Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Re:bulleya#110

The muslim masses were backward as well, more in the physical sense in terms of jobs, education etc. However, psychologically speaking, muslims had lost power only in 1857, so their sense of loss and demoralization was probably lower as compared to hindus who had been in political wilderness for centuries.

To be fair, there were other social reformers among hindus starting with Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Gandhi definitely leveraged that foundation. Where he excelled was in marrying social reform with political opposition to the british - making it a strongly coupled joint objective. That yielded significant benefits for India both socially and politically. Interestingly enough, Gandhi tried to pull in muslims into this process as well by appealing to core muslim values just as he appealed to core hindu values for hindus. The objective was to reject british and western values and develop confidence in our own capabilities.

It would be quite remarkable for a man who was born in a community that could be summed up as the 'minority of the minority of the minority' (ie Ismailis) to argue for a shariah/theocratic state under which his community would face fatwas of heresy.

There is much that Jinnah said that is manipulated by the Islamists to justify a shariah-based state. However, Jinnah's actions prove contrary to the assumptions taken from his words. The first law minister of Pakistan, appointed by Jinnah, was a kafir. In 1400 years of Islamic history, I've not read of a kafir administering and formulating shariat legalities of an 'Islamist State'.

Well said Rozaiba.

Re: # 107
".....the words islam and quran appearing everywhere, from jinnah's many speeches to the objectives resolution, i.e. the words of the country's founder and in the legal document laying the country's foundation, is ignored......"

bulleya ji is right.

Mullahs have first claim over Pakistan , just as they have the first claim over Islam.

So, shut up you ignorant western educated elites. Burn away your western books and libraries, burn its laboratories, throw away every thing and stick to using pebbles and lotas for ablution.
conform to shariah or get your head chopped off because that is what pakistan means - Paksitan ka mutlub hai La ilaahi illilah!!! - and Raj Karega Mull-allah.

#116

1. Indians would love to see Pakistan fail, as is obvious from chowk.
2. Indians would love to see maulvis determine the future of Pakistan, as is also obvious from chowk.

Luddu mian: Thanks for making things crystal clear. :-)

#116

1. Indians would love to see Pakistan fail, as is obvious from chowk.
2. Indians would love to see maulvis determine the future of Pakistan, as is also obvious from chowk.

Luddu mian: Thanks for making things crystal clear. :-)

#104 Ranjit

This was one of your best! And so consize, too.

Ranjit #: ....i have always been interested in threading through the history of south asia, under the british rule, to figure out what is accurate and what is inaccurate.....it is quite interesting to find out that much of what has been taught to us, is not correct......

.....i am reading up on the 1857 phase, at the moment....muslims and hindus seem to have been living quite comfortably together up til this phase.......it was, primarily, the hindu soldiers who carried out the mutiny......muslims joined in later - both soldiers and volunteer jihadis.......

......in fact, 4/5th of the british forces were natives as well - primarily punjabis (and pathans) - ....this would imply, they were sikhs and muslims......

.......the hindu soldiers went to shah zafar - a muslim king - to lead them.....zafar's mother was a hindu......what is even more interesting are the speeches that were made......natives were aroused to defeat the kafir, who was trying to destroy their muslim and hindu religion.....the kafir being the christian british.......

...so somehow or the other muslims and hindus were living together quite comfortably.....in fact, there is a theory that much of the problems started, after 1857, when the british, deliberately, belittled muslims to paint them as the cause of the historical problems against the hindus....

.......in any case, it would be interesting to understand the psyche of hindus and muslims, in terms of demoralization, circa 1857 and 1947........

i think people, greatly, overblow gandhi's religious leanings......once again, another effort by individuals who are hell-bent to belittle anything they do not agree with.....

.....i am actually quite a fan of gandhi......i think his ideas, circa 47, are exactly what was needed in south asia......and jinnah was quite ok with him also.....had gandhi's ideas been implemented, south asia would have been a far more peaceful place today......and that is what should be given importance.......not how religious or secular a person happens to be.....

too many inidividuals on this site have taken religion and secularism to the point of becoming fanatically indulged in both......

rozaiba

As pointed out by various interactors - J-man talked about koran, islam all the time - "islam is in danger" was his rallying motto... compared to that his talks on secularism were few and far between...

