Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Add-on:

India was not formed as a secular state in 1947 or after.

It was as recent as 1976 this word "Secular" was added to Indian Constitution along with the word 'Socialist'.

As for criticism that western countries are not secular cut much ice, as they dont treat different citizens differently. There are no 2/3 grades of citizenry in the west.

clifton

The only reason why are on the topic is bcause J-man pulled statements out of his %%% depending on the audience... his ideas are all over the place and you pakis have no what to grab on... is it a plane, is it a bird, is it a bee... you have no clue...

That's the unfortunate reality...

Mohar, That's a funny way of putting it. Lol!

Gandhi too wanted a lot of crappy things for India eg.economy, industries, women issues, religion and what not.

But the Constituent Assembly i.e Team India followed the golden path of team work for India and devised a golden document called Indian Constitution which said 'what we are and what we do'.

However:

Pak's journey lost it course and momentum b4 the journey is started. Let them entangle themselves more with the quotes of Jinnah. ;-)

Lets see how/where it proceeds.

for the love of the Prophet & Islam

" Sar-e Khusroe sey taaj-e kaj-kulahee chhin toa jataa hai
Kulah-e Khusravee sey boo-ey sultanee naheeN jaatee"

No matter how much someone hems & haws about their pride in getting westoxicated one thing is certain & has been proven throughout history..every muslim IS a fundamentalist at heart..and when the conditions are right it emergrs if its full glory.

One must concede that for a lot of faint-of-heart roti-kaprRa-aur-makaan (aka Lifestyle & class-consciousness)
makes them do things which are "pragmatic" & hence "taqiyaa" is observed.

"Dil pey liya hai daaGh-e Ishque kho kay bahaar-i zindGi
Ikk gul-e-tar kay vaastay, meiN neiN chaman lutaa diyaa"
_____________________________________________________________

akbar S. Ahmed in the NYtimes.


It has been said that Jinnah chose Lincoln's Inn because he saw the Prophet's name at the entrance. I went to Lincoln's Inn looking for the name on the gate, but there is no such gate nor any names. There is, however, a gigantic mural covering one entire wall in the main dining hall of Lincoln's Inn. Painted on it are some of the most influential lawgivers of history, like Moses and, indeed, the holy Prophet of Islam, who is shown in a green turban and green robes. A key at the bottom of the painting matches the names to the persons in the picture. Jinnah, I suspect, was not deliberately concealing the memory of his youth but recalling an association with the Inn of Court half a century after it had taken place. He had remembered there was a link, a genuine appreciation of Islam. Had those who have written about Jinnah's recollection bothered to visit Lincoln's Inn the mystery would have been solved. However, knowledge of the pictorial depiction of the holy Prophet would certainly spark protests; demands from the active British Muslim community for the removal of the painting would be heard in the UK.

Jinnah in real life by all historical documentation was a person liberal (drink /pig ) and a political secular if you take secular to mean a believer in the EQUALITY of minorities and women. OTOH It is quite clear that Jinnah on chowk is an ink blot test, and stands for whatever the writer hold dear to their own heart.

The only reason we even engage on the topic is because traditionally speaking fundamentalists and liberals should be arch enemies so one group will not allow the other to claim a figure as widely reverred as Jinnah. Even on the flimsiest of grounds.

However when it comes to Jinnah most surprisingly we are falling all over ourselves agreeing with each other.

In the conversation so far the left has yielded that if islamic fundamantalist does not mean taliban but infact kamal atta turk (jinnah loved him) then we are all islamic fundamentalists.

And fundamentalists have conceded that a guy who may have eaten pork, drank alchohol, said a muslim is anyone who said they were muslim, said that we are not a theocracy, that idolators are free to go to their temples and be EQUAL in the eyes of the state....that this man could be an islamic fundamentalist.

Dear PH,

Many thanks for another great article.

And GT dude says J-man was "simply a nationalist"...now that clarifies everything... :)

Is it a bird or is it a plane?... come on pakis... take your pick... :)

romair
[...he talked about it far more than anyone who, as public policy, is pushing secularism.......no one pushing secularism would mention islam, as a basis of social or political policy, so much...]

