Islamization of Jinnah.

[Leader]

Quaid said that Hindus and Muslims were to be equal citizens of the state as a fundamental principle !! religion has got nothing to do with state business ... What else is secularism ?? See his quote in my signature and you may very well realize that Jinnah`s understanding of Islam was not an orthodox one !!

Now the topic of discussion here is Islamization of Jinnah , Objective resolution had nothing to do with Jinnah`s vision . Was O.R. good or was it not ,it is a totally different discussion



What hurts you is not necessarily a lie , go read a few things first

Yes, I say religious beliefs have got nothing to do with the State, my beliefs are private matter, but is political Islam going to be the same, in a muslim majority country? you can never separate impact of social institution like religion from the lives of the people.. what you say is theory everywhere in the world, not practical..
Jinnah's vision was clear about what he was doing by creating a majority Islamic state, which doesnt mean anyone would be a lesser citizen, and thats he believed Islam taught us, not secularism, otherwise he would have clearly said so, which you and as well as I know he never stated.

so its better to improve our product (Islamic state) than to borrow a foreign product (secular) that doesnot go well with some people.

your basis of discussion is that Objective resolution was the beginning of Islamization of Jinnah's vision.. while I am maintaining that there is nothing wrong with objective's resolution, and its perfectly in accordance with the Vision of Jinnah.. he believed, always did in "home rule". so i think we should rather fix our product aka Islamic system then to run after a truck ki batti.

oh yes, for academic debates these types of debates are very fruitful, it gives good practical ideas.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

objective resolution passed in 1949 is a part of every constitution from 56 to 73
was pakistan an islamized state in 50s 60s and 70s. we were becoming more and more tolerant people back then .
then came the soviet curse and in 80s zia went nuts and started jihad thats when islamization occured.
was objective resolution responsible for it . this resolution tells us who we are it dosnt say to cleanse minorities

 

[Pakistani E]

@Zarvan

"I, Abdul Aziz Shura, known as Aziz Kashmiri, editor of the daily Roshni, Srinagar, Kashmir, make the following declaration under oath.

"A delegation of the Kashmir Press Conference, Srinagar, which included several leading newspaper men, met Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, President of the Muslim League, at his appointed time, on 23 May 1944 at 11 a.m., at `Koshik', Nishat, Srinagar, and asked various questions.

"I asked Quaid-i-Azam, Who can join the All-India Muslim League? At this, Mr. M. A. Sabir, editor of al-Barq, told the Quaid-i-Azam that the background to the question was probably that in Kashmir Ahmadis were not allowed to join the Muslim conference. Quaid-i-Azam smiled and recorded his reply as follows:

"I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with particular reference to the Qadianis. My reply is that, as far as the constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole."

"Mr. M. A. Sabir tried as hard as he could to persuade the Quaid-i-Azam to declare Qadianis as being out of the fold of Islam. But the Quaid-i-Azam stuck resolutely to his principle and kept on replying: `What right have I to declare a person non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim'.

"The proceedings of this press conference were published, under my signature, in the Riyasati of that time and the Lahore newspapers, especially Inqilab, Shahbaz, Zamindar, Siyasat etc."

So do you agree that Jinnah Sahib (rh) was perfectly fine with Ahmadis labelling themselves as muslims? That's great, sir. Can you relegate that to the rest of your enlightened Ulema who have declared themselves guardians of Pakistan. I am glad Zarvan that you are defending Jinnah's Pakistan. Well done.

 

[M. Sarmad]

your basis of discussion is that Objective resolution was the beginning of Islamization of Jinnah's vision.. while I am maintaining that there is nothing wrong with objective's resolution, and its perfectly in accordance with the Vision of Jinnah.. he believed, always did in "home rule". so i think we should rather fix our product aka Islamic system then to run after a truck ki batti.

oh yes, for academic debates these types of debates are very fruitful, it gives good practical ideas.