So - what he really wanted is anybody's guess - but his politics clearly pointed towards an islamic system... which is why muslim masses were interested and enthused in the first place... a few acts of "secuarlism" on part of J-man is considered acts of omission rather than then his real intent...

J-man may not have wanted sharia as such - but it doesn't matter... abdul wants sharia, abdul wants more islam, abdul does NOT want secularism - secularism is NOT what abdul fought for... abdul fought for "pakiland ka matlab kya - la illlah illah hillah"... abdul fought for "no god but allah"...

J-man is dead... abdul is young and alive... he doesn't believe in secularism, he doesn't believe that J-man actually wanted secularism... he has his speeches to prove it... what are you going to do?

Dr. Hoodbhoy said:

"Why did a man known for his integrity fight shy of expressing his beliefs openly and forthrightly? The answer lies in the political reality of building a coalition of zamindars, pirs, and parts of the Indian Muslim elite. Mr. Jinnah surely did not share the retrogressive views of the feudal elements who chose to have him as their leader. Had Jinnah campaigned for a liberal, secular Pakistan – and that too in competition with the secular Indian National Congress under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru – he would have certainly lost the leadership of the Pakistan Movement. So, Jinnah opted for ambiguity, hoping that:

a) People in his Muslim League would not notice his lifestyle too much.

b) That the contribution he was making to the welfare of Muslims – by helping level the playing field – would dominate everything else.

c) That a liberal, secular Pakistan would one day follow once the messy business of partition was over with, and it was unnecessary to raise the issue of secularism now."



which I think is very closer to the truth.

Jinnah had ball of his youth in Bombay and London. He got political lessons from Pherozshah Mehta and idolised Ranade and became the disciple of Gokhale.

BUT, when he needed a launching into politics he needed to take the route of as a Mulism rep of Bombay at National Assembly in Delhi (in 1910s).

WHY?

That's the GAP btw the idealism and reality in India.

Jinnah's love affair with idealism went up to 1930s and from then on realipolitic and the rest is history. As a Metro Muslim his knowledge of Islam is as good as that of Salman Khan's.

When he advocated Sharia and calling Muhammed as a true democrat and true secualrist (kinda), who he thought was the true ideal of Muslims he's obviously resrting to rhetoric and playing to the gallery.

Nevertheless his 11/8 speech is still a mystery to me. How can he say two different things? Was he too naive, like Gandhi was abt Hindu-Muslim unity?

For me, Dr. Hoodbhoy's piece gave me some clues (as quoted above).

mullah32 is freaking dense... All these years at chowk - and only now he realizes this :)

re: Hoodbhoy

I will defer to MantoLives, on the topic of Jinnah, but I believe that Manto's interact # 1 said it all. The constitution of Pakistan will be decided by the people of Pakistan regardless of what Jinnah may have wanted for Pakistan. The only condition is that it is done in an open and demcoratic manner and is not forced upon the people.

Jinnah was a meritocrat and he was neither an Islamist or a secularist. My inference is made on a telling point by Jinnah, in his August 11, 1947 speech, which was the reference to the religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics in English history. Religion to Jinnah, was a personal affair and it had nothing to do with the affairs of the state. Jinnah must have realized from the experience of the English religious wars that a nation, where two or more religions exist should favor all religions equally and to make sure that it happened this way, the state should not get into the business of deciding religious issues.

Secularism does not make a nation into an atheist, but it does make the tolerance of all religious believes possible and in a nation with multiple religious believes, each religion must be provided with the space to exist without being dominated or persecuted by one particular religion that has the offical patronage of the state.

In the end, one has to look at Jinnah's personal believes on the role of the state and not what his religious believes were in the role of the state to finally decided what form; Islamist or secular he supported for Pakistan. Regardless of his personal opinions, his choice of a Hindu as the first law minister of Pakistan proved that Jinnah favored the latter not because of his western education and liberal intellectual thought, but because he realized the pitfalls for Pakistan if one religion was favored over the rest of the religions in Pakistan and instead opted for a choice based on the qualifications of the person, for a task, and not his religious inclinations.

