What's new

Thomas Jefferson and Mohammed Ali Jinnah: Dreams from two founding fathers.

Kompromat

ADMINISTRATOR
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
40,366
Reaction score
416
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Thomas Jefferson and Mohammed Ali Jinnah: Dreams from two founding fathers

By Dr. Akbar Ahmed
Sunday, July 4, 2010

thomas_jinnah.jpg



"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. . . . We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state."

These are the words of a founding father -- but not one of the founders that America will be celebrating this Fourth of July weekend. They were uttered by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of the state of Pakistan in 1947 and the Muslim world's answer to Thomas Jefferson.

When Americans think of famous leaders from the Muslim world, many picture only those figures who have become archetypes of evil (such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden) or corruption (such as Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf). Meanwhile, many in the Muslim world remember American leaders such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, whom they regard as arrogant warriors against Islam, or Bill Clinton, whom they see as flawed and weak. Even President Obama, despite his rhetoric of outreach, has seen his standing plummet in Muslim nations over the past year.

Blinded by anger, ignorance or mistrust, people on both sides see only what they wish to see, what they expect to see.

Despite the continents, centuries and cultures separating them, Jefferson and Jinnah, the founding fathers of two nations born from revolution, can help break this impasse. In the years following Sept. 11, 2001, their worlds collided, but the things the two men share far outweigh that which divides them.

Each founding father, inspired by his own traditions but also drawing from the other's, concluded that society is best organized on principles of individual liberty, religious freedom and universal education. With their parallel lives, they offer a useful corrective to the misguided notion of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West.

Jefferson is at the core of the American political ideal. As one biographer wrote, "If Jefferson was wrong, America is wrong. If America is right, Jefferson was right." Similarly, Jinnah is Pakistan. For most Pakistanis, he is "The Modern Moses," as one biography of him is titled.

The two were born subjects of the British Empire, yet both led successful revolts against the British and made indelible contributions to the identities of their young nations. Jefferson's drafting of the Declaration of Independence makes him the preeminent interpreter of the American vision; Jinnah's first speeches to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1947, from which his statement on freedom of religion is drawn, are equally memorable and eloquent testimonies. As lawyers first and foremost, Jefferson and Jinnah revered the rule of law and the guarantee of key citizens' rights, embodied in the founding documents they shaped, reflecting the finest of human reason.

Particularly revealing is the overlap in the two men's intellectual influences. Jefferson's ideas flowed from the European Enlightenment, and he was inspired by Aristotle and Plato. But he also owned a copy of the Koran, with which he taught himself Arabic, and he hosted the first White House iftar, the meal that breaks the daily fast during the Muslim holy days of Ramadan.

And while Jinnah looked to the origins of Islam for political inspiration -- for him, Islam above all emphasized compassion, justice and tolerance -- he was steeped in European thought. He studied law in London, admired Prime Minister William Gladstone and Abraham Lincoln, and led the creation of Pakistan without advocating violence of any kind.

No one in public life is free of controversy, of course, not even a founding father. Both were involved in personal relationships that would later raise eyebrows (Jefferson with his slave mistress, Jinnah with a bride half his age). In political life, the two suffered accusations of inconsistency: Jefferson for not being robust in defending Virginia from an invading British fleet with Benedict Arnold in command; Jinnah for abandoning his role as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity and becoming the champion of Pakistan.

The controversies did not end with their deaths. Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state generated animosity in his own time and as recently as this year, when the Texas Board of Education dropped him from a list of notable political thinkers. Meanwhile, hard-line Islamic groups have long condemned Jinnah as a kafir, or nonbeliever; "Jinnah Defies Allah" was the subtitle of an exposé in the December 1996 issue of the London magazine Khilafah, a publication of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of Britain's leading Muslim radical groups. (Jinnah's sin, according to the author, was his insistence that Islam stood for democracy and supported women's and minority rights.)

But today such opinions are marginal ones, and the founders' many contributions are commemorated with must-see national monuments -- the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, Jinnah's mausoleum in Karachi -- that affirm their standing as national heroes.

If anything, it is Jefferson and Jinnah who might be critical. If they could contemplate their respective nations today, they would share distress over the acceptance of torture and suspension of certain civil liberties in the former; and the collapse of law and order, resurgence of religious intolerance and widespread corruption in the latter. Their visions are more relevant than ever as a challenge and inspiration for their compatriots and admirers in both nations.

