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

[Armstrong]

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

What loopholes ? What humiliation ? Give me an example !

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

I'm sure there were; for example when the Afghans conquered Kashmir they had the local population (majority of whom were Muslims) to even pay a tax on Funeral Processions !

 

[INDIC]

What loopholes ? What humiliation ? Give me an example !

The guardian of the family had to appear in person even if he waa rich to pay the jaziya, the tax collector clerics abuse him and thrash him physically to make him feel insulted.

Some medieval literature are like this,"If Hindus are asked to pay silver, they should pay gold, if muslim want to spit ask a Hindu to open his mouth" "ask a Hindu to pay as much Jaziya so that they become begger."

I'm sure there were; for example when the Afghans conquered Kashmir they had the local population (majority of whom were Muslims) to even pay a tax on Funeral Processions !

My Kashmiri friend told me that Kashmiri Muslims keep deep dislike for Pashtuns.

 

[Armstrong]

The guardian of the family had to appear in person even if he waa rich to pay the jaziya, the tax collector clerics abuse him and thrash him physically to make him feel insulted.

Some medieval literature are like this,"If Hindus are asked to pay silver, they should pay gold, if muslim want to spit ask a Hindu to open his mouth" "ask a Hindu to pay as much Jaziya so that they become begger."

Where did this happen ?

And if it did - How is it any different than a Patwariii abusing the ones he was tasked with collecting any other tax from ? Should we scrap the tax because the tax collector was a down right basterd ?

 

[INDIC]

Where did this happen ?

And if it did - How is it any different than a Patwariii abusing the ones he was tasked with collecting any other tax from ? Should we scrap the tax because the tax collector was a down right basterd ?

During Delhi sultanate period. I don't remember the book's name. Jaziya was unpopular tax that's why Akbar is highly respected among Hindus.

 

[notsuperstitious]

What loopholes ? What humiliation ? Give me an example !

Loopholes, isnt it obvious? The Zakat amount is fixed and only applicable to those who could afford it and no punishment for not paying. The Jaziya applicable even to poor, the amount itself not fixed - so the rulers can really screw the non muslims and non payment can mean severe punishment as the safety under dhimmi contract revoked.

How can you not see all this???

 

[Zarvan]

Today Pakistani Nation is observing the 64th death anniversary of Great Quaid Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan. When I open news websites and read different so-called political leaders views about Quaid and what was the vision of our great Quaid for the Pakistan. So I decided to write something on it.

Quaid was very much worried about the fate of Muslims under the Indian role after British. He was very much confirmed that Muslims and Hindus never live together in future. So he decided to get a separate homeland for Muslims. He has a very clear and concrete vision about Pakistan.

In an interview to American press in July 1942, when asked by a journalist whether the Muslims were a nation or not, Quaid-e-Azam replied, "We are a nation with our own individual culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and norms, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, in short, we have our own unique outlook on life and of life. By all cannons of international law we are a nation".

A conflict has aroused in Pakistan about whether Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state or an Islamic state. His views as expressed in his policy speech on August 11, 1947 said:

“There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should entirely and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long ago. No power can hold another nation and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or 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. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where 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. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State".

While this may seem to be an indication that Jinnah wanted a secular state, he also referred to Islam and Islamic principles in February 1948:

"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 principle 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 man, justice and fair play 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. 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”.

It has been argued by many people that in this speech Jinnah wanted to point out that Pakistan would be a secular state as mostly people think that an Islamic state is a theocratic state. This perception, however, is wrong and is misinterpreted; the reason is that a true Islamic state is not a theocratic state, as stated by Jinnah in his speech.

On the opening ceremony of the state bank of Pakistan Jinnah pointed out that the financial setup of the state should be based on Islamic economic system.

In 1948 in the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan he said that we must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.

It appears that Jinnah felt the state of Pakistan should stand upon Islamic tradition in culture, civilization and national identity rather than on the principles of Islam as a theocratic state.

In 1937, Jinnah further defended his ideology of equality in his speech to the All-India Muslim League in Lucknow where he stated, "Settlement can only be achieved between equals." He also had a negation to Nehru's statement which argued that the only two parties that mattered in India were the British Raj and Indian National Congress (INC). Jinnah stated that the Muslim League was the third and "equal partner" within Indian politics.

