Jinnah’s journey from an Indian nationalist to a Muslim separatist

[Asim B.]

Pakistan was to be a modern democratic state where religion would not be the business of the state. He appointed a Hindu as the law minister precisely to drive home that the newly formed Muslim homeland was not exclusively for Muslims but that minorities of whatever creed would also play their part in this new nation

Who the hell is peddling this nonsensical claim? This is utter distortion and lies.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Who the hell is peddling this nonsensical claim? This is utter distortion and lies.

I know, Jinnah never used the word "secular", He instead used the terms Islamic democracy and Islamic Socialism in his speeches.

These goons are just neoliberals.

 

[Asim B.]

I know, Jinnah never used the word "secular", He instead used the terms Islamic democracy and Islamic Socialism in his speeches.

These goons are just neoliberals.

These people who believe this nonsense are a confused bunch.

If Pakistan was meant to be secular than what was the purpose of partition with India?

@M. Sarmad

 

[M. Sarmad]

These people who believe this nonsense are a confused bunch.

If Pakistan was meant to be secular than what was the purpose of partition with India?

@M. Sarmad

My dear friend, please learn to read what has already been posted on the thread

Regards

 

[MultaniGuy]

These people who believe this nonsense are a confused bunch.

If Pakistan was meant to be secular than what was the purpose of partition with India?

@M. Sarmad

ignore @M. Sarmad , he is another neoliberal goon.

However he can have his pathetic opinion. That is his right.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I know, Jinnah never used the word "secular" ...

Well, no one has claimed that Jinnah used word "secular", what are you going on about ?

However, some of those who were very close to Jinnah (and Iqbal) categorically stated that Jinnah wanted a secular state ... for example, Begum Rana Liaquat Ali and Javed Iqbal

ignore @M. Sarmad , he is another neoliberal goon.

However he can have his pathetic opinion. That is his right.

Calling others 'goons' when you run out of arguments doesn't prove you right, my friend

 

[MultaniGuy]

Well, no one has claimed that Jinnah used word "secular", what are you going on about ?

However, some of those who were very close to Jinnah (and Iqbal) categorically stated that Jinnah wanted a secular state ... for example, Begum Rana Liaquat Ali and Javed Iqbal



Calling others 'goons' when you run out of arguments doesn't prove you right, my friend

I haven't run out of arguments. lol did I hurt a nerve?

Yes, Jinnah never used the word "secular" in his speeches. He never said "secular state."

The argument that Jinnah wanted a "secular state" is a weak one.

Jinnah talk about "Islamic Socialism and Islamic Democracy"

It is you @M. Sarmad who has run out of arguments, not me.

 

[Asim B.]

My dear friend, please learn to read what has already been posted on the thread

Regards

Thread is too long Bhai jaan for me to go through every single post, but I will say this:

India is secular and almost as many Muslims are living in India as there are in Pakistan. If Pakistan was formed as a secular state than it's existence as a state for Muslims is null and void and so is the partition of India on the basis for a "homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent".

Now if you want to continue to promote this narritive of secularism just know that you are eating away at the foundational basis for Pakistan's existence, which was never secular to begin with.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Yes, Jinnah never used the word "secular" in his speeches. He never said "secular state."

The argument that Jinnah wanted a "secular state" is a weak one.

Jinnah talk about "Islamic Socialism and Islamic Democracy"

He never propagated word "Islamic State" as well, in fact he thoroughly disapproved the idea of having an Islamic State as pointed out in the article you yourself quoted in a previous post




Islamic Socialism and Islamic Democracy are compatible with secularism, no contradiction there


As pointed out by Begum Raana Liaquat Ali in an interview:

Question: But Pakistan was visualised as a Muslim homeland.

Ra'ana Liaquat Ali