Jefferson and Jinnah do not divide civilizations; they bridge them.

akbar@american.edu

Dr. Akbar Ahmed is the Ibn Khaldun chair of Islamic studies at American University's School of International Service. This essay is adapted from his new book, "Journey Into America: The Challenge of Islam."

Thomas Jefferson and Mohammed Ali Jinnah: Dreams from two founding fathers
 
The similarities between the founding fathers may be commendable, but what each nation actually achieved with its respective dream is the important aspect to discuss.
 
The similarities between the founding fathers may be commendable, but what each nation actually achieved with its respective dream is the important aspect to discuss.
Especially how the patriots stayed back to serve their countries, and didn't run off to foreign lands after money!
 
Thomas Jefferson and Mohammed Ali Jinnah: Dreams from two founding fathers

By Dr. Akbar Ahmed
Sunday, July 4, 2010

View attachment 261477


"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. . . . We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state."

These are the words of a founding father -- but not one of the founders that America will be celebrating this Fourth of July weekend. They were uttered by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of the state of Pakistan in 1947 and the Muslim world's answer to Thomas Jefferson.

When Americans think of famous leaders from the Muslim world, many picture only those figures who have become archetypes of evil (such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden) or corruption (such as Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf). Meanwhile, many in the Muslim world remember American leaders such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, whom they regard as arrogant warriors against Islam, or Bill Clinton, whom they see as flawed and weak. Even President Obama, despite his rhetoric of outreach, has seen his standing plummet in Muslim nations over the past year.

Blinded by anger, ignorance or mistrust, people on both sides see only what they wish to see, what they expect to see.

Despite the continents, centuries and cultures separating them, Jefferson and Jinnah, the founding fathers of two nations born from revolution, can help break this impasse. In the years following Sept. 11, 2001, their worlds collided, but the things the two men share far outweigh that which divides them.

Each founding father, inspired by his own traditions but also drawing from the other's, concluded that society is best organized on principles of individual liberty, religious freedom and universal education. With their parallel lives, they offer a useful corrective to the misguided notion of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West.

Jefferson is at the core of the American political ideal. As one biographer wrote, "If Jefferson was wrong, America is wrong. If America is right, Jefferson was right." Similarly, Jinnah is Pakistan. For most Pakistanis, he is "The Modern Moses," as one biography of him is titled.

The two were born subjects of the British Empire, yet both led successful revolts against the British and made indelible contributions to the identities of their young nations. Jefferson's drafting of the Declaration of Independence makes him the preeminent interpreter of the American vision; Jinnah's first speeches to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1947, from which his statement on freedom of religion is drawn, are equally memorable and eloquent testimonies. As lawyers first and foremost, Jefferson and Jinnah revered the rule of law and the guarantee of key citizens' rights, embodied in the founding documents they shaped, reflecting the finest of human reason.

Particularly revealing is the overlap in the two men's intellectual influences. Jefferson's ideas flowed from the European Enlightenment, and he was inspired by Aristotle and Plato. But he also owned a copy of the Koran, with which he taught himself Arabic, and he hosted the first White House iftar, the meal that breaks the daily fast during the Muslim holy days of Ramadan.

And while Jinnah looked to the origins of Islam for political inspiration -- for him, Islam above all emphasized compassion, justice and tolerance -- he was steeped in European thought. He studied law in London, admired Prime Minister William Gladstone and Abraham Lincoln, and led the creation of Pakistan without advocating violence of any kind.

No one in public life is free of controversy, of course, not even a founding father. Both were involved in personal relationships that would later raise eyebrows (Jefferson with his slave mistress, Jinnah with a bride half his age). In political life, the two suffered accusations of inconsistency: Jefferson for not being robust in defending Virginia from an invading British fleet with Benedict Arnold in command; Jinnah for abandoning his role as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity and becoming the champion of Pakistan.

The controversies did not end with their deaths. Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state generated animosity in his own time and as recently as this year, when the Texas Board of Education dropped him from a list of notable political thinkers. Meanwhile, hard-line Islamic groups have long condemned Jinnah as a kafir, or nonbeliever; "Jinnah Defies Allah" was the subtitle of an exposé in the December 1996 issue of the London magazine Khilafah, a publication of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of Britain's leading Muslim radical groups. (Jinnah's sin, according to the author, was his insistence that Islam stood for democracy and supported women's and minority rights.)

