Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Ranjit you are a good man below is not for you

Important point: All of this was done while police, government and society was supporting this. Laddu says hindus don’t believe this will lead to retaliation and bombs but only hindus can be so good at logic no one else in the world is such a genius. We will always help our muslim brothers against such heinous crimes and genocide.

Stupid muslims you are always criticizing Islam, muslims and Pakistan see how hindus like always defend India, Hinduism and hindus learn from them how to be nationalist.

They will deny any crticsm of India and hindus and point out how wrong Pakistan and muslims are even if they support a good cause like poor kasmiris or bomabay muslims they will call them terrorits and you join them and abuse ur country and fellow muslims, shame on you and shame on this Busharraf

You can see yourself the hate in their heart fror muslims, and Pakistan from this web site if not convinced read the articles I posted you will see these hindus in UK and USA are funding Gujarat, VHP, BJP and Shiv sena

And in the end thanks to Quaid whose shukrguzaar we are

bjkumar,

Do you really thing one gives a damn about your opinion... when you follow Gandhi who declared that Black people were subhuman and genetically inferior? Talk about bigots from down south... Gandhi would have been a Mahatma in South Carolina even in the 1860s....

Get a life.

#210 by MantoLives

Do you really thing one gives a damn about your opinion...

Umm..did you just say that Yasser?

think

Re: # 172

Tejpal,

Refer to my post #1. Jinnah's vision of the state as an inclusive pluralistic state is to my mind a secular vision.
Others seem to think that it was an Islamic vision. The issue here is not how secular you think he was or not. This is about whether Pakistan can become that inclusive pluralistic democracy?

I am bit more perplexed by your sudden reference to Faiz. There are many people in Pakistan who are highly critical of the Quaid... but Faiz Ahmed Faiz was not one of them... he remained a Jinnah-admirer and this is the obituary he wrote for Jinnah:

Jinnah's obituary by Faiz Ahmed Faiz

“The Quaid-i-Azam has passed away, after long years of toil and sacrifice and service in the cause of his people, his frail body has at last been gathered unto rest and his soul called back to the abode of the eternally blessed. No name in the history of Indian Muslims has been loved and acclaimed as the name Muhammad Ali Jinnah. No man in living memory evoked such unquestioned loyalty, such unqualified devotion, such unbounded faith; for the one-time oppressed, rejected and broken Muslim nation, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was much more than a political leader. He was the father and the brother, the friend and the counsellor, the guide and confidant, the comrade and leader all combined into one. . . We can show no greater devotion to the beloved leader and give no greater proof of our loyalty to his memory then to base our conduct on the pattern that he has immortalised and to conduct ourselves in a manner that accords with his life-long preaching. From the great grief that envelops the nation today, must emerge a new courage and a new determination to complete the task that the Quaid-i-Azam began, the task of building a free, progressive and secure Pakistan, to restore to our people the dignity and happiness for which the Quaid-i-Azam strove, to equip them with all the virtues that the nobility of freedom demands and to rid them of fear, suffering and want that have dogged their lives through the ages.” (13th September 1948)

PS: It seems to me that Indians here seem to judge a person's "liberalism" or "secularism" by how subservient he was wlling to be to the Caste Hindu leadership.

That Jinnah after 1940 championed the cause of Muslims alone is a FACT. We are actually quite proud of it. The argument is not that Jinnah continued to be an Indian nationalist or the best ambassador of hindu muslim unity after he took up the Pakistan case... the argument is his vision for independent Pakistan.

I don't care if you wish to call it Islamic, secular blah blah .. the point is that Pakistan is a far cry from his consistent and conclusive statements about equal rights to minorities and an egalitarian society for all.

And lets not distort what Hoodbhoy has written either.

Pervez Hoodbhoy's wonderful article actually conclusively argues that Jinnah's vision was essentially a secular one and that his statements and allusions to Islamic state or Islam did not mean anything substantially different from the secular state he had in mind.

I therefore suggest that everyone here reads the article again and understands it...

MantoLives,

Perhaps you would attempt the following questions on behalf of the good professor, which have gone unanswered:

But some serious comments now, and some questions for the uninformed professor:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” [Aug 11, 1947, Jinnah’s address to the First Constituent Assembly]

How does any of this contradict the Islamic Shariah-based system?

"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." [Feb. 1948, Jinnah’s broadcast address to the people of the United States of America]

Ditto as above.

The above speeches unequivocally demonstrate Jinnah’s strong sense of justice and secular leanings at a personal level.

Total BS as shown above.

Even when confronted by journalists, he would avoid giving a straight answer.

Attacking Jinnah for not being a slave and appeasing secular thought.

Jinnah continued to hedge:

Ditto as above.

"Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck`s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

And he calls this statement of fact gleaned from very early Islamic History of the Prophet's time as 'hedging'.

Mr. Jinnah is evasive about what place Islamic law would have in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly.

Again attacking Jinnah by calling him 'evasive' when Jinnah did not want to dictate to the constituent assembly. In the author's mind he should have said "Hell no. I want no part of Islam"

Mr. Jinnah consciously seeks to articulate and protect this ambiguity.