Which is what I said... so what the heck are you arguing about?

decades down the drain - you guys still don't agree on what J-man stood for... YLH says he stood for secularism... Atif proves that J-man wanted islamism... ferozk says he stood for neither secularism or islamism... Hoodbhoy says he just used islam for political purpose...

you pakis don't know your head from a hole in the ground... and anybody pointing out this problem becomes your instant enemy, has an "agenda" and twisting and turning to fulfill that agenda... :)

atif2 and others:

The writer, manto, rozaiba, HP and others have made the point that Jinnah did not know much about Islam and hence he could not have desired Pakistan to be an Islamic state. Jinnah was simply a nationalist.

The Koran time and again asks the reader to place his/her loyalty only in favour of Allah. This implies the desire to implement Allah's "justice". No other loyality - to the state, its leader etc. This is clear to any reader - Muslim or otherwise. Yet Jinnah asks for loyality to Pakistan - a country (see Manto's quote "Speaking to Quetta Parsis"). I doubt whether Jinnah seriously read the Koran! Forget his desire to implement an Islamic state.

#152 Posted by dawa-i-dil,

No. None of those sacrifices will go to waste. Thanks for enumerating all.

Huh, just read this up...what if you are oart of the group but do not share the belief's of the group? Minority within a minority if you will? Aren't you screwed by
Consociationalism??

Consociationalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Consociationalism is a form of government involving guaranteed group representation, and is often suggested for managing conflict in deeply divided societies.

Consociationalism was discussed in academic terms by the political scientist Arend Lijphart. However, Lijphart has stated that he had "merely discovered what political practitioners had repeatedly – and independently of both academic experts and one another – invented years earlier".[1] John McGarry and Brendan O'Leary trace consociationalism back to 1917, when it was first employed in the Netherlands.[2] Indeed, Lijphart draws heavily on the experience of the Netherlands in developing his argument in favour of the consociational approach to ethnic conflict regulation. The Netherlands, as a consociational state, was between 1857 and 1967 divided into four non-territorial pillars: Calvinist, Catholic, socialist and liberal (although until 1917 there was a first past the post electoral system rather than a consociational one). In their heyday, each comprised tightly-organised groups, schools, universities, hospitals and newspapers, all divided along a pillarised social structure. The theory, according to Lijphart, focuses on the role of social elites, their agreement and co-operation, as the key to a stable democracy.

The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival of democracy and the avoidance of violence. When consociationalism is organised along religious confessional lines, it is known as confessionalism, as is the case in Lebanon.

Manto writes "To stop one interpretation to dominate another... it follows that a secular i.e. impartial state is what Islam envisages.

Hence you have Jinnah's thought. "

No mian, Islam does not proclaim Jinnah as prophet and son of God, even though you might desire that. Islam envisages a state based on social justice for all, this does not mean that because Muslims happen to be in a majority, you take a good part of their income as Zakah for redistribution purposes and the non-Muslims go scot free and enjoy the services of the state, while they repatriate their surplus earned in Muslim lands to their churches and temples (secular or otherwise) abroad. It means that all be treated equally so if not Zakat then Jizya. Note that justice according to the Quran, where it involves others has nothing to do with the person's belief system. And let me tell you that nowhere do minorities enjoy rights in the so called secular world as they do even in today's rife with injustice Pakistan. Let the Muslims prosletyze the way Christians do here, let them own huge competing institutions as the colonials left here for the Christians and then we'll see what big noise the locals make in America and the European world.

People like FerozK who wail and cry over the rights their ancestors had under colonization enjoy a very high lifestyle compared to the lifestyle they would be able to support were they to live in the West. Here they scold the traffic police cop, shout out at people on the street that are of a lower class and get away with it, over there they would get an a$$ whipping by the police just because of their skin color or accent were they to act out, guaranteed. Here they can strut around and roam around like "gods" over there they are considered sewer rats to whom even the homeless junkie on the streets says "GO BACK HOME". Here Christians prosletyze in the jihadist fashion in the mission schools and in colleges and openly in the newspapers and churches, over there Muslims cringe and crawl trying to convince the authorities that they are not "terrorists" and yet get shouted down by saying "you don't condemn terrorism". Get real you miserable fools, if what exists in the West and in Europe is a "secular" state, I say Fcuk it!

#129 kamath

Absolutely!

bulleya...

If you investigate you'll see that this is true of all religions. Now Islam has a false church.. this false church needs to be separated from the state.

If Islam does not have a church then by clear logic Islam advocates a freedom of religion and individual interpretation.

To stop one interpretation to dominate another... it follows that a secular i.e. impartial state is what Islam envisages.

