Book Review: Secular Jinnah & Pakistan: What the Nation Doesn't Know | PKKH

[Wood]

yes it matters, they are the founding fathers of our nation. when a nation strays from its initial vision and becomes something else, then only bad things can befall it. we were meant to have a state whose institutions enshrine principles of khilafat e rashida. Pakistan cannot adopt some purely western type system that does not incorporate Islam into public life and governance, because that defeats the purpose and is against our people's wishes as well.

for the democratic process to work effectively you need a well informed, educated electorate, and people/parties contending that have a clean record with no ill intentions. despite massive illiteracy and miseducation, people are coming around to being more critical and informed. but there are still some parties whose affiliates spew hatred towards certain people and call for murder openly. they mostly get negligible number of votes but end up with enough power to achieve their limited ends unchecked because of alliances with the larger mainstream parties. besides, all elections in the past have been in namesake/just for show, or heavily rigged with disastrous consequences.

that's why if this election is fair, no fudging or funny stuff. then it will be the most important election in our history thus far. its a major test for Pakistan whether it will be impartial and honest, or back to the same old.

Nations evolve like organic entities. Britain was once a colonizer, now it looks more like a nation of immigrants with each passing day. Ultimately it is the will of the people of this day and age that matters. Pakistani mainstream parties align with religious right wing because of their existent support base. Those people who reside on your religious right wing will get their representation one way or the other. It is better for them to have a democratic voice. Even Jinnah would have not wanted anything less?

If you think 'educated electorates' can make democracy work, then you are wrong. Education does not guarantee religious moderation. Education merely makes individuals erudite, does not free them of their inherent biases. So if the people of Pakistan want an Islamic Pakistan, then who are the 'founding fathers' to deny them of that right? After all, it is only with the support of the masses that the country for created in the first place.

Lastly, I do not argue for or against Islam in your country's politics. I only raise the notion that democracy will forge your destiny. Good luck for a free and fair election.

 

[rubyjackass]

im slightly confused at this. The writer of the Book seems to argue that the quote attributed to Jinnah does not exist. while the writer of this article bases his argument on the quote which is claimed to be dubious. Or is he quoting a different quote which is similar to Mr. Munir's quote?

Hamdani uses the correct quote. He argues that Justice Munir was only paraphrasing Quaid from Doon Campbell interview. And that the correct quote does not disprove that Quaid was not secular. I am pasting from Munir Report 1954:

Before the Partition, the first public picture of Pakistan that the Quaid-i-Azam
gave to the world was in the course of an interview in New Delhi with Mr. Doon
Campbell, Reuter’s Correspondent. The Quaid-i-Azam said that the new State would be a
modern democratic State, with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the
new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.

In the actual interview, Jinnah did not use the word religion. It could be an error of omission, we may never know; it might as well be intended. But that does not give poetic license for historians to paraphrase Jinnah as saying what he did not.



Where as Saleena Karim claims the present secular-Jinnah theorists came into being after decades of rehashing the same secular 'quotes', one of which came from Justice Munir. In a way, it is a butterfly effect. In those days it was simply unbelievable that Jinnah could have been secular. Using the same limited number of speeches as the cornerstone of their argument and refusing to see the others(some call the Islamic state speeches as realpolitik by Jinnah), Jinnah is being pictured as fighting for a secular state. The review says the rest about how important the Munir quote has been in the ideological paradise built by the secular-Jinnah theorists:

Saleena has added a special appendix which lists all works which have utilized the quote.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...at-nation-doesnt-know-pkkh.html#ixzz2P5DGhDPT

 

[rubyjackass]

I already told its poorly written.

Ohk. I was just wondering about how it violates 'journalistic ethics'. It is a book review and a very good one at that. So power packed that I cannot wait to read the book.

 

[rubyjackass]

i very much look at Jinnah from the same lenz. and it is only through this that i can find him consistent in his sayings. if we drop this line, then Jinnah was simply a politician with no ideology speaking whatever his audience wanted him to say.

True. The sad part is that the secular-Jinnah theorists will let Jinnah be called a hypocrite rather than admit that he fought for an Islamic state. They connect what Jinnah said in the 20s to what he wanted for Pakistan. They ignore the fact that Jinnah changed a lot in this period. For example, he changed his stance to separate electorate for Muslims(They sideline this as a move to gain support for Muslim League, in other words, populism!! They ignore how hypocritical Jinnah would look if he chose to be populist on such an important issue. Still they close their eyes and ears and live in their paradise).