Another attack on Jinnah for his diplomacy in getting Pakistan and not wishing it as a dictatorship of his views. And the author calls it 'ambuiguity'.

Mr. Jinnah left a legacy of ambiguity on what he wanted Pakistan to be.

Ditto as above.

“He was from first to last a constitutionalist who had argued at the time of the debate on the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1930 that if there was a clash between a so-called religious and public morality, then morality had to prevail, mullah or no mullah. There was no change in this basic outlook even as he made tactical adjustments in his later years to accommodate new political exigencies. When asked to discuss the future constitutional framework for the Muslim homeland he was demanding, he insisted that it would be up to the people of Pakistan to decide what sort of a state they wanted even though he had no doubt that their choice would be for a moderate, democratic and forward-looking state.”

This is correct. Ayesha Jalal has a better view on who Jinnah was compared with all these amateurs, but being the Islamophobe she is, she still misses the point. The 1300 year old democracy Jinnah spoke about (quoted above) and the Islamic values (also quoted above) incorporate all this stuff. That's what Jinnah wanted.

Jinnah was no enigma. It's just that the libero-fascists are trying to use his Savile Row suits and his peg of Whiskey (not the ham sandwich which this author and others pick up from a single source of Wolpert while his closest companions with whom he regularly stayed on visits, deny) to convince people that "That's what Jinnah had wanted for Pakistan".

Arrey Bhai, Jinnah made Pakistan by hook or by crook single handedly, but refused to give it any ideology - unlike the comparable carved out state of Israel - being the utterly principled person he was, who made his exit when it was time, and left it upto the people to decide for themselves.

Mantolives,

'It seems to me that Indians here seem to judge a person's "liberalism" or "secularism" by how subservient he was wlling to be to the Caste Hindu leadership.'

Did u expect us to be the other way? i.e.

..to judge a person by how subservient one was wlling to be to the communal Muslims and their ideologues and leadership?

Re: # 215


The problem as I have said... is not whether one thinks it is a secular or Islamic vision ... but whehther it is being followed.

The essential issue is the substance of the vision i.e. inclusive pluralistic state with equal rights for all and state's impartiality towards faith.

Dear Folio,

You will appreciate that a Mullah cannot be liberal simply because he sided with Gandhi... and liberal is not necessarily a Mullah simply because he opposed Gandhi.

That is all I am saying.

Zeemax:

"How does any of this contradict the Islamic Shariah-based system?"

Can a Kafir lead and formulate laws on shariah? Jinnah thought Kafirs could do a better job then ulema-e-Islam and so appointed Mandal as the Law Minister. I think Jinnah's actions contradict shariah laws.

Secondly, no Ismaili-Shia in their right mind would risk annihilation at the hands of Maududi-ites and fight for the implementation of shariah laws which proclaim many Shia and Ismaili practices as shirk and deserving of a penalty. And Jinnah, being an Ismaili-Shia wasn't stupid.

#219 by rozaiba

Secondly, no Ismaili-Shia in their right mind would risk annihilation at the hands of Maududi-ites and fight for the implementation of shariah laws which proclaim many Shia and Ismaili practices as shirk and deserving of a penalty. And Jinnah, being an Ismaili-Shia wasn't stupid.

You seem to suggest that Jinnah was more concerned about his own personal safety than the overwhelming majority Muslim sentiment. Is that what it is?

No Harish mian,

Rozaiba is pointing out a simple fact that for example had Jinnah been visibly religious or instituted congregations as Mullahs asked him to, the ML would have fallen apart.

Thus... even to bring Muslims together you have to keep all discussions on Islam, Islamic law and theology out. It was not a question of his own personal safety because he was about to die and he knew it.

#219 Posted by rozaiba

... Can a Kafir lead and formulate laws on shariah? Jinnah thought Kafirs could do a better job then ulema-e-Islam and so appointed Mandal as the Law Minister. I think Jinnah's actions contradict shariah laws.

If your understanding of democracy is that a law minister can formulate laws, then I can't help you.

Secondly, no Ismaili-Shia in their right mind would risk annihilation at the hands of Maududi-ites and fight for the implementation of shariah laws which proclaim many Shia and Ismaili practices as shirk and deserving of a penalty. And Jinnah, being an Ismaili-Shia wasn't stupid.

Sharia is one thing, Fiqah is another. You're probably confusing the two. Shariah is 'one'. Fiqahs are 'four'. We're talking about Shariah and not Fiqah. There's no disagreement amongst any sects of Muslims including Ismailis on Shariah.

Are you a Muslim?

Harish:

"You seem to suggest that Jinnah was more concerned about his own personal safety than the overwhelming majority Muslim sentiment."

The overwhelming majority Muslim sentiment had become horrified by the display of overt religious piety and an embrace of caste-ist politics on part of Mr. Gandhi. That was the primary reason, ie keeping the majority religion out of politics, Dalits like Mandal joined non-communal parties like the Muslim League.

Manto's explained the rest.

Zeemax:

Can a Kafir lead and formulate laws on shariah? Jinnah thought Kafirs could do a better job then ulema-e-Islam and so appointed Mandal as the Law Minister. I think Jinnah's actions contradict shariah laws.

"Are you a Muslim?"

Just like MA Jinnah.