Quaid has a very clear idea and vision about the Pakistan and he never want to see Pakistan a secular country. Many people argued that great Quaid was a secular which is not true. Here I would like to quote only one example which is necessary to clear that he wasn’t a secular. He once said that I am working for Muslims because I want that when I meet Allah hereafter death He would say “Well done Mr. Jinnah”.

On August 6, 1939, Quaid said: “I was born Muslim; I am a Muslim and shall die a Muslim.” At another time he said: “I am no Maulana or a Maulvi but I also know a little of my faith.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah was brought up in a Muslim family, adhered to the tenants of Islam, was repeatedly elected to the Indian Council/Legislative Assembly on a seat reserved for a Muslim, succeeded in getting a number of bills concerning the Muslims passed from the Legislative Assembly, advocated Hindu-Muslim unity, always stressed for safeguards for the Muslims including their demand for a federal form of government as envisaged by the Nehru Report. In his negotiations with the government and parlays with the Indian Congress, he always stoutly advocated the Muslim cause.

Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan is very clear: he wanted Pakistan to be modern, progressive, dynamic, forward looking and a democratic country with equal rights for all its citizens irrespective of their casts, creed or religion.

In August 1941, Quaid-e-Azam gave an interview to the students of the Osmania University. While giving the answer of "What are the essential features of religion and a religious state?" Quaid said, when I hear the word “religion,” my mind thinks at once, according to the English language and British usage, of private relations between man and God. But I know full well that according to Islam, the word is not restricted to the English connotation. I am neither a Maulwi nor a Mullah, nor do I claim knowledge of theology. But I have studied in my own way the Holy Quran and Islamic tenets. This magnificent book is full of guidance respecting all human life, whether spiritual, or economic, political or social, leaving no aspect untouched”.

Quaid-e-Azam further said while describing the distinctive feature of the Islamic state that “there is a special feature of the Islamic state which must not be overlooked. There, obedience is due to God and God alone, which takes practical shape in the observance of the Quranic principles and commands. In Islam, obedience is due neither to a king, nor to a parliament, nor to any other organization. It is the Quranic provisions which determine the limits of our freedom and restrictions in political and social spheres. In other words, the Isla



mic state is an agency for enforcement of the Quranic principles and injunctions".

There will be no economic exploitation by the capitalists in an Islamic state. In his presidential address delivered to the annual session of the All India Muslim League, in Delhi on April 24, 1943, he said:

“Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others in order to fatten themselves. It is true we are not in power today. You go anywhere to the countryside. I have visited villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If this is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it. If they are wise, they will have to adjust themselves to the new modern conditions of life. If they don’t, God help them, we shall not help them.”

In light of the above, we can see that Quaid-e-Azam was neither for Western-style democracy nor for Mulla-style theocracy. He essentially advocated what may be called Islamic social democracy. But tell this to secularists or to Islamists. They would never believe it. No wonder truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Armstrong]

Loopholes, isnt it obvious? The Zakat amount is fixed and only applicable to those who could afford it and no punishment for not paying. The Jaziya applicable even to poor, the amount itself not fixed - so the rulers can really screw the non muslims and non payment can mean severe punishment as the safety under dhimmi contract revoked.

How can you not see all this???

My friend this is what happens when we go through Wikipedia to form an opinion !

When we talk about the Jizya not being a fixed amount it means that it doesn't have a lower or an upper limit ! In fact the British Historian & Orientalist who taught at the MAO College for a time & tried to understand Muslims & Islams, in his book 'Invitation to Islam' : 'The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation to Islam, p. 77)

Sir Arnold, in the same book goes on to say : This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the states whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Musalmans. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation To Islam, pp. 79-81)

The Western Historian Adam Mitz is of the view that because of Islamic tolerance toward non-Muslims and by virtue of the protection granted to them, they paid the Jizyah in accordance with their financial capacities. This Jizyah was like the present-day national defense tax. Only persons who could perform military service were obliged to pay it. So Monks and ascetics were exempted, except for those who could afford to pay. (Islamic Civilization, Volume 1, p. 96)

Furthermore, Imam Malik, founders of one of the four Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence or Fiqh, in his Muwatta writes : The sunna is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. The people of dhimma and the magians do not have to pay any zakat on their palms or their vines or their crops or their livestock . (Muwatta Book 17, Number 17.24.46)

The Zakat is however charged to both Women & Men & is charged on their quite a few things - Agriculture, Property, Jewelery etc.

