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

[Silverblaze]

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.

Caliphates were not democracies. If you want to follow the principles of Caliphates, say good bye to democracy.

 

[Developereo]

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?

Unlike the Catholic Church, where the Pope can be the final authority, there is no such figure in Islam. This makes the problem even more intractable in Muslim countries.

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.

The basic idea is to have a secular Constitution which acts as a safeguard against overzealous interpretations. Cynically (and perhaps truthfully) one might see this exercise as a secular framework wrapped in Islamic terminology and with Islamic embellishments. It is an attempt to satisfy the democratic demands for an Islamic society with the State's responsibility towards minorities.

At the end of the day, as long as the laws are fair, the labeling doesn't matter.

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

That's where Constitutional guarantees would have to come in. Of course, any laws written by Man can be undone one way or another, but we can try to make the process as foolproof as we can.

 

[Silverblaze]

Unlike the Catholic Church, where the Pope can be the final authority, there is no such figure in Islam. This makes the problem even more intractable in Muslim countries.



The basic idea is to have a secular Constitution which acts as a safeguard against overzealous interpretations. Cynically (and perhaps truthfully) one might see this exercise as a secular framework wrapped in Islamic terminology and with Islamic embellishments. It is an attempt to satisfy the democratic demands for an Islamic society with the State's responsibility towards minorities.

At the end of the day, as long as the laws are fair, the labeling doesn't matter.

Very good argument. Malaysia has tried to that.

 

[Jade]

Jinnah wanted a Islamic state, if not why the hell was Pakistan created. The question whether Jinnah was a secular or a Islamist should rest. First, this is inconsequential to the present and second, it is almost 70 years since Pakistan was formed.

 

[Sedqal]

Jinnah wanted a Islamic state, if not why the hell was Pakistan created. The question whether Jinnah was a secular or a Islamist should rest. First, this is inconsequential to the present and second, it is almost 70 years since Pakistan was formed.

Haha keep a check on your blood pressure dude, its a Pakistani issue what the heck are you getting all riled up on?

 

[Zarvan]

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?

first Iqbal was also called kafir and he was not even close to secularism sir so how do you know they were worst kind they were great sufis of that time sir and even a llama shabbir Ahmed usmani supported him and as Muslim it doesn't matter what he wanted or not what matter is that what are the orders of Allah and his rasool saw sir that only matters and I have a question for you why jinah asked allama shabbir Ahmed usmani to do flag hoisting instead of him although he was present there

 

[Jade]

Haha keep a check on your blood pressure dude, its a Pakistani issue what the heck are you getting all riled up on?

If you want the issue to be discussed by Pakistanis only, then don't post on an open forum or at least put a post script saying "Only for Pakistanis" or ask the admins to make this forum 'Pakistani only'

 

[rubyjackass]

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.

Sadly, in Pakistan, it is affected.

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.

There in lies the problem. If Jinnah's vision was to have a country based on Islam and if he saw Islam as an accommodating religion, then an egalitarian state based on Islam does not equate to a secular state. The secularists want us to take Jinnah's speeches at face value and they want to pick and choose their speeches. How is this fair?

If the secularists believe that Islam can not tolerate modernity, then it is their problem. They cannot simply assume that Quaid believed the same.

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 an alternative explanation. That Jinnah wanted an Islamic state and he was naive in assuming that Islamic state will ensure protection and equality of everyone. The secularists(by definition they don't believe that Islamic state can be egalitarian) want to show Jinnah as the absolute visionary. They cannot stomach such naivete on Jinnah's part. So they would rather have Jinnah as a hypocrite.

 

[rubyjackass]

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 think Jinnah was less muslim and less secular than you claim he was. Contrast Jinnah with Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, for example, who was a practising muslim and a staunch secularist in the actual sense of the word.

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.

Please don't compare Jinnah with Bhutto. Jinnah got a country for his people. Bhutto lost a country for his.

Jinnah sahab with english dress up, cigar in his mouth, dog as his pet, had perhaps not even the idea about fundamentals of islam...

Yet, you claim he is the most secular muslim

lekin uska hindostan key musalmano key nabaz par haath ta...fear of hindu dominance worked like magic for muslim league politics.

This is a debatable point. Muslim majority provinces were never afraid of their Hindu population, if you see the voting pattern right upto 1946. Most of the Muslim League stalwarts like GMSyed, Suhrawardy and Fazlul Haq seem to have supported Pakistan so that their provinces can have autonomy. Only UP Nawabs, Muslim business houses and AMU intelligentsia were in that sense afraid of Hindu dominance.

There are four questions that need to be answered,
1- Why Phd on jinnah is banned in pakistan?

First time hearing this. May be the reason is simply that Jinnah should be above all criticism in Pakistan?

2- Why ulema called him kafir e azam?

You yourself gave the reason above. Some of the muslim religious organizations saw India as a huge playground to spread the message of Islam. They felt that by trying to limit Islam to a boundary, Jinnah was doing disservice to the faith. Even secular muslims like Azad made statements to that effect(which I might quickly add do not make Azad an Islamist).

The secularists unfairly target Deobandi and Ahrars as sell-outs. The Deobandis had an air of consistency which the secularists lack. They simply went over to the 'Islamic state' and spread what they believed was Pakistan's ideology.

3- Among religous folk, why only the worst kind i.e pirs with mureeds supported him?

What does worst mean here?

4- Why his party leaders were only feudal lords, sardars, nawabs, khans, wadairas?

I don't know. Because they were the champions of the muslim victimhood syndrome? Because they were going to lose the most in a socialist united India?

 

[Contrarian]

Unlike the Catholic Church, where the Pope can be the final authority, there is no such figure in Islam. This makes the problem even more intractable in Muslim countries.



The basic idea is to have a secular Constitution which acts as a safeguard against overzealous interpretations. Cynically (and perhaps truthfully) one might see this exercise as a secular framework wrapped in Islamic terminology and with Islamic embellishments. It is an attempt to satisfy the democratic demands for an Islamic society with the State's responsibility towards minorities.

At the end of the day, as long as the laws are fair, the labeling doesn't matter.



That's where Constitutional guarantees would have to come in. Of course, any laws written by Man can be undone one way or another, but we can try to make the process as foolproof as we can.

Then automatically this would be labeled as something not shariah. And the clerics would rally against it saying that it was sham of a Shariah if the radical provisions were not accepted.

Example - Jizya. Its only applicable on Non muslims. And all the Muslims passionately defend Jizya saying that it is to be used only for the welfare of the non Muslims.
But put the shoe on the other foot, how many Muslims all over the globe would like to be taxed extra BECAUSE they are Muslims regardless of how the funds are used by a government - in which they would have little or no representation.

It is clear that Jizya would be incompatible with modern senses that taxes based on religion are inhuman.

However if you donot put Jizya, then it is not shariah.

 

[Zarvan]

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?

Mr your first lines show you haven't read even half of Jinnah speeches Mr he in every second speech mentions hazrat Muhammad saw and Quran and sun ah to be our system and he has mentioned it several times I will send you quotes and he threw his daughter out for marrying a non muslim

Then automatically this would be labeled as something not shariah. And the clerics would rally against it saying that it was sham of a Shariah if the radical provisions were not accepted.

Example - Jizya. Its only applicable on Non muslims. And all the Muslims passionately defend Jizya saying that it is to be used only for the welfare of the non Muslims.
But put the shoe on the other foot, how many Muslims all over the globe would like to be taxed extra BECAUSE they are Muslims regardless of how the funds are used by a government - in which they would have little or no representation.

It is clear that Jizya would be incompatible with modern senses that taxes based on religion are inhuman.

However if you donot put Jizya, then it is not shariah.

Mr jizya is a tax for non Muslims taken from them and for that don't have to participate in wars it is used for their medical facilities and education and for their all basic needs and mr muslims pay zakat which non Muslims don't

 

[Armstrong]

Then automatically this would be labeled as something not shariah. And the clerics would rally against it saying that it was sham of a Shariah if the radical provisions were not accepted.

Example - Jizya. Its only applicable on Non muslims. And all the Muslims passionately defend Jizya saying that it is to be used only for the welfare of the non Muslims.
But put the shoe on the other foot, how many Muslims all over the globe would like to be taxed extra BECAUSE they are Muslims regardless of how the funds are used by a government - in which they would have little or no representation.

It is clear that Jizya would be incompatible with modern senses that taxes based on religion are inhuman.

However if you donot put Jizya, then it is not shariah.

In the past there were only two types of taxes in the Muslim World - Zakat & Jizya ! Each were raised by their respective communities to be dispensed by the representatives of their respective communities on their own discretion - Sounds fair to me !

 

[rubyjackass]

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.

Pakistan's constitution was in the works. You are right. Jinnah could have declared Pakistan as an Islamic state. But may be he trusted the constituent assembly to do that?(which they did). Pakistan moved towards an Islamic state much before Ayub. The objectives resolution was passed in 1949. And I believe Objectives Resolution accurately represents what Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be like.

 

[notsuperstitious]

In the past there were only two types of taxes in the Muslim World - Zakat & Jizya ! Each were raised by their respective communities to be dispensed by the representatives of their respective communities on their own discretion - Sounds fair to me !

Please read the Sultanate and Mughal history in India, its a completely false argument that you are presenting. The non Muslims were not only heavily taxed, they were also humiliated. Please read the history as recorded by the rulers.

Look at the comparison and see how loopholes have been kept in law to make Jaziya humiliating and punishing. There is NOTHING accidental about the loopholes, whiles the Zakat rules are pretty foolproof, a non muslim has to subject himself to the whims and fancies of the ruler. A system where one religion is supreme and others have to rely on the kindness of that religion is a flawed supremacist system.

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[INDIC]

In the past there were only two types of taxes in the Muslim World - Zakat & Jizya ! Each were raised by their respective communities to be dispensed by the representatives of their respective communities on their own discretion - Sounds fair to me !

During Delhi sultanate and initial Mughal period Hindus had to pay other religion based burdensome taxes too apart from Jaziya.