But today such opinions are marginal ones, and the founders' many contributions are commemorated with must-see national monuments -- the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, Jinnah's mausoleum in Karachi -- that affirm their standing as national heroes.

If anything, it is Jefferson and Jinnah who might be critical. If they could contemplate their respective nations today, they would share distress over the acceptance of torture and suspension of certain civil liberties in the former; and the collapse of law and order, resurgence of religious intolerance and widespread corruption in the latter. Their visions are more relevant than ever as a challenge and inspiration for their compatriots and admirers in both nations.

Jefferson and Jinnah do not divide civilizations; they bridge them.

akbar@american.edu

Dr. Akbar Ahmed is the Ibn Khaldun chair of Islamic studies at American University's School of International Service. This essay is adapted from his new book, "Journey Into America: The Challenge of Islam."

Thomas Jefferson and Mohammed Ali Jinnah: Dreams from two founding fathers


Two leaders with the same idealism of national sovereignty and national independence. Jinnah was a man who believed in national solidarity. Jefferson was a man who believed in Washington's claim of not "engaging in entangling alliances". Both Jefferson and Jinnah offer an inspiration to all people who wish for national solidarity.

I suppose that character makes these men , Jefferson and Jinnah, not just treasures to the United States and Pakistan, respectively. But , rather, as treasures for all of Mankind.

May their names be remembered for all historical posterity. May the histories judge them kindly.
 
Two leaders with the same idealism of national sovereignty and national independence. Jinnah was a man who believed in national solidarity. Jefferson was a man who believed in Washington's claim of not "engaging in entangling alliances". Both Jefferson and Jinnah offer an inspiration to all people who wish for national solidarity.

I suppose that character makes these men , Jefferson and Jinnah, not just treasures to the United States and Pakistan, respectively. But , rather, as treasures for all of Mankind.

May their names be remembered for all historical posterity. May the histories judge them kindly.

It is rather sad to see the divergent outcomes from the grand visions these wise men had for their respective countries.
 
It is rather sad to see the divergent outcomes from the grand visions these wise men had for their respective countries.

Jinnah was an educated, broad minded, political genius in his own time. One thing that I admire about him is his aversion to personal tirades in politics. He was not only a politician and philosopher, but a gentleman. We must remember that he was also a personal friend of India's own Mahatmas Gandhi.
 
Jinnah was an educated, broad minded, political genius in his own time. One thing that I admire about him is his aversion to personal tirades in politics. He was not only a politician and philosopher, but a gentleman. We must remember that he was also a personal friend of India's own Mahatmas Gandhi.

Of course Jinnah was a wise man. He wanted to keep a federation in United India for as long as possible, but it was the ineptness on the other side that forced him to accept the Partition in the end. The outcome was not the best, as we can see in the situation in South Asia today.
 
Of course Jinnah was a wise man. He wanted to keep a federation in United India for as long as possible, but it was the ineptness on the other side that forced him to accept the Partition in the end. The outcome was not the best, as we can see in the situation in South Asia today.

A Federation of a United South Asia --- wherein the whole of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka -- was one country ? My oh My...you're talking about a GARGANTUAN POWER. Perhaps , knowing the British tendency, it was the British plan to prevent the rise of such a GIANT Imperial Entity?

Why, can you imagine a Federated South Asia? Not even China and the United States (Combined) could stop such a Force.
 
A Federation of a United South Asia --- wherein the whole of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka -- was one country ? My oh My...you're talking about a GARGANTUAN POWER. Perhaps , knowing the British tendency, it was the British plan to prevent the rise of such a GIANT Imperial Entity?

Why, can you imagine a Federated South Asia? Not China and the United States (Combined) could stop such a Force.

Jinnah's stance on the matter is on record, Sir.
 
Jinnah's stance on the matter is on record, Sir.

In my opinion, it was British plan to prevent the rise of a United South Asia. Such a state would be 1/3rd of humanity's population. It would have been too Powerful and would have changed the global order to being South-Asian focused.

This was against Western (British) interests at the time.
 
In my opinion, it was British plan to prevent the rise of a United South Asia. Such a state would be 1/3rd of humanity's population. It would have been too Powerful and would have changed the global order to being South-Asian focused.

This was against Western (British) interests at the time.

What the British did long ago is no excuse for the persistent failures of the leaders in South Asia not to be able to move beyond that legacy.
 
What the British did long ago is no excuse for the persistent failures of the leaders in South Asia not to be able to move beyond that legacy.

Perhaps we can consider the early parts , or infancy era, of modern Pakistan and India as part of national growing pains. We should not be too overly critical, my friend. Afterall, the region was subject to many wars, as well as humanitarian crisis. There are too many external variables to take into consideration for the full blame to be on the leadership(s).
 
Perhaps we can consider the early parts , or infancy era, of modern Pakistan and India as part of national growing pains. We should not be too overly critical, my friend. Afterall, the region was subject to many wars, as well as humanitarian crisis. There are too many external variables to take into consideration for the full blame to be on the leadership(s).

On the contrary Sir. Looking elsewhere is only excuses. National leaders are totally responsible for the buck stops with them, young nations or not. If China can start a year later and get to where it is, surely South Asia can do so too.
 
On the contrary Sir. Looking elsewhere is only excuses. National leaders are totally responsible for the buck stops with them, young nations or not. If China can start a year later and get to where it is, surely South Asia can do so too.

Therein lies the problem we tend to make by comparing Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar -- Greater South Asian Region--- to China. You see there is a difference because China is rather homogenous; about 92-95% of their population is Han ethnic (depends on varying reference but it's around 92% I'd say). Pakistan, India are , even amongst themselves, are not homogenous , but the antithesis of homogeneity, they are HETEROGENEOUS. The diversity of ethnics groups is what characterizes the beauty , the complexity, the iconism, and the absolute political nature of South Asian affairs. In Pakistan there are Sindis, Baluch, Pathans (Pashtun), Persians, Arabs, Punjabs, Bengalis, even some ethnic groups originally from India such as Gujaratis, Uttar Pradeshis, Tamilians ---- who have made Pakistan their new home after Partition. In India, there are ethnic groups as wide and diverse as their landscapes. This nature of multicultural diversity had in itself presents a unique challenge for any leadership to find solidarity and secure political economy . It makes it all the more difficult since one has a unique job in catering to ethnic sensibilities as well as trying not to offend ethnic cultural practices that may come assymettically.

This was never problem for the Chinese given their rather homogenous make up and their authoritarian style il governance that streamlined political and national policy processes.

Pakistan and India, rose to the challenge by both becoming fledgling democracies , both fielding the pressures of ethnic sensibilities, and both remaining democratic even this day. THAT is the difference. That is what is unique about them. That is WHY I have said this again and again.... South Asia is going to be the engine of growth for the world and Asia, and will eclipse East Asia (Japan, China, Korea) when she industrializes full mode. And she will. You mark my words.
 
Therein lies the problem we tend to make by comparing Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar -- Greater South Asian Region--- to China. You see there is a difference because China is rather homogenous; about 92-95% of their population is Han ethnic (depends on varying reference but it's around 92% I'd say). Pakistan, India are , even amongst themselves, are not homogenous , but the antithesis of homogeneity, they are HETEROGENEOUS. The diversity of ethnics groups is what characterizes the beauty , the complexity, the iconism, and the absolute political nature of South Asian affairs. In Pakistan there are Sindis, Baluch, Pathans (Pashtun), Persians, Arabs, Punjabs, Bengalis, even some ethnic groups originally from India such as Gujaratis, Uttar Pradeshis, Tamilians ---- who have made Pakistan their new home after Partition. In India, there are ethnic groups as wide and diverse as their landscapes. This nature of multicultural diversity had in itself presents a unique challenge for any leadership to find solidarity and secure political economy . It makes it all the more difficult since one has a unique job in catering to ethnic sensibilities as well as trying not to offend ethnic cultural practices that may come assymettically.

This was never problem for the Chinese given their rather homogenous make up and their authoritarian style il governance that streamlined political and national policy processes.

Pakistan and India, rose to the challenge by both becoming fledgling democracies , both fielding the pressures of ethnic sensibilities, and both remaining democratic even this day. THAT is the difference. That is what is unique about them. That is WHY I have said this again and again.... South Asia is going to be the engine of growth for the world and Asia, and will eclipse East Asia (Japan, China, Korea) when she industrializes full mode. And she will. You mark my words.

I gave China as one example. You can choose other examples, such as Malaysia, but the point remains that three-quarters of a century is long enough for leaders to take their nations beyond the colonial legacy.
 

Back
Top Bottom