And no it is not charged on the poor & the needy, conversely so, such was the stipulations of the treaty made with the people of Hira, Iraq by Khald bin Waleed when he conquered those lands : Any aged non-Muslim who is unable to earn his livelihood, or is struck by disaster, or who becomes destitute and is helped by the charity of his fellow men will be exempted from the capitation tax and will be supplied with sustenance by the bait al-mal (the government treasury). (Abu Yusuf, Al-Kharaj, p. 144)

Furthermore : The obligation of paying this tax is also cancelled when non-Muslims participate with Muslims in defending the Islamic state against its enemies. Such conditions were clearly stated in contracts and other documents signed by Muslims and non-Muslims during the reign of Umar ibn Al Khattab. (See Zeidan, 'Abdul Karim, Ahkam-Dhimmiyin Wa Al-Musti'minin Fi Dar Al-Islam, p. 155 ff, and Al-Baladhuri, Futuh Al-Buldan, p. 217, where it is stated that the emissary of Abu 'Ubaida made a compromise with a party of the Christian Jarajima: if they would support the Muslims and keep an eye on their enemies, they would not have to pay the Jizyah)

There are conditions which may exempt non-Muslims from paying the Jizyah tax, which could be summarized as follows:
-Women and children are excused absolutely
-Handicapped, blind and old men, even if they are rich
-Needy and mad-men
-Day laborers, servants or wageworkers
-A chronically ill-man even if he is rich
-Religious people who keep themselves free for praying and worshipping, i.e. men of churches, cloisters and oratories
-If a non-Muslim voluntarily participates in military service for protecting the country.
-If the Islamic state becomes unable to protect non-Muslims, then they are legally exonerated from paying the tax. (See Ibnul Qayyim, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume1, pp.8, 15 and al-Shafi', al-Umm¸ pp. 172-1)

Historical examples of this abound: the Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support the Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the Jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty. (Al-Baladhuri, p. 159)
The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the (Muslim) naval fleet. (Marsigli, Militare dell'Imperio Ottomano, Volume 1, p. 86) The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, (Finlay, Volume 6, pp. 30-33) for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armored battalion in wartime. (Lazar, p. 56) The Jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts, (De Lajanquiere, p. 14) which carried to water to Constantinople, (These bridges were built on pillars, to bring drinking water to the cities. This kind of bridge had been prevalent in the Roman Empire since the first century A.D.) nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, (Thomas Smith, p. 324) as just compensation for their services to the state.

And in numerous instances when the Muslim Armies could not defend the Non Muslim inhabitants of the land the Jizya was paid back in full. In Syria Abu Huraira, the Commander of the Muslim Armies in Syria, as appointed by the 2nd Caliph said the following : We have returned your money to you because we have been informed of the gathering of the enemy troops. You people, according to the conditions stipulated in the contract, have obliged us to protect you. Since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we are returning your money to you. We will abide by the conditions as agreed upon if we overcome the enemy. (Related by Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj)

In the end, Yes Muslims, who could afford, were required to pay the Zakat even by force, that was one of the mandates by which Abu Bakr (the First Caliph of Islam) took the Muslim Army to the battle for the first time stating : I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as Zakat) but now they have withheld it. (Sahih Bukhari Book 001, Hadith Number 0029 )

I hope that answers that points you raised !

By the way, now, because theres no such as conscription but a completely voluntary army & a unitary tax system, the Jizya holds no significance anymore !

 

[BATMAN]

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

PKKH Exclusive|By Muhammad Umer Toor

In Secular Jinnah: What the Nation Doesn’t Know (2010), Saleena Karim - sequel to her 2005 work, Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed - has given a mighty blow to many of the standard distortions and mythical arguments of a bunch of Secularist Pakistanis. She has, alone, taken on many stalwart secularist academics, beginning with the notorious secular-godfather, Justice Munir, who, as we’ll show, was the very perpetrator of a Secular Pakistan. In her previous work, she had exposed ‘Munir’s hoax’: a false quote attributed to Jinnah, which has subsequently been repeated so many times by secular establishment that it appears to have become a fact. In this new book, she has exhausted the subject, by writing and arguing about every facet of secular vs Muslim/Islamic debate which was not addressed in the previous work, such as the debate about Objectives Resolution.

Before we go into the branches of the book and the debate it deals with, let us show the very roots of the problem.

