Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

mohar11 #: "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..."

i have to say there is nothing more interesting and entertaining than reading the comments of individuals who have an agenda, and are trying their best to twist and turn facts, to prove their points......

J-man did talk about islam and quran quite a bit (though not all the time).....at least in public......and 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.......

however, he never talked about, "islam in danger"......once again, much like i have challenged the secular falsifiers to highlight where in the history of pakistan's creation, the term, "Secularism" was used, i would like to challenge you to highlight, where, "islam is in danger" is used.....at least where did jinnah use it?

......the answer is he never used it.......now, you can, like those arguing the opposing side, twist and turn and connect and deduce and calculate and weave his other statements to reach the conclusion you have reached.....much like those oppoosing your views are doing to reach their secular conclusions.......

but you would be as wrong as them.......at best it will be a personal opinion on your part, which would, factually, only be applicable to you.......it would not be an actual fact.....

the other option is to, as i stated, let us all know, where j-man said that islam is in danger......i tend to prefer this direct and factual approach.....

p.s. please don't tell us that in afghanistan or saudi arabia, no one ever said that, "islam is in danger," however they still have shariah governments, because they mention islam and quran a lot.....hence j-man didn't need to say it, either......even though, "islam is in danger" is what he meant, because that is what afghanistan and saudi arabian leaders mean.....

i will expect a better argument than this from you.....such arguments are for those who have no other argument.....

Re: # 145

Mian Bulleya,

While I appreciate your belated discovery of a spine... I would like you to answer my post (to me you are as much a falsifier of history as mohar11 or atif2):


#111 Posted by MantoLives on August 15, 2007 2:20:41 am
Bulleya,

I am not sure where you drew that conclusion from. You have a curious habit of inventing myths and breaking them.

The argument is and always has been very simple:

a. Jinnah- the one time secular Indian nationalist- championed the cause of Muslim minority in United India. His struggle was for and on behalf of the Muslim people(s) who he termed a nation so that there may be a consociationalist solution at the centre.

b. As a result of Jinnah's efforts, Pakistan was created advertently or inadvertently... and Jinnah was opposed by all theocrats.

c. Jinnah spoke consistently of a Pakistan where the state would be impartial to faith of the citizen, where minorities would have equal rights and where priests with a divine mission will not run the state.

Now that c. is what the contention is about. Most people would say that this amounts to a secular state. Jinnah himself knew - as a lawyer- that legally anything that is not theocratic is by default secular. However... I for one have NEVER had any qualms with those who wish to call such a state Islamic. But where the hell is such a state? Atleast make it before you declare it secular or Islamic.

Now coming to your equally ignorant argument about the word secularism... could you produce a single artefact from say the foundation documents of the United States which has the word "secular" or "secularism". How about France? Does the word secular or any french variant thereof appear in the original declaration?

The issue of secularism has always been a separation of Church and State- thus a secular state is:

1. One without a clergy determining law of the state.

2. One where the state is impartial to a person's faith.

3. One where all citizens are equal before law.

4. Sovereignty rests with the people.


Now...

1. "In any event Pakistan is nto going to be a theocratic state to be run by priests with a divine mission".

2. "You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state"

3. Numerous statements quoted in #1.

4. Read Jinnah's interview with Doon Campbell where he says sovereignty will rest unconditionally with the people.


Now all you can prove by Jinnah's references to Islamic ideals and Quran etc can only prove that Islam endorses above mentioned principles... but it cannot prove the opposite no matter how much you try.

The litmus test will be to show a single act or piece of legislation by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that sought to Islamise the Constitution or Civil or criminal laws.... under Jinnah- who was a powerful civilian ruler.

Objectives Resolution- passed after Jinnah's death- marked a departure from these principles enunciated by Jinnah...

Not only that it violated the basic principle on which you created Pakistan:

No permanent majority by sheer majority can dictate to a permanent minority

Secular, religious or something else this was the only principle Pakistan was created on. The objectives resolution was voted against by all Non-Muslims and one Muslim League Muslim as well. Therein lies the irony of those who claim nonsense like you've done in your post.


Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah stood unequivocally for the kind of system which would be described in modern parlance as a secular democracy. If it could be defined as an Islamic democracy as well just proves that Islamic democracy is a fancy term for Secular democracy. Jinnah certainly thought his vision was compatible with Islam...

The real question we should be asking is that whether Jinnah was right in proclaiming his essentially secular vision of the state as Islamic?

I think this article also argues the same thing.

Since, according to jihadi2, the US isn't secular maybe he should be forced to eat pork and attend church...since he's taking the "separation of church and state aren't in the constitution" line most often used by the christian fundamentalists...

trust me...pork is goooood...I'm sure there are plenty of places that will make a good ham sandwich for a paki cab driver on the go...


Manto: The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't exist in the US constitution but it clearly is the guiding principle of the US...

Mantolives writes:

"I for one don't have a problem with you calling Jinnah's inclusive democratic state which keeps faith out of major policy considerations an Islamic state... it might be true that Islam actually envisages such a state... Holy Prophet's Mesaq-e-Medina certainly did... to me this constitutes secularism."

Actually alot of Muslims don't have a problems with this. Abdur Rehman Wahid, former president of Indonesia and the most respected Islamic scholar heading the largest Islamic organization network in the world (70 million member plus), Nahdlat-ul-Ulema, claims in the book 'Politics of Islam' that an Islamic state has to be secular. Yes, he uses the word 'secular'.

Unfortunately Maududi and his filth cannot digest this and prefer to consider their rag-tag terrorism-friendly outfits who enjoy the delusions of 7th century desert outposts, a true representation of what Islam means.

Rozaiba #148 well said. The word 'Secular' is anathema to the maudoodite since it means sharing power equally among all citizens, and not giving the maudoodite a veto authority over this power.

whats this green lush colour representative of.....

whats this white represents the noor of a hoor .....




Dr.Muhammad Muzaffar Mirza...one of the top historian ...philosopher and intellectual...and younger brother of legendary Dr. Mirza Munawwar(late) .....have written that in 2005...one night....quaid-e-Azam ...came into my dream...he used to come ...in my life ....but this time after a long time ......



He said...Muzaffar..do you know...what this white and green represents....they represent the Green tomb of Prophet(pbuh) in madina...which green in dominantas compared to white(Gunbad-e-Khizra).....




27 of Ramazan...the most sacred night of the year...with more than 1000 monts...as in Sura Qadar...with many signs of coming into existence from Prophet(pbuh) .... like

*Hussain Ahmed Madni
*Zafar Ali Khan
*Ashraf Ali Thanvi
*Iqbal
*Hasrat Mohani

etc etc.....



After 1400 years ..first time in history...after the state of Madina...only 1 state that came into being in the name of Ideology..was Pakistan....and after 1 year....one another state ...on the name of Ideology...israel....after 2000 years of Diaspora of jews....


Clearly shows...the real mania will be between these two states...near end of times...at Armegadon.....



Not jocking....crystal clear evidences and proofs....confirm that.....The fire is already burning in Middle East.....Iran..Iraq...Syria...Turkey....palestine...Lebanon....all are in the line of fire....and jews === USA (no difference) ...are on thier ways...The stage for Dajjal is already created...and forces of evil and good are already in Iraq...eyes to eyes.....



The situation in Pakistan is changing drastically...political scenario is amalguming into judical blend.....and lights of freedom and power are dancing in the darkness of 60 years long era.....







Time is calling us...decisive moments are approaching fastly....lets prepare to do what Pakistan is created for..... The white star and moon....the green lush image is going to play the leading role in it.....



and whole of our life is woven between these stars of Pakistan ...and burning fires of our hearts....

whats this green lush colour representative of.....

whats this white represents the noor of a hoor .....




