Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Echo sahab i agree. This is why its a pointless debate. Like countless other muslims Jinnah clearly believed in a state religion but EQUAL (not just reasonable) rights to nonmuslims. Thats the essence of secular and the only definition that matters.

arjun now you are just being silly. Ypur idea of secular does not exist outside of china.

Is the US a secular state? Is the american government debating evolution? Does God reportedly speak to the american president? Is christianity the state religion in america? are homosexuals denied marriage in the eyes of the state in most area's?
is israel a secular state? how come its got a state religion? Do jews even in america work on the sabbath day, do they accept pork based insulin? do they insist on kosher? Do most hospitals in new york have a sabbath elevator?

once again you are confusing secular with atheist.

Re: # 10

bulleya

I fully agree with you when you say:

"Using Jinnah's lines to push secularism or shariah in Pakistan is, thus, being historically and journalistically irresponsible........."

I would say: What has secularism, Shariah has to do with the state. In fact the Islamic Allah had no idea whatsoever of the nation state as such which Jinnah had intended to establish. Thinking of a tribal society of 7th century for providing any guidelines for a social and political system in this age of globalization is, to say the least,sheer anachronistic which only an Abujehl could think of.

tejpal:172

I have always valued the input by hindus here, including those of arjun2...because the stuff you guys dig out corroborates what b muslims say, have always clamoured for and will continue to aspire for the ideals Jinnah has suggested ever so frequently.

What you write may not be palateable for non-muslims or the Kanjaroons in Pakistan but it is dainty-dish for the muslim palate.

Keep digging.Keep writing....Let the Secularoons have it at both ends.

#171 Posted by cliftonbridge on August 15, 2007 6:19:11 pm


being muslim in itself means being against secular governance right?


Of all the muslim countries in the world, how many are secular democracies?

yes...muslims, to a large extent, are against secular governance and society...we see that with muslims in the west too...won't use sanitizing gel during hospital visits because it has alcohol...etc etc

#172 tejpal

[If a Hindu empire is achieved, it would mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries.]

Did the dead man REALLY say that?! It reminds me of the type of crap those bigots from the American south used to jibe - with the unmistakable that if blacks obtain equality, it will result in widespread raping of the pristine (white) ladies! :)

My estimation of the dead man just took another beating! Good Lord!

Cliftonbridge:171

can you believe at both things at the same time? i.e islamic principles and some western inspired ideolgies ?
____________________________________________________________

Yes , of course! & be proud of it but if not in the "WEST" then one should never do it at the expense of "EAST".

IN quraanic terms the very concept of East & West is ridiculous..but we use the terms to convey a certain meanings with wich we have impregnated these words.

" Verily for Allah are the East & the West; you may face whichever way, it really makes no difference".

and are there not muslims, in fact some of them much better muslims than myself I think, who are Americans & British ..I mean kalay gorays? Martin Lings, Yvonne Ridley , Yusuf Islam are some contemporary ones.

And who does not dream as an individual or a collective to do things their own way..to put up a better show than whatever is being played? So one can be "with" it and at the same time work "towards" it.

"Har Cheez hai mehv-i Khuud nuumaee
Zarra Zarra shaheed-e Kibraa-ee"
...................................ALLAMA Iqbal

tr:
Every thing wants to put a show of its own
Each speck of dust is a witness to His Greatness"

and as the crooner said : " I did it MY way"

First try to deny that you would want to. You will have a hard time pretending so after publically stating that detroying islam is the only way towards sanity and balance.
After that either admit that you are an exceptionally hatefull individual or admit that you are infact the vast majority of indian hindu's who are venomously intolerant of islam and consider that "secular" thinking.

what? hindu empire will drown islam in middle east?... :)

What are you complaining about mohar? that is your vision for the subcontinent as you just stated. Jinnah just verbalised what you people say and that makes HIM the aggressor? ....this is just too easy.

yeah i thought so mohar. Just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me guess you also consider yourself "secular" like the rest of India. Where the goal for prosperity as seen by enlightened folk just like you is the destruction of islam and conversion of muslims in the name of a "balanced" society?
Please remember that stated goal because two days later when you decide to talk out of the other side of your mouth and pretend muslims in India live like kings in a shining tolerant land you will be reminded.

there you go clifton bi... yet another example of J-man talking out of his 555, pandering to the audience...

172

J-man really said that? WOW!!!

clifton

J-man talked from both sides of his mouth - now thumping the koran, the next moment holding forth on secularism...

Speaking of atheism - may be you guys should try that for a change... with the amount of bedouin BS that you have loaded up over the years - atheism may prove to be a healthy anti-dote for you folks - restoring some sanity and balance into your society...

It is a sheer delight to read the article as it is from a scientist who highly values objectivity. The article gives benefit of doubt to Mr. Jinnah and his vision but unlike Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru , who have left lots of written record , Mr. Jinnah was not very transparent and hence the interpretaion of his views by liberals, secularist and hard line religionist to explain his views to suit thier ways.
I am , puzzled that unlike Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru who are constantlt evaluated for their failings there are hardly anybody in Pakistan who is openly skeptical of of Mr. Jinnah's views on religion in general and on Islam in particular ( I suppose except the poet faiz ahmad faiz). I find that people from Pakistan always quote Mr. Jinnah's speech in the Assembly where he refers to the religion as personal faith. What kind of a person Mr. Jinnah must have been when he said the following at a pan-Islamic meeting in Cairo in 1946 as quoted in Mr. Wolpert book , Jinnah of Pakistan.

"I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would repress for the Middle-East and and assured them that Pakistan would tender co-operation to all nations struggling for freedom without consideration of race or colour...If a Hindu empire is achieved, it would mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries. There is no doubt that spiritual and religious ties bind us inexorably with Egypt. If we were drowned all will be drowned."

Could this be from a secular man coming from the subcontinent or was it sensationalism and fear mongering to get Pakistan created. How wrong was he as it is the USA, his beloved ally, and not India, which is creating havoc in the Middle East and is despised by almost all Muslim countries. Does one not see his own leanings towards a pan Islamic World and hence the present OIC which, incidentally refused to let India have an observer status despite India being a country with the third largest population of muslims in the World. Unlike Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Jinnah was not very trusting of others. If he was truly a secular man he did not have to use religion as a proxy to get Pakistan which again is not really a homeland for Mulsims of India as unlike Israel which is homeland for Jews and where any Jew can go, Pakistan still has as a large number of its citizens rotting in Bangladesh camps. Moreover Pakistan, is not open for those muslims who think victamized in India and would like to migrate to Pakistan.
If indeed Mr. Jinnah was a secular man, he gambled and I would say lost as his beloved Pakistan is now a hot bed of Islamic based terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.
I would like to know why people in Pakistan do not see that Mr. Jinnah , for all his best intentions for muslims, was not a perfect man and prone to mistakes as most politicians do? Would Mr. Jinnah have allowed( accepted) the sharia law where woman as a witness is worth half that of a man. If history is the judge then msulims in India would not have to face sectarian violence ( by this I do not mean between hindus and muslims but between various sects of Islam)and more space for those muslims who are liberal, to adapt to the chnaging World.
Mr. Hoodbhoy is to be congratulated for this excellent article.

mohar let me guess....you must be one of those guys who believe that being muslim in itself means being against secular governance right? Which is why its tough to for you understand why a proponent of "secular " system (exact word not used) must either stand up and proudly proclaim atheism or else he is talking out of his a$$?

Echo sahab you are right that islam will always out.... but i think the question is can you believe at both things at the same time? i.e islamic principles and some western inspired ideolgies ? because i humbly suggest that a person could.