‘Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed’: A False Quote attributed to Quaid

First time I came to know about the author was when I was listening to a lecture by Dr Safdar Mehmood’s, ‘Pakistan: Reality or Illusion?’ convened by late Dr Israr Ahmed. The veteran historian mentioned that the core contribution of this book is the rebuttal of a false quote attributed to Jinnah by Justice Munir, first in his Munir Report 1953, and then his famous book, From Jinnah to Zia, 1980. Here goes the ‘false quote’:

The 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 religion, caste or creed. (Emphasis on ‘caste’ and ‘creed’ added)

This quote was supposedly from an interview of Quaid with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Munir didn’t provide ‘proper reference’ or date. Saleena extracted the ‘real version’ from the original newspaper archives in UK, which reads:

But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will be the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time. (Only ‘caste’ and ‘creed’ are to be found in both versions, rest all is altered)

Contrast the following interview of Jinnah with the false quote produced by Munir:

But before [Jinnah] left a correspondent asked him: ‘I presume from what you have said, Mr. Jinnah, that Pakistan will be a modern democratic state.’ Mr. Jinnah quickly replied: ‘When did I ever say that? I never said anything to that effect.’ (Emphasis added) [Source: Hindustan Times, 14 July 1947 (NV Vol. VI, p. 276 fn)]

Finally, to seal the accusation that the outlook of Jinnah was purely secular - which is far from truth: in his address on 25 january 1948 (Yusufi Vol. IV p.2670), he said:

Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and like. It is based on the highest principles of honour, integrity, fairplay and justice for. One God and the equality of manhood is one of the fundamental principles of Islam.

This is a clear-cut antithesis of secularism as an ideological and political ‘philosophy’.

Three-piece argument: Cornerstone of secular discourse

Based on the false quote, Munir developed the following ‘three-piece argument’ to prove that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan (when in fact he had relegated the privilege of determining the form of government to the people):

Munir quote rejects the clause in the Objective Resolution that sovereignty belongs to Allah on the assumption that Quaid advocated sovereignty of people.
He takes Jinnah’s 11 August 1947 speech to clearly proves that he wanted a secular Pakistan
He takes Jinnah’s anti-theocracy statements as ample proof for his vision of a secular Pakistan

Since ‘Munir’s quote’ is false, we are left with the other two parts which only prove that the Quaid did not want a sectarian, Church kind of government of exclusivist elites, be it a particular sect or else. This is why in 11 August 1947’s speech was given to send a message that a Hindu would have same rights as a citizen as a Muslim; this is why he opposed theocracy because it precludes participation of ‘people’ in running the affairs of the country.

‘Munir’s Legacy: the Butterfly Effect’

The false quote attributed to Jinnah and/or three-piece argument which has been repeated blindly by as many Islamophobic secularists as possible. These included such top-notch anti-Islamic-state-scholars as following (p. 74, Secular Jinnah 2010):

Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman
Ishtiaq Ahmed (a professor) in a journal article
Pervez A Hoodbhoy & Ahmed Hameed Nayyar in the paper Rewriting the History of Pakistan (‘revisionism posing as scholarship’)
Abdus Sattar Ghazzali (a journalist) in his book Islamic Pakistan: Illusions and Reality
(late) Ardeshir Cowasjee in his book Back to Jinnah

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

A Bird’s-eye-view: Chapter-wise

First chapter is a biographical essay on Jinnah’s transformation from being an Indian (and then Muslim) a politician to not being an Indian. It’s a 30-page long, gradual, step-by-step examination of Jinnah’s pre-partition political career, his worldview, his influences, and also how he was influenced by thoughts and comments of Iqbal. In short, Quaid believed in a purely non-sectarian, non-theocratic, Islamic world-view. Second chapter is the heart of the book: a full exposition of Munir’s hoax. The third and fourth chapter deal with the controversy surrounding Objectives Resolution before and after the Munir report (which contained false quote), respectively. The next chapter is also of central importance to the thesis of the book: how one false quote has influenced and gave life to pro-secularist camp - something the author calls, ‘the butterfly effect’. In her essay on 1940 resolution she terms it as ‘deferred secession’ and disproves the allegations that it was a mere ‘bargaining counter’ by quoting extensively from wide range references to Quaid (and Iqbal as well).

Then, she spends pages on Jinnah’s “position on the Pakistan idea, in terms of both the terrestrial and ‘ideological’ aspects.” Much of this information - regarding Quaid’s instance on not partitioning Punjab and Bengal - is known to many of us already; however it is crucial in dispelling many wrong charges on Jinnah of communalism, provincialism and the carnage that took place in the aftermath of the very partition that Quaid opposed. On ideological plane, ample evidence is given which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foundation of Quaid’s worldview, and by extension that of Pakistan, was based on Islam. Islamic ideals were to be at the heart of political, social and institutional organization in the new country in the eyes of all founding fathers and mothers.

Chapter 9, “Lahore to Dehli,” is a story of how one man - M Ali Jinnah - led Muslims all over India not only as a politician, but also as an organizer, educator, media man, salesman, and think tank for Pakistan, who above all organized Muslims politically and institutionally (by setting up various committees comprising of many well-qualified, non-Muslim league professionals).

In congruence with the false quote, secular academia has reconstructed a mythical image of Quaid and his ideology. Author of the book has exposed each of these myths extensively in chapter 10

Iqbal & Jinnah: Two faces of a same coin

Since the ideas of Iqbal - about Islam and Muslim politics - are the heart of Pakistan, Saleena has spent a whole chapter elucidating Iqbal’s view and critique of secularism in favor of Islamic statehood. Secular propaganda machinery either tries to overlook this bond, or disapproves of it. One major problem with Church experience in Europe has been sectarianism. In chapter 6, writer graciously makes use of works of Dr Javed Iqbal to explain the importance of word deen which is used in Qur’an as opposed to word mazhab (which, according to J Iqbal, is used in the sense of individual faith, currently). Deen is like a sea in which all of us swim regardless of our differences, without relinquishing our ability to mutually deal with what is clearly outside of deen. To a purely secularist mind, dualism between worldly and spiritual affairs (represented by word religion) remains there, which in Islamic perspective doesn’t exist as such.

Conclusion

Saleena’s work is certainly a very reliable, resourceful and rigorous critique of secular establishment of misconstruction and tampering of Pakistani history. It has been welcomed and praised by many scholars of distinction. It has upheld what more than 90% of Pakistanis have upheld for more than 90% of time since Pakistan took its first breath: Jinnah, Iqbal Muslim League and above Muslim masses wanted a non-sectarian homeland for Muslims based on unique Islamic ideals against a secular, atheistic, nationalist worldview which dominated the world then and continues to do so. The strength of the work - which can hardly be overlooked - is painstaking effort at referencing every tiny bit of information. Thus, on the foundation of sound and correct premises has she built her arguments!

Muhammad Umer Toor is a wanna-be philosopher in distant future. Based in Lahore, with a BSc in Business, he blogs at[url]www.toorumer.blogspot.com[/url].* He can be reached at i.umer.toor@gmail.com

So now i have finally read the OP

It is very true that Jinnah was not secular.. and neither he wanted Pakistan to be one.. or else he may have said it... with authority and fearlessly.
Actually, there is lot of stuff and statements to believe otherwise... Jinnah never wear jewelry or flags, he never mourned over history. He always portrayed and claim himself as sect. less 'Musalman'. Iqbal was his mentor.. this is enough to imagine about Jinnah's perception of Pakistan and philosophy of life.

Highlighted from the OP was a clear message to the defeatists.
At the same time
at least from the time, when Iqbal convinced him on two nation theory.
There are far more reference to
The red marked are enough to confirm it.

 

[BATMAN]

Quoting a speech of Jinnah:

مسلمانو! میں نے دنیا کو بہت دیکھا۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ دولت، شہرت، آرام و راحت کے بہت لطف اٹھائے۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ اب میری زندگی کی واحد تمنا یہ ہے کہ میں مسلمانوں کو آزاد اور سر بلند دیکھوں

میں چاہتا ہوں کہ جب مروں تو یہ یقین اور اطمینان لے کر مروں، میرا ضمیر اور میرا خدا گواہی دے رہا ہو کہ جناح نے اسلام سے خیانت اور غداری نہیں کی اور مسلمانوں کی آزادی، تنظیم اور مدافعت میں اپنا فرض ادا کر دیا۔

میں آپ سے اس کی زوردار شہادت کا طلبگار نہیں ہوں۔

میں چاہتا ہوں کہ مرتے دم میرا اپنا دل، میرا اپنا ایمان، میرا اپنا ضمیر گواہی دے کہ "جناح! تم نے مسلمانوں کی تنظیم، اتحاد اور حمایت کا فرض بجا لایا ہے۔"