Much has been said about Jinnah and his reasons for creating Pakistan, but it still does not negate the fact that what made Jinnah great to the Indian Muslims despite his lack of Islamic knowledge or his westernized outlook, was the single minded sincerity of purpose he brought to the cause of the Muslims of India. Having said, one would expect nothing less from Jinnah once Pakistan was created and in the interests of Pakistan, Jinnah would have supported a secular form of government. He would have done so not because he was anti-Islam, but because he must have realized that Pakistan being a multi-religious state could not be single religion dominated state and still endure.

The argument, whether Jinnah was secularist or Islamist only makes sense if point was that Pakistan was created in the name of a religion, but it was not. Pakistan was created to ensure the consitutional, economic and religious, cultural freedoms of Indian Muslims and had Congress agreed to these demands, Jinnah would not have pursued the case of the Indian Muslims to the point of partition in 1947.

Jinnah, then, was neither a secularist or an Islamist as much as he was a meritocrat, who believed that meritocracy in the service of Pakistan was the best option for the new nation.

Ciao

laddu #: "Mullahs have first claim over Pakistan , just as they have the first claim over Islam."

......this is incorrect.......there is absolutely nothing in the social, political, constitutional (or any other al) history of pakistan, which includes the concept of mullah...

as i always say, as long as people try to portray history, through their agenda-based coloured glasses, they will twist it to suit what they believe in........

interestingly the two groups that distort the facts the most - mullahs and secularists - are the two groups, which have absolutely nothing to base their stands on.......

....the historical speeches, documents, resolutions related to pakistan seem to paint pakistan as a state which will have islam as its moral compass, both in public and personal life, with all minorities getting equal rights.....

on the whole the objectives resolution maps the views of the leaders of those times (including jinnah) quite well......

now how this was to be achieved was never articulated by anyone.....i think everything happened so quickly, that no one had the time to philosophise on the above.......

Re: # 121

On the contrary the Islamic quotes produced by Atif2 and company.. (at most 6 or 7 quoted by people here about Islam) are few and far between Jinnah's quotes regarding democracy equality etc... I have quoted 15 from the last year alone... and there are many many more I have quoted over the years. So the "few" acts actually far out number the so called "many".


However that is not the point.... ferozk has summed it well in his post and I will let people read it.

ferozek #: "In the end, one has to look at Jinnah's personal believes on the role of the state and not what his religious believes were in the role of the state to finally decided what form; Islamist or secular he supported for Pakistan.......Jinnah, then, was neither a secularist or an Islamist as much as he was a meritocrat..."

...these two statements are somewhat contrdictory.....

i think there is enough in jinnah's personal life, to indicate that, personally, he prefered secularism.......and i assume meritocracy.....

......however, when one studies political history, one looks at the public statements of politicians, for policy guidelines.......not their private life......

.......i am quite sure obama and hillary support gay marriage personally.....however their political statements do not support gay marraige......they only support gay unions...........

....it is their political and public statements that define the future direction of any government they may lead......and the direction of their party policy....

.....public and political statements are greatly influenced by the voters and the public one is leading....this is why, in many cases, they are contradictory to one's personal beliefs.....

....in that sense, one could argue that jinnah was a hypocrite.....he personally believed in secularism, but publically never used the word, and in fact, used islam and quran much more.......i wonder if he had even read the quran......

.....or one could argue that he was a politician leading a group of people and gave the desires of the people precedence over his own personal beliefs......

but the fact remains that, from his public and policial persona and statments, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he was pushing a secular state.......he removed the word, "secularism" from his public vocabulary.....he also did not want a theocratic state.....

i suppose, he was ok with anything but a theocratic state, and left his comments in a blur.......he opposed a theocratic state.......and neither opposed nor supported (this is important to note) a secular state.....and pushed islam and quran here and there also.....

freozk
[...Pakistan was created in the name of a religion, but it was not...]

come on dude - who are you kidding?... "Pakistan ka matlab kya - there is no other god but allah"... "islam is in danger"..."koran is the best book"... and yet you say - pakiland was not created in name of religion...

if it wasn't - then pakiland would not be where it is today... the proof is right there in the pudding... :)

J-man may have had all sorts of ideas in his mind - but on ground - it was all about islam... otherwise the masses would not have gone with him... abdul didn't really care about "consitutional, economic and religious, cultural freedoms"... neither did the feudals and other assorted folks of J-man's party... abdul cared about islam and allah... that's what he fought for - not for "consitutional freedom"...