Hence you have Jinnah's thought.

Urstruly #153 Have you notified the publishers of the English dictionary of your defintion of the word "secular", so that these dictionaries may be revised?

Also, have you edited the Quran to take out inconvenient references to being honest in order to make room for maudoodism?

rozaiba #146: "Nahdlat-ul-Ulema, claims in the book 'Politics of Islam' that an Islamic state has to be secular. Yes, he uses the word 'secular'...."

...its good to see these ideas being discussed.......this is what happens, when one is willing to open up one's mind and attempt to learn from others, rather than always trying to preach to others......this is also what happens when one is willing to treat history on facts, and not on one's pre-defined political agenda....this is also what happens when one breaks out of the black and white rigidities of you are with or against us, on religion and secularism.....

the world exists in greys.....not in rhe rigid blacks and whites of religions and secularisms....

if one looks at islam philosophically, it is impossible to use it as a basis of a universal shariah, for all muslims (what to talk of non-muslims)....since shariah has to be universal, i.e. applicable to all muslims, hence islam fails in this regard, by its own design......primarily because it allows every muslim to bypass any religious group and have direct contact with God.....

....islam abstracts religion, and gives every muslim the right to define it....there is absolutely no mechanism in islam, which gives anyone the authority to define a set of religious rules that, by islam, everyone has to follow......there is, in fact, no concept of anyone claiming any govt. or social power over anyone else through religion......there is no mechanism or authority, in islam, which can declare someone a non-muslim etc.....

......due to this, islamic shariahs vary so much in different countries, societies and timeframes.....shias will never be declared non-muslims in iran.....but they might be declared non-muslims in saudi arabia, someday.......and vice-versa....who knows.....what one does know is that this would be done under two opposing shariahs based on whomever has political power and a majority......this is a religious contradiction....

......secondly, islam does not have a church.....plain and simple......if you don't have a church, then how in the world can you separate church and state......what are you separating the state from, if there is no church to separate it from?........

......secularism is a concept that gained popularity, in the west, because the christian church started gaining far too much political power.........unlike islam, christianity, especially the catholic church, has a very hierarchical structure, which carries a lot of power.......the only way to exclude such power from the state was to separate it out all together......

......islam never had to go through that because islamic church has never had so much power....specifically, because their is not supposed to be a church....even though it has come into existence, through backdoors, there is still an inherent recognition in islam that a person can sit in his room the whole day, never go to a mosque, never follow a pope or an, "islamic" scholar or a jurist and still be a practicing muslim (like i do)......

.....thus, in islamic phiolosophy (lets look at it as a philosophy, and not a religion at the momen, since many readers of this are non-muslims), there is simply a state.......no church.....

.....now how do you define the rules and regulations of the state? this is the $64k question......you cannot use a church, since it doesn't exist......the pope and the local priest cannot do it for, since they don't exist in islam......the quran can do it, but whose interpretation of the quran are you going to follow.........mine or urstruly's......what if we are in a conflict in our interpretations?.......since their is no religious authority to go to, how do we decide who is right and who is wrong?.......in islam, only God can decide.....and He won't tell us, till we are dead.......we could go to a shariah counsel, but who died and gave them the power to adjudicate......certainly not the quran, as it doesn't recognize shariah counsels either........

.......so, basically, islamic philosophy for muslims is based on a group of people, individually (i repeat individually) interpreting the quran and using it in their day to day life as guidance......they can preach their ideas to others, who may follow them.......but under no circumstance, can they claim any kind of state or religious authority on the basis of their ideas, i.e. i have as much a right to lead the prayers in kaaba as any muslim......

......now, such a group can get elected through democracy and implement their religious ideas through the state.....but, according to islam, they still cannot force their intepretation of religion down anyone's throat, as that would violate the inherent islamic right, given to every muslim, by the quran, to have direct contact with God and interpret the quran......

.....the wide group of muslims, then, gets together to form a society and has to decide how to run it.........and it has to run it without an official church or an official religious hierarchy......

.......how should they set up the public part of their lives.......that will be in part 2, assuming you and your various partners in crime are willing to accept the fact that there are others, besides you, who have something reasonable to say, also.......

if, however, you guys keep your minds shut, you will cease to grow and will turn into the fanatics who have no room for ideas other than their own, and who will cheer when people with opposing ideas are killed and subjugated by the state.......