When state defines who is Muslim and who is not and When our constitution discriminates against non Muslims , we can never be a true democracy . We can not fix our "Islamic state" unless we reconsider the definition of Islam . Mullah Islam or Moderate Islam , choice is ours . And moderate Islam is very much compatible with democracy and modern world . But for Mullahs , moderate Islam is apostasy (Jinnah and Iqbal were also apostates in the opinion of these Mullahs) . Objective`s Resolution was the first step in the wrong direction (i.e towards becoming a theocracy instead of democracy) . Later in 1954 , we carried out another experiment , we were the first in the world to add the adjective "Islamic" to our republican status . We created a hybrid . Gradually "Islamic" part gained strength and "republic" grew weaker and weaker over time . And today Mullahs are very powerful (despite the fact that they have never been elected to power) . That is the blessing of "theocracy" . In a democracy , they could have never gained such strength unless majority elected them . A lot needs to be fixed . So we must start over again .By undoing (stepwise) all that we did wrong in the past !!

 

[Leader]

When state defines who is Muslim and who is not and When our constitution discriminates against non Muslims , we can never be a true democracy . We can not fix our "Islamic state" unless we reconsider the definition of Islam . Mullah Islam or Moderate Islam , choice is ours . And moderate Islam is very much compatible with democracy and modern world . But for Mullahs , moderate Islam is apostasy (Jinnah and Iqbal were also apostates in the opinion of these Mullahs) . Objective`s Resolution was the first step in the wrong direction (i.e towards becoming a theocracy instead of democracy) . Later in 1954 , we carried out another experiment , we were the first in the world to add the adjective "Islamic" to our republican status . We created a hybrid . Gradually "Islamic" part gained strength and "republic" grew weaker and weaker over time . And today Mullahs are very powerful (despite the fact that they have never been elected to power) . That is the blessing of "theocracy" . In a democracy , they could have never gained such strength unless majority elected them . A lot needs to be fixed . So we must start over again .By undoing (stepwise) all that we did wrong in the past !!

Thats another debate what our constitution says, nothing to do with Jinnah and his vision for Pakistan.

Objective's resolution was the first right step, its a very wholistic document like magna carta of England. but the point is why mullah are strong, because they have become sole interpreters of the Islamic law and history, and we have distant ourselves from it and opted for secularism as a solution. which in my view is just a 5th generation weapon to create disturbance in third world like ours.

countries have agendas, with accordance to their political inclination, economic, regional and international interests, and also with accordance to their religious mandate.. we could have never sided with Soviet Union, knowingly what they did with Muslims in Central Asia, our way of life was threatened.. we cannot let go of our religious mandate like anyone else, England according to David Cameron is a Christian Nation, so is Pakistan, a Muslim Nation, all we need is to ensure equality of rights, under the banner of Islamic Republic and show a model to the world that Yes Islamic republic is a model to be followed.

like @Spring Onion said, "welfare state"..once we focus our energies on welfare state, everything else becomes irrelevant. secular, islamic, republic whatever... say Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, even Saudi Arabia..

 

[M. Sarmad]

Thats another debate what our constitution says, nothing to do with Jinnah and his vision for Pakistan.

Objective's resolution was the first right step, its a very wholistic document like magna carta of England. but the point is why mullah are strong, because they have become sole interpreters of the Islamic law and history, and we have distant ourselves from it and opted for secularism as a solution. which in my view is just a 5th generation weapon to create disturbance in third world like ours.

countries have agendas, with accordance to their political inclination, economic, regional and international interests, and also with accordance to their religious mandate.. we could have never sided with Soviet Union, knowingly what they did with Muslims in Central Asia, our way of life was threatened.. we cannot let go of our religious mandate like anyone else, England according to David Cameron is a Christian Nation, so is Pakistan, a Muslim Nation, all we need is to ensure equality of rights, under the banner of Islamic Republic and show a model to the world that Yes Islamic republic is a model to be followed.

like @Spring Onion said, "welfare state"..once we focus our energies on welfare state, everything else becomes irrelevant. secular, islamic, republic whatever... say Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, even Saudi Arabia..

Unfortunately , what our constitution says has nothing to do with Jinnah and his vision of Pakistan !!

You are right . Our religion has been hijacked by Mullahs (so has been our state) . What solution do you suggest ? What should we practically do to tackle this problem ?

 

[BATMAN]

Jinnah was no Islamist by any stretch of the imagination, don't you think several of his speeches were completely contradictory?

What is Islamist?