میرا خدا کہے "بے شک تم مسلمان پیدا ہوئے اور کفر کی طاقتوں کے غلبے میں علم اسلام کو سر بلند رکھتے ہوئے مسلمان مرے"

عینی شاہدین کا بیان ہے کہ قائد اعظم کے منہ سے یہ رقت آمیز الفاظ سن کر حاضرین زار و قطار رو رہے تھے۔

یہ تقریر انقلاب لاہور 22 اکتوبر1936 میں شائع ہوئی تھی۔

بحوالہ : عظمتوں کے چراغ از ولی مظہر ایڈووکیٹ، جلد ششم ، صفحہ 713

 

[notsuperstitious]

@Armstrong, you are missing the point. Surely the Jaziya may have been very light in some cases and the Zakat compulsory. But zakat formula is well defined, whereas there is no upper or lower limit of jaziya. So jaziya 10 times of zakat is still legal, although unjust.

System checks and controls - there are indeed loopholes, that while a very just application is possible, that will be left to humans but a harsh and unjust application will not be against god. Basically you are asking non muslims to hope the muslim rulers are just - a system weakness.

BTW I got my data from a muslim friend, not from wiki. However the wiki comparison provides a very good gyst of the issues inherent in the system.

In any case before this becomes more of a religious debate, lets just agree to disagree and conclude this.

 

[Armstrong]

@Armstrong, you are missing the point. Surely the Jaziya may have been very light in some cases and the Zakat compulsory. But zakat formula is well defined, whereas there is no upper or lower limit of jaziya. So jaziya 10 times of zakat is still legal, although unjust.

System checks and controls - there are indeed loopholes, that while a very just application is possible, that will be left to humans but a harsh and unjust application will not be against god. Basically you are asking non muslims to hope the muslim rulers are just - a system weakness.

BTW I got my data from a muslim friend, not from wiki. However the wiki comparison provides a very good gyst of the issues inherent in the system.

In any case before this becomes more of a religious debate, lets just agree to disagree and conclude this.

Dude, I quoted a hadith or two & I could've quoted more whereby it was specifically stipulated that the Jizya would never be imposed at a burdensome level ! The reason why the Zakat was a fixed amount is because it was imposed on Muslims whereas the Jizya was supposed to be on a whole range of people, from the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire to the Punjabis of India - Different dynamics, different conditions of treaties - the Touch Stone was - It mustn't be burdensome....it must be equitable & fair ! Therefore an Unjust application would be against God. Umar ibn al Khattab - the 2nd Calip of Islam, is reported to have said 'I am responsible to God for even the dog who dies of thirst on the banks of Nile' ! And thats just an indirect injunction on 'fair-play'; directly, as I pointed out, you're supposed to give back to the needy from the Non Muslims out of the Muslim Treasury (Bait-ul-Maal), as was promised & done so by Khalid ibn al Waleed - the Commander of the Muslim Armies !

Besides most of your sources of income, as I pointed out earlier, are exempted from Jizya which is not the case with Zakat !

Does the element of abuse exists ? Yes...like everything else there is an element of abuse here too ! No where in Islam is there anything called a tax rate on funeral processions & yet the Afghans, when they conquered Kashmir, did impose such a tax at exorbitant amounts despite the majority of Kashmiris being Muslims - So loopholes are always there for thats the very nature of things that we, human beings, govern ! What stops the Federal Bureau of Revenue charging a regressive tax system ? Or exempting the wealthy from the tax bracket ?

Such things will continue happening & that is why, mankind, came up with a neutral platform called 'the Court' to deal fairly & firmly in matters of justice ! Awalll touu Jaziya doesn't apply in today's times but even if it does - You've got the Supreme Court where your rights will be protected - Strengthen it !

I agree, this has the propensity of turning into a religious debate, therefore, this will be my last post on the topic !

Good Day & May God Bless You & Your Loved Ones !

 

[Developereo]

Very good argument. Malaysia has tried to that.

Malaysia, Morocco, etc. There are precedents and it's worth exploring.

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

I agree. That's the crux of the Pakistani middle position as well.

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.

Naivete is not a crime. As a Westernized Muslim, we cannot expect Jinnah to be an expert on Islamic laws. Few people are.

It goes without saying that the extreme aspects of ancient Islamic law are unacceptable and compromises will have to be made. The problem with labels like "Islamic" and "secular" is that people tend to equate those labels with the extreme positions. No doubt the extremists on both sides will reject any middle ground, but the middle is where we should aim.