Dr.Muhammad Muzaffar Mirza...one of the top historian ...philosopher and intellectual...and younger brother of legendary Dr. Mirza Munawwar(late) .....have written that in 2005...one night....quaid-e-Azam ...came into my dream...he used to come ...in my life ....but this time after a long time ......



He said...Muzaffar..do you know...what this white and green represents....they represent the Green tomb of Prophet(pbuh) in madina...which green in dominantas compared to white(Gunbad-e-Khizra).....




27 of Ramazan...the most sacred night of the year...with more than 1000 monts...as in Sura Qadar...with many signs of coming into existence from Prophet(pbuh) .... like

*Hussain Ahmed Madni
*Zafar Ali Khan
*Ashraf Ali Thanvi
*Iqbal
*Hasrat Mohani

etc etc.....



After 1400 years ..first time in history...after the state of Madina...only 1 state that came into being in the name of Ideology..was Pakistan....and after 1 year....one another state ...on the name of Ideology...israel....after 2000 years of Diaspora of jews....


Clearly shows...the real mania will be between these two states...near end of times...at Armegadon.....



Not jocking....crystal clear evidences and proofs....confirm that.....The fire is already burning in Middle East.....Iran..Iraq...Syria...Turkey....palestine...Lebanon....all are in the line of fire....and jews === USA (no difference) ...are on thier ways...The stage for Dajjal is already created...and forces of evil and good are already in Iraq...eyes to eyes.....



The situation in Pakistan is changing drastically...political scenario is amalguming into judical blend.....and lights of freedom and power are dancing in the darkness of 60 years long era.....







Time is calling us...decisive moments are approaching fastly....lets prepare to do what Pakistan is created for..... The white star and moon....the green lush image is going to play the leading role in it.....



and whole of our life is woven between these stars of Pakistan ...and burning fires of our hearts....

What happened to all those who were the major players of 1971 war and seperation of Bangla Desh....









*Sh.Mujeeb-ur-Rehman

Killed by his own army in 1975...and for 3 days...nobody was willing to bury his dead body...His whole family...except his little daughter...h.Haseena wajid ...due to out of country survived.....










*Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

one of the most popular leader of pakistan political history...but when nature came in real mode...he was hanged ...on gallows..despite of whole world sympathies with him....His two sons kiled brutally...and his daughter ....kicked out of government for 2 times..shamelessly...and cannot see the Pakistani Land...for 11 years.....











*Russia...

was mainly involve in support with india...to block Pakistan ...Air Force with AWACS techniques....but it was Pakistan single agency ISI..who shattered the world supreme power into 26 pieces.....











*Indhara Gandhi

The PM of India..in 1971..and said that we have drowned the 2 Nation theory in bay of Bengal today...wasd killedin bomb attacked by a sikh of golden temple scenario...his two sons also killed ...Rajeev gandhi...and one in plane crash...etc.....












Did NATURE spare anyone ...who was enemy of pakistan.....


The biggest transfer of population of human history took place in 1947 at pakistan Creation...about 1 crore people moved across the borders....











About 40,00 or more women were kidnapped in east punjab of india....and forcibly married to sikhs...and still some of them are alive as Sikhs grandmaothers.....











About 10 lakh people killed ...mostly muslims ...for this country.....










thousands of innocent girls jumped into well so taht hindus or sikhs could not touch them......












Are all these things happened for nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



http://www.alldost.com/blogs/starsandhearts

SOME DEFINITIONS:

Secularism: The state will not enact any law that has its ethical basis in any religious teachings.


Political Islam: The state will not enact any law that contradicts the commands of Allah and His Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

So do Muslims have a choice to chose between way of Shaytan who offers the way of evil wrapped in enticing names or to submit to the will of Allah and Prophet (pbuh). Your first response is the right answer.

Re: # 148

That is a remarkable piece of information.

It is quite clear then that Jinnah believed in a secular state and saw no contradiction with his Islamic faith and his championing of the Muslim cause.

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.......

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?

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.

#129 kamath

Absolutely!

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!

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.