 

[Leader]

Unfortunately , what our constitution says has nothing to do with Jinnah and his vision of Pakistan !!

You are right . Our religion has been hijacked by Mullahs (so is our state) . What solution do you suggest ?

First thing that must be done is to unify the schooling system,all children must go to state-owned schools uptill 5th-8th class(except for the privileged private schools afterwards), ban publication of hate literature, control population, acquire all the shrines and related properties and also introduce land reforms to curb the sickness of feudalism, devolution of power to local bodies to end disparity and bring equal distribution of wealth and ofcourse focus on improving economy overall to manage the population.

these are major problems only a non-political figure can end, I hate to say this, but we are such a diverse nation-state that no political leader can bring radical reforms, though uniforming of schooling curriculum and LBs is expected in KPK but rest cannot be done without use of effective Law & tactical Force.

good management makes you forget ideological differences.. like the punjabi saying, "Jiday kaar danay, uday kamlay v siyanay"

 

[BATMAN]

Unfortunately, today Pakistanis organize religous gatterings, festivals and events, every fortnight, but they should look at this appearance of this religous event!

 

[Leader]

Something like A Socialist Revolution ??

more like what Jinnah wanted, "Islamic socialism and not other ism"

p.s exact his words.

 

[M. Sarmad]

“you are only voicing my sentiments and the sentiments of millions of musalmans when you say that Pakistan should be based on the sure foundation of social justice and Islamic socialism – not other isms – which emphasizes equality and brotherhood of man. Similarly you are voicing my thoughts in asking and in aspiring for equal opportunities for all” ..... (Muhammad Ali Jinnah)

 

[KingMamba]

I agree with @Oscar, Jinnah is gone its time for Pakistanis to say what they want. Fundos have no problem screaming about what they want so unless the rest of the Pakistanis want to live under their thumb they need to wake up.

 

[Aamna14]

More confusion is created, in my opinion, through these labels of "Mullah's Islam" and "Jinnah's Islam". The reason the Mullahs and clerics have gained so much power is unfortunately due to the masses so if they want a distorted and disfigured version of Islam where any and everyone is the enemy then let it be. Mr Jinnah, in my opinion, didn't create or believed in a divided two fold concept of Islam. Islam ensures equal rights to all human beings and If we look at his speeches from such a perspective we won't find any contradiction.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Mr Jinnah, in my opinion, didn't create or believed in a divided two fold concept of Islam. Islam ensures equal rights to all human beings and If we look at his speeches from such a perspective we won't find any contradiction.

But Mullah`s don`t agree with this , neither does our constitution . There is nothing as Jinnah`s Islam . He was just a moderate Muslim (like most of us) . Mullah Islam is the religion invented by Mullahs , based on their own (mis)interpretations of Quran and Hadith

The reason the Mullahs and clerics have gained so much power is unfortunately due to the masses so if they want a distorted and disfigured version of Islam where any and everyone is the enemy then let it be

Masses have not given the power to Mullahs(through votes) . Objectives Resolution and our constitution is "theocratic" and this is what has strengthened the Mullahs .Over 90 % of our population is against extremist Islam .

 

[Aamna14]

But Mullah`s don`t agree with this , neither does our constitution . There is nothing as Jinnah`s Islam . He was just a moderate Muslim (like most of us) . Mullah Islam is the religion invented by Mullahs , based on their own (mis)interpretations of Quran and Hadith

So it nonetheless doesn't become Mullah's Islam. You can call it a fabrication or a deliberate distortion but such terms, in my opinion, are divisive and especially in an already confused society like ours they are bound to cause more damage than good. Anyone can interpret Islam even I can so does it become my Islam and your Islam as well as opposed to the Mullahs?? With all due respect to Mr Jinnah, he was an ordinary Muslim so his opinions on matters of how this state must function hold significant weight and we want to follow in on his footsteps but even in terms of Islam his interpretations are inclusive and so are those of the majority of Muslims in this country so I don't find a clash. Mullahs do have a considerable authority but they don't hamper the thought process of an average Pakistani to an extent where he or she has to paint Jinnah as a Mullah. The greatest injustice, in my sight, is to drag the name of Mr Jinnah to two different extremes none of which could have been acceptable to him.