For clarity, an extreme secularist position would be like the French approach that rejects all symbols of religious identity in public. I don't believe such an extreme position is warranted, any more than the Islamic extremes are

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.

What I wrote above about extremists on either side.

Example - Jizya.

As others have pointed out, jizya is an alternative tax, not an additional tax. However, I oppose that concept also simply on the basis that the population should not be divided into (religious) groups for the purpose of taxation. It will trickle down into economic segregation throughout the society.

 

[Contrarian]

As others have pointed out, jizya is an alternative tax, not an additional tax. However, I oppose that concept also simply on the basis that the population should not be divided into (religious) groups for the purpose of taxation. It will trickle down into economic segregation throughout the society.

Yes it will. It will divide the society and never allow it to integrate or develop mutual trusted relationships.

Yet it is a tenet of Shariah. And if you donot apply it, you are not applying shariah in full. If its an Islamic State, then it should have shariah in full.

 

[rubyjackass]

Naivete is not a crime. As a Westernized Muslim, we cannot expect Jinnah to be an expert on Islamic laws. Few people are.

I agree. Naivete is not a crime. As I said, the problem is with secular Jinnah fanboys who start the argument with 'Jinnah was secular' and then start about searching for facts that suit this narrative. They won't pause at the glaring contradictions.

Let me make one thing clear. My argument was against the people who claim Jinnah to be secular or rather who claim that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan. I call them secular-Jinnah theorists and tried to maintain this distinction from secularists, but perhaps lost it in the last post because it is too long to write secular-Jinnah theorists over and over again. Many secularists actually recognize Jinnah as communal.

I have no idea about how Pakistan should be. But one thing is clear. Jinnah wanted it to be an Islamic state. But since, he is informed by Iqbal about what Islam means, he thought a state under Islam will be peaceful and fair to its minorities. If only he read the worst parts of Quran and realized the dangers of making a state based on religion.

It goes without saying that the extreme aspects of ancient Islamic law are unacceptable and compromises will have to be made. The problem with labels like "Islamic" and "secular" is that people tend to equate those labels with the extreme positions. No doubt the extremists on both sides will reject any middle ground, but the middle is where we should aim.

For clarity, an extreme secularist position would be like the French approach that rejects all symbols of religious identity in public. I don't believe such an extreme position is warranted, any more than the Islamic extremes are

Now about my opinions:
I don't think there is any middle ground between secularists and Islamists. There is only a slippery slope.

I consider it immoral to consider one human being less than the other. When sovereignty rests with Allah and Allah alone, all are not equal. It becomes the duty of muslims to safeguard the non-muslims. For Islamists(even moderate ones), this is the hallmark of secularism, which it is not. They claim that secularism was their invention, which again is not.

I am in favor of the Indian approach to secularism, which I guess is an approximation to what you are proposing. But this is only as a matter of practicality. Also we have retained some of our ancient practices as part of our day-to-day life.

But there was some serious damage done to Muslims because of this kind of secularism. When India gained independence, Muslims were allowed to have their own personal law. Though there was a corresponding Hindu law, it banned a whole lot of retrograde practices from the Hindu religion like polygamy. Nobody dared or cared to cleanse the Islamic law similarly. Today majority conversions to Islam from our elite are for polygamy. Muslim women are not eligible for alimony. They are confined to their burqas. A lot of them go to college now but only to get a piece of paper called degree before getting married. Most muslims shy away from several benefits of modernity- like insurance, banking, in some places even from vaccination - because these are against Islam. I guess the moral is that freedom can sometimes lead to backwardness.

France is any day better than India. At least there, the next generation of conservative Muslim girls will grow up as confident and self-reliant women. They should not allow burqa in their country. Burqa apologists might as well write apologia for honor killings.

 

[Developereo]

We are holding two parallel discussions here.

My argument was against the people who claim Jinnah to be secular or rather who claim that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan.

This is the first discussion (and the topic). I think we can agree that Jinnah was neither a French-style secularist, nor an Islamist. Like most people, he was somewhere in the middle, so any attempt to classify him to either extreme would be wrong.

I don't think there is any middle ground between secularists and Islamists. There is only a slippery slope.

This is the other discussion and there are a lot of unknowns. You may be right that any compromise will be so watered down that it will leave both camps unhappy. As I mentioned, there have been experiments in other countries and the jury is still out.

France is any day better than India.

I couldn't disagree more, but that's another discussion.