Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

#16 Posted by harish_hyd,

My point was on the 'theocratic state' which you and others flaunt as a regressive measure.

Now clear the wax in your ears (and the author must too):

How do you get a 'theocratic state without clergy'?

Neither Saudia is right now nor Taliban's was a 'theocratic' state. Taliban had no hierarchy of clergy, neither does Saudia (Though Saudia is not an Islamic State but nevertheless).

...contd...

And if you don't want to know what an Islamic state is and how it functions, then quit the moronic commenting on it.

#17 Posted by zeemax

My point was on the 'theocratic state' which you and others flaunt as a regressive measure.

Don't pull out statements out of your you-know-what. I generally restrict myself to Indo-Pak issues and nothing more than that. If you know of any statement I made to the contrary, please produce it rightaway.

#18 by zeemax

You're the moron, first by attributing something that I never said and next asking me to quit saying what I never said in the first place.

Romair saheb,

(In fact, since Jinnah is dead, it doesn't much matter what he wanted it to be in today's world.....Using Jinnah's lines to push secularism or shariah in Pakistan is, thus, being historically and journalistically irresponsible......... )

Well said. Although I am inclined to side with YLH in his interpretation of what MAJ (pbuh) wanted Pakistan to become, it is irrelevant really. Ultimately it is upto today's Pakistani citizens to decide what model they want to live with a Western style secular state, an Islamic theocracy, Army rule or something in between.

Regards

..Taliban had no hierarchy of clergy, neither does Saudia...

Zee,

Taliban are Mullahs whereas KSA had a formal king who follows the edicts of Mullahs.

U cant imagine the King of KSA deviating from the edicts of Wahabi family. In effect it's a Mullah Raj san the Mullah facade.

#22 Posted by Folio,

Are there any Mullahs in the Saudi cabinet?

Name one, or remain quiet.

...contd... of-course you don't know what a clergy is. A clergy is a Pope, a Cardinal, a Bishop and so forth.

(recommended reading: www.google.com)

Important point is being missed.
The problem in siding with theocratic state argumnet is that it gives power to war mongerring mullahs who also consider that shariah suggests complete islamisation of the society where every non muslim is a convert and then one can imagine foreign policy agenda of such a state where the only viable foreign policy objective acording to shariah would be an effort towards the islamisation of the whole world through dawas and if not through terrorism as can be seen today where shariah proponenets carry extreme symathies for the cause of extremists.

Now europe is secular, but church and christianity is promoted vigorously. pakistanis need to understand there is no contradiction between secularism and islamic Pakistan. The reality is that Pakistan is muslim majority state and laws will be formed according to their religious orientation, however it is short of imposing a system also in letter and spirit which was one ofth most progressive systems some 1500 years ago unless and untill some fundamental changes are carried out through educated ijtehad so that it can suit a society which is 160 million strong and need resources to feed them, where basic facilities of life be provided.

The Shariah bearing saudi economy with its traditional closeness is financed by Oil money. Also the middle east peripherries like Dubai and others have a most progressive outlooks which are part of larger plans of middle east. However there is strong pattern that the Arabs want to use Pakistan for maintaining its political clout primarily by funding brain washing campaigns, where they can find millions of poor people ready to die and also terrorise the masses.

Pakistan is no Saudi Arabia. The survival of pakistan is its smart economics and human capital, if developed further. It is impractical to implement Sharaih when Pakistani economy cannot sustain itself and where millions are below poverty line for whom religion out of any thing else makes the most sense. Showing them the way of extremism is criminal.

some points about KSA,
Saudi Royal Family - is supported by the mullahs (SHEIKHS) - if there support to the royal family finishes - the royal family finishes.

I am very confident that in times to come (post-CJ issue)the Judicial Activism (I know CJ is working 18 hours a day ) ; emergence of media ; new sense of power in civil community - Pakistan has a bright democratic future.
As a liberal , MQM voter ; a civil servent - I will respect whatever the nation decides - if 2/3 wants Islamic Law , then why not?

does it matter more what jinnah wanted for pakiland or what the land of the pure is today..

The reality is that the pakiland of today, in manto's words, is a theocracy...

p.s. manto..did you get PH to write this article as a continuation of your running battle with jihadi2 on UP?

Lets not try to make a mockery of this article as we've made a mockery of Jinnah...

Jinnah's vision is quite clear. He wanted a progressive state where every citizen was equal regardless of religion caste creed gender etc.... To me and many others this is a vision for a secular state. However those who wish to call it Islamic may do so... provided they implement this vision in letter and spirit.

Also may I suggest another thing:

Legally there is no space between a Theocracy and a Secular state. A state is either theocratic or it is secular. Here a distinction may be drawn between secularism as an ideology and the policy of having a secular state. A secular state is often the best way for the most religious of nations.

Now if the argument is that an Islamic state is not theocratic then all that follows is that Islam favors a Secular state... where no doubt the civic values that inspire legislation may be defined by Islamic ethics... but this should be done in a non-discriminatory manner...

I believe the whole idea behind Pakistan was to have such a state ... which was like any other state secular but where civic Islamic ethics shaped the general legal morality.

To a lawyer like Jinnah... schooled in traditions of English Common Law where uptill the mid 19th century Judges ruled that "Christianity was part of common law" ... this might have been quite clear.

#25 Posted by mamoon,

This is based on astounding ignorance.

Where did you crawl out from? Under a rock?

#28/29 Posted by MantoLives

How about answering my UP thread which you ignored?

Mantolives ... contd re Islam & Jinnah
Topic started by zeemax on Aug 14, 2007 2:15:35 am

On this auspicious day of creation of Pakistan as a sovereign state, (I don't call it independence) it is a good opportunity to sort out what exactly Pakistan's 'soul' is.

You said:

zeemax...

My point is simple.... if you think he wanted Islam... good ... then follow his "Islamic" vision and give the minorities their due rights.

To start with What are the 'rights' the minorities are deprived of in Pakistan?

They have parliamentary representation with reserved seats just as women's reserved seats, they have no discrimination in jobs and are equal in the quota or merit systems alongwith the rest, they are at full liberty to purchase land and property. There are no settlements or the condescending affirmative actions and the like. So what is it?

If you mean the blasphemy laws, right or wrong, these equally apply upon ALL including Muslims, so where's the discrimination? Do you remember that the person who was brutally lynched in Nowshera as well as the Maulvi who was dragged in the street in Gujranwala were both Muslims?

Thanks for clarifying.

MantoLives,

I agree with this statement:

I believe the whole idea behind Pakistan was to have such a state ... which was like any other state secular but where civic Islamic ethics shaped the general legal morality.