہیں تقدیریں

Source
http://www.chowrangi.com/why-was-the...an-formed.html

Do take some time out and read the complete Allahbad Address of Allama Iqbal at the following address.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/p...l_1930.html#01

__________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. ~ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Wow brother I pray that we both clear CSS and debate over this never-ending topic in CSA.

Now coming back to the discussion...Let me admit that I am not confused about the ideology of Pakistan as I stand convinced that it was meant to be a secular state.

Pakistan ka matlab kia.....slogan was raised after Master Tara Singh's led Sikh assault on Muslims on the division of Punjab. That was purely an emotional and reactive slogan raised by the class of effected Muslims that was not associated with Muslim League initially. They only realized the importance of Pakistan during the riots. Afterwards many ordinary Muslim Leaguers adapted this slogan.

And those who were against the creation of Pakistan successfully hijacked the ideology or idea of Pakistan according to their own interpretations.

When a lie is told repeatedly it becomes truth like the Jewish Holocaust lie. And majority tends to believe such a truth.

Other references in Quaid speeches which emphasize the importance of Islamic principles does not mean implementation of Shariah (according to any definition).

Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force officers of the Pakistan Government at Kahliqdina Hall, Karachi: October 11, 1947
"................................................. ...............................................
Another question that has been agitating my mind is the treatment of minorities. I have repeatedly made it clear in my utterances, both private and public, that we would treat the minorities equally and fairly and that nothing is farther from our thoughts than to drive them away. I, however, regret to say that the minorities here did not give us a chance to prove our bonafides and give us their whole-hearted co-operation as citizens of Pakistan when the crises suddenly overtook us. Before we could assume the reins of office, non-Muslims started pulling out of Pakistan, which, as subsequent events have proved, was part of a well-organized plan to cripple and sabotage the idea of Pakistan. But for a few sporadic incidents here and there, nothing has happened to mar the peace of Sind, but despite the prevalence of peaceful conditions here the exodus of Hindus continues. Some have given way to panic and others have been leaving Pakistan in the hope that it will be paralysed economically and socially. A lot of migrants are already realizing the folly of their rash act and leaving the country of their birth or domicile but some interested parties persist in encouraging migration which is fraught with grievous consequences for the migrants and also does harm to our State in the process.................................................. .............."


Broadcast talk on Pakistan to the people of the United States of America: February, 1948

"The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State - to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims - Hindus, Christians, and Parsis - but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan."

Again Jinnah himself made it clear that the constitution would have essential Islamic principles (not the whole of Shariah) but "in any case" its not going to be a theocratic state.

Now your assertion that Jinnah wanted to create a mixture of theocracy and secularism stands refuted.

Also in a pure Islamic state non-Muslims are not equal in terms of fundamental rights. And Maulana Maududi goes to the extent that they would be treated as second-grade citizens. Dr Israr also have the same opinion. But I believe Jinnah clearly rejected the idea of such a state and in Pakistan non-Muslims are equal citizens.

__________________
Police Service of Pakistan (PSP)
39th Common Training Program

Thanks for the prayers Brother

I think taking the deate further into 'supplementary' issues like slogans etc. would not help us much so let's hit the bull's eye straight away. From your most recent post I quote

and you concluded:

Now in an earlier post you wrote

You agree that the constitutution of Pakistan has to embody the 'essential principles of Islam', this does not let Pakistan be called a secular state because in that way the Islamic provisions of the constitution would be enforceable by the government.

The imposition of shariah, you maintain and rightly so that it was never the vision of the Quaid. This is exactly what I said in an earlier post

So don't you think that you and I are thinking on the same lines ? I mean you say that my arguments regarding the 'mixture' of secularism and theocracy stand refuted but your arguments are also going in line with the same 'mixture' (though I'd like to use a better word 'fusion' or maybe a 'religio-political vision').

Now if we agree to this, the next step would be to elaborate the 'essential principles of Islam' and this is where I think much of the injustice and hijacking has been done !!

Even if we still donot agree to any of the above, there is yet another point of view which I posted earlier (from an external source)

Maybe this is the 'best' answer we have for all this !!

P.S @ All - A poll is being created with this thread, respected members are requested to participate

__________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. ~ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

My brother,

Even the Indian Constitution embodies essential Islamic principles governing Muslim personal law, inheritance law, marriage law etc. enforced by the regular courts of the Union.

Now if for the sake of argument if I accept your stance then it means Indian Constitution is a fusion of theocracy and secularism. But is it ?

I have already concluded my arguments. But many of us are still confused here. However, your curiosity and consistency is highly appreciated my dear.

regards,
floydian

__________________
Police Service of Pakistan (PSP)
39th Common Training Program

You're mistaken, there is a difference between a constitution and a bylaw, these 'essential Islamic principles' that you have listed are not a part of the Indian Constitution, they are the bylaws

Insertion of essential Islamic principles in the constitution means

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed;

Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah;

This is a part of our constitution and this makes our country a fusion of theocracy and secularism, We are not a true theocracy (shariah is not enforced) neither we are a true secular state (Constitution calls it the Islamic Republic)

Bylaws are everywhere in the world but the Objective Resolution is not the part of every constitution, throw it away and become a secular state or keep going with it as an Islamic Republic

__________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. ~ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

What ?

You are a student of constituional law and should know that these islamic laws that i mentioned are very much part of the constitution of India. Just go through the Indian constituion once again and see who is mistaken.

I already have presented my case in the light of Quaid's most important statements referring to the constitution and idea of Pakistan. Rest is all juggulery of words. Its a pity that these statements and vision of Muhammad Ali Jinnah failed to find any space in the current constitution.

Its inoperable to continue this discussion further as its deviating from the "scope" of the topic and turning into a sort of confrontation which must be avoided.

However, I am glad that we both shared our understanding and views on the topic. We both have the right to disagree and I believe we excercised this right to the extreme(although I do not consider myself an extremeist by any definition).

thanks and warm regards,
floydian

__________________
Police Service of Pakistan (PSP)
39th Common Training Program

Well, without any personal confrontation or whatsoever I'll say NO, not even the Hindu or Sikh law is a part of the constitution. All references made to religion in the Indian constitution are general and applicable to all religions that are being professed in the union. An example would be Article 25(1) and there are numerous other.

Article 25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

The word "Islam" is no where to be found in the constitution and the word "Muslim" finds only one mention as a reference to the Aligarh Muslim University.

Anyhow, the point is that there is a difference between the constitution and the bylaws and here we are concerned with the inculsion of religious principles in the constitution not in the bylaws. (My previous post has the example of the Objective Resolution in this case which has categorically termed Islam to be the religion of the state and hence the duties of the state in this regard)

I believe there is nothing more or less important when you are talking about the statements coming from a leader as flawless as Jinnah.

I don't share the same opinion here either I think it was going very fine and we were not out of scope as well, actually we had just moved to the next part of the debate i.e. elaborating the "essential principles of Islam"

Here I agree, Good luck with your all your future endeavours

Best Regards

__________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. ~ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly