Religion is too personal a issue for governments to even consider. Why should a state care to which Gods their people pray to?
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.
For starters there
no copies of the speech in question:
No copy of Jinnah’s ‘secular state’ speech: India – The Express Tribune
However, regardless of that fact Islam and the Islamic Republic allows for freedom of religion as referenced by the following passages:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Quran 2:256)
“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)
This has been covered before.
Assuming this speech took place Jinnah was in no way advocating secularism he simply conveyed the message of Islam.
Non-Muslims must be mindful of our laws and if they do not like it they are free to leave.
In any case 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.
Before I begin I want to make it clear that
not once did Jinnah ever say he wanted a secular Pakistan nor did he ever refer to Pakistan as a secular state. In fact on multiple occasions he's outright referred to Pakistan as an Islamic state routinely stating that the constitution and laws would be Shariah compliant and based on Islams teachings.
Actually you didn't quote the full speech. From the book “
Jinnah: Speeches and Statements 1947-1948” pg. 125 what he's actually quoted as having said was:
"Pakistan is the premier Islamic State and the fifth largest in the world. . . The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State - to be ruled by priests with a divine mission."
So why leave out the part about him specifically referencing Pakistan as an Islamic state?
This statement was reiterated by Jinnah himself during his April 18, 1948 address to the students of Edwards College in Peshawar as referenced in “Jinnah: Speeches and Statements 1947-1948”
pg. 201:
“I am happy to see better things here. What more can one really expect than to see that this mighty land has now been brought under a rule, which is Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent State.”
So aside from Jinnah outright declaring that “
Pakistan is the premier Islamic State and the fifth largest in the world...” (one of many reasons why we include the term “Islamic Republic” when referencing Pakistan) let us concentrate on the portion you didn't highlight:
"...I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan..."
During his speech at the Darbar in Sibi, Balochistan on February 14, 1948 Jinnah stated pretty much the same:
“
. . . I have one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law giver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that 'our decisions in the affairs of the State shall be guided by discussions and consultations'."
Jinnah even specifically states that Pakistan's constitution would be Sharia compliant during his address to the Karachi Bar Association on January 25, 1948 as referenced in “
Jinnah: Speeches and Statements 1947-1948” pg. 98
"Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? . . . Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago. "
Again, everything confirms the fact Jinnah supported and wanted laws and a constitution based on Islam which is what all of the great Muslim leaders at the time campaigning for Pakistan since at least 1906 (ex. Allama Iqbal, Rehmat Ali Chaudhary, Sir Syed Khan, etc...) wanted.
This is embodied in the
Objective Resolution which was adopted on March 1st 1949 and promulgated by our first Prime Minister
Liaquat Ali Khan who worked alongside Jinnah and knew better than anyone what he, the other Muslim leaders campaigning for Pakistan (considering he is deemed one of them) and Pakistani's in general wanted and want.
With regards to the portion about Pakistan not being turned into a theocracy ruled over by priests it is actually outlined in the objective resolution's first line which states:
“Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;”
As it states the laws/constitution will be Sharia compliant and rule of the nation conducted through its people.
I believe that a strong Muslim nation will only come about through a religious leadership that does not force Islam on the people but at the same time is not so lenient as to allow outright blasphemy and disrespect of the faith embodied by its ideals and laws. Instead leaders should be the pinnacle examples of what it means to be a Muslim that is observant of their prayers, modest, loving of their kin in faith, educated, brave and charitable. When the leadership is corrupt, murderous, traitorous and/or made up of lying drunkards you get chaos.
I am not fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.
- At a Press Conference, 14 November 1946
This is fake.
You'll find that quote referenced here and there but I could not find a single copy of the transcript for this supposed press conference in question and him ever making that statement so for all intensive purposes it can't be used as evidence for anything since it most assuredly never happened particularly in light of past events like Chief Justice Munir's book "
From Jinnah to Zia" where he fabricates material to support the view Jinnah was secular. No one even references what city this supposed press conference where this supposed remark was even made.
Furthermore, the quote makes no sense considering the plethora of documented speeches Jinnah has made.
I DIDN'T SAID SECULAR LEADS TO ECONOMIC PROSPERITY BUT IT LEADS TO LESS PERVERTED IDIOTS IN A COUNTRY.
What a joke. The whole purpose of secularism is to allow people the freedom to indulge in perversion and immoral behavior.
When asked why the idea of evolution was being pushed even though it was an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis based on no actual proof Sir Julian Huxley (head of UNESCO) stated:
“I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores”
Case after case shows that secularism protects nothing and no one and secularism proceeded the worlds most heinous atrocities
Burma's 1974 and now Myanmar's 2008 constitution are secular but that hasn't stopped the persecution and mass murder of both Christians and Muslims in the country.
Rwanda had a secular constitution in 1991 but that didn't stop the Rwandan genocide.
Yugoslavia had a secular constitution in 1963 but that didn't stop the Bosnian genocide.
The US had a secular constitution since independence but that didn't stop what could possibly be the world's worst genocide via the extermination of the native population during which they employed rape and biological warfare (ex. blankets laced with polio) to wipe them out. Not to mention the internment of Japanese-American citizens, slavery and later apartheid.
Canada had a secular constitution but that didn't stop the government from placing Japanese citizens into internment camps during WWII for no other reason than they were ethnically Japanese nor the kidnapping of native American children form their families and forcing them into the now infamous “residential school system” where they drilled Christianity into them in an attempt to rob the people of their culture all the while those poor kids were being sexually abused by the staff all the way up to 1994.
The USSR's constitution of 1936 & 1977 were secular but that didn't stop them from mass murdering millions including the genocide enacted via “Operation Lentil” as deemed by the International Criminal Court and its later invasion of the sovereign nation of Afghanistan that followed the soviet orchestrated assassination of
Germany's Weimer constitution was secular which Hitler employed Article
33 of to push through the “Enabling Act of 1933”
Japans Meiji constitution was secular but that didn't stop Japan's horrendous atrocities both abroad and at home.
Karachi, with all this nonsense about “talibanization” and fears of violence is even safer than many the most well known US cities including Boston, Detroit, Baltimore and St. Louis to name a few that have murder rates 4 to 6 times higher even with their exponentially larger amount of security spending.
In fact Karachi isn't even on the top 50 most violent cities in 2013 and every city on that list is located in a secular country.
Where are the “religious extremists” in Honduras, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, etc...? all of which are secular nations that have much higher per capita murder rate compared to Pakistan despite their much larger spending on security and secular constitutions?
Should Pakistan become secular so it can commit the same horrendous crimes against its minorities like the US and Canada did to Japanese citizens of their respective countries during WWII?
Japanese Internment Camps in Canada
Japanese Canadian Internment - Information at the University of
Washington Libraries and Beyond
The UNODC confirms that Pakistan's murder rate remained relatively unchanged from 2000 (before Musharraf got Pakistan involved in the US' war) to 2003 when the violence truly started (same year I have always recommended that Musharraf should have exited the “war of terror” engaged by NATO in neighbouring Afghanistan).
Like I've said before secularism has no place in Pakistan nor do secularists and they are free to move to a secular nation as it is obvious they are not loyal to Pakistan, its people and culture. However, be aware of secularism's history and how “secular” societies have treated minorities in the past.