And then they quote people like Jaswant Singh to make their case!! They are lazy when they do not analyze what were the views of Jinnah and Iqbal on Islam. Jaswant Singh might be excused of not wanting to read about Islamic philosophy, but what about these people?

I myself read history from their narratives and took Jinnah to be a hypocrite for a very long time. Also the secular-Jinnah theorists have no one answer to the silver bullet: 'Why did Jinnah want to separate from India if he wanted a secular country?' That alone should prove their arguments to be hollow. All the answers to this question seem so artificially constructed.

Following are some of his other speeches after the creation of Pakistan



so in my understanding, Jinnah wanted an Islamic state such that to him the idea of democracy, equality, justice and freedom were not only consistent but had their roots in the Islamic mode of governance.

Now obviously these priciples are very secular and if u ignore his speeches in which he mentioned Islam or Shariah explicitly you will simply take Jinnah to be a secular. On the other hand, we have got people who do not consider democracy to be islamic and within them some even go to an extent of calling Jinnah an non-muslim etc.

so having successfully developed a very genuine understanding, Jinnah left himself in a lot of trouble :p

Thanks for the quotes. However there is a confusion in the dates you mentioned. At one place you mention March 25th for Karachi Bar Association speech, whereas Jan 25th seems to be actual date.

'Democracy considered unIslamic' is a recent phenomenon, most likely imported from Sodie along with the ****** curriculum during Afghan war. We need to consider how Jinnah or Iqbal viewed democracy then. Not the recent Khilafat narrative.

 

[Developereo]

The whole question of whether Jinnah wanted (and Pakistan should be) a secular state or an Islamic one is directly affected by the questioner's view of Islam.

Those who believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with modernity, human rights and democracy will reject any suggestion that Islam should have any role in the state's functioning. They will claim that Jinnah's vision of an egalitarian state automatically equates to a secular state.

On the other hand, people who believe that Islam guarantees human rights and is fundamentally egalitarian -- historical abuses notwithstanding -- will find no contradiction between being an "Islamic" state and a modern, egalitarian state.

The devil, as always, is in the details and it is also true that lesser men since have given such a bad name to anything "Islamic" that the secularists' reservations are justified. The challenge for Pakistan is to demonstrate that Islam and modernity can coexist which, I believe, was the vision of Jinnah and Iqbal.

 

[Contrarian]

The whole question of whether Jinnah wanted (and Pakistan should be) a secular state or an Islamic one is directly affected by the questioner's view of Islam.

Those who believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with modernity, human rights and democracy will reject any suggestion that Islam should have any role in the state's functioning. They will claim that Jinnah's vision of an egalitarian state automatically equates to a secular state.

On the other hand, people who believe that Islam guarantees human rights and is fundamentally egalitarian -- historical abuses notwithstanding -- will find no contradiction between being an "Islamic" state and a modern, egalitarian state.

The devil, as always, is in the details and it is also true that lesser men since have given such a bad name to anything "Islamic" that the secularists' reservations are justified. The challenge for Pakistan is to demonstrate that Islam and modernity can coexist which, I believe, was the vision of Jinnah and Iqbal.

There is no precedent that there can exist an Islamic State that is also a modern, egalitarian state and which upholds Human Rights.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Jinnah was the most secular muslim of subcontinent at that time....Na tou uski speeches aur interview sey kisi hadith ka hawala milta he aur na hi kisi qurani ayaat ka...at the begining he was strong supporter of hindu-muslim unity and at the end disappointments led him to demand a separate muslim country (not islamic country, there is difference between muslim country and islamic country).
I would compare him with zolfiqar ali butto. Bhutto was seculer , a drinker but did islamic nationalism and emerged as prominent leader of muslim world. Jinnah sahab with english dress up, cigar in his mouth, dog as his pet, had perhaps not even the idea about fundamentals of islam...lekin uska hindostan key musalmano key nabaz par haath ta...fear of hindu dominance worked like magic for muslim league politics.
There are four questions that need to be answered,
1- Why Phd on jinnah is banned in pakistan?
2- Why ulema called him kafir e azam?
3- Among religous folk, why only the worst kind i.e pirs with mureeds supported him?
4- Why his party leaders were only feudal lords, sardars, nawabs, khans, wadairas?

 

[Developereo]

There is no precedent that there can exist an Islamic State that is also a modern, egalitarian state and which upholds Human Rights.

There have been attempts, with varying degrees of success, to blend Islamic laws with secular, international norms. Morocco is an example.

Advancing Women's Rights Through Islamic Law: The Example of Morocco

Once one accepts the principle that extreme interpretations will be discarded, the roadmap becomes clearer.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@QayPKKH :
Thank you very much for the thread. I would have missed this very important book. The promo video is simply superb.
SECULAR JINNAH & PAKISTAN: WHAT THE NATION DOESN'T KNOW


I wonder why the book did not get attention in Pakistan. No reactions from the secular Quaid theorists either - whose camp counts Ayesha Jalal, Ardeshir Cowasjee, Pervez Hoodbhoy etc among them.

It would be difficult to get a quote from Ardeshir Cowasjee.

 

[haviZsultan]

This would be a very interesting book. Jinnah always wanted a secular Pakistan, proof of which lies in the fact that he did not declare Pakistan an Islamic Republic during his life. It was in the time of Ayub Khan that this came to happen. Quaid E Azam demanded us to protect minorities, help the poor and ensure we made our country a good, strong democracy.

He called Zafarullah Khan his son and did not espouse violent ideals against the Ahmedis. The Pakistan we see today is a shadow of the Pakistan we once had envisioned. Pakistan is neither strong on the outside nor united on the inside.

We must really ask ourselves what great crime we committed to see this day.

 

[notsuperstitious]

There have been attempts, with varying degrees of success, to blend Islamic laws with secular, international norms. Morocco is an example.

Advancing Women's Rights Through Islamic Law: The Example of Morocco

Once one accepts the principle that extreme interpretations will be discarded, the roadmap becomes clearer.

Largely agreed.

But could you rephrase the same sentence in religious language, I mean a language understood by your religious authorities, the common muslim AND those who will frame laws?

In practicality, its impossible, and beyond theoretical possibilities, the only practical solution is separation of state and religion. Not that that does not have opposition, but atleast one would not be hopelessly lost in details.

 

[INDIC]

This would be a very interesting book. Jinnah always wanted a secular Pakistan, proof of which lies in the fact that he did not declare Pakistan an Islamic Republic during his life. It was in the time of Ayub Khan that this came to happen. Quaid E Azam demanded us to protect minorities, help the poor and ensure we made our country a good, strong democracy.

He called Zafarullah Khan his son and did not espouse violent ideals against the Ahmedis. The Pakistan we see today is a shadow of the Pakistan we once had envisioned. Pakistan is neither strong on the outside nor united on the inside.

We must really ask ourselves what great crime we committed to see this day.

Before Ayub Khan, Liaquat Ali Khan took steps and draw blueprint for Pakistan becoming an Islamic state. It was always in the agenda of Muslim League.

 

[Contrarian]

There have been attempts, with varying degrees of success, to blend Islamic laws with secular, international norms. Morocco is an example.

Advancing Women's Rights Through Islamic Law: The Example of Morocco

Once one accepts the principle that extreme interpretations will be discarded, the roadmap becomes clearer.

Who guarentee's that this will not happen once a State is formed or once Shariah is implemented in that State.

We have all too many examples that Muslims in order to not be seen as being 'anti-islam' have condoned barbaric laws and acts being passed in the name of Islam/Shariah. They are scared of being branded as enemies of Islam/munafiq/etc.

A prime example would be (anti)Rape laws of Pakistan. No sane minded individual can agree to those laws.

Yet those laws have been passed.

So who guarentee's that extreme interpretations will be discarded?

 

[Silverblaze]

If any state is declared an Islamic state, the calls for Caliphate and contempt for democracy increases. Zaid Hamid and his followers is an example.

They have absolute hatred for democracy because they consider it a western secular creation, and believe that Pakistan should become a caliphate. This view is shared by many Pakistanis.

And in Caliphates, we know how the laws were. this leads many people to believe that Islam and democracy(secular creation) are incompatible. So why did Jinnah choose democracy?

Surely, he understood that people would think that Islam and democracy are not compatible.

If Pakistan was an experiment to keep democracy and Islam together, it has not worked because people and power players do not want democracy.

An Islamic state will eventually become a theocracy, so Pakistan can either choose secularism and democracy or go for a theocracy.

But eventually both would fail because secularism is equated to pork meat in Pakistan and theocracy would break the country.


Pakistan might ride on this confusion forever and might never realize its true potential.

 

[rubyjackass]

It would be difficult to get a quote from Ardeshir Cowasjee.

The first edition of the book's first part released in 2007 in UK, according to this speech. This particular part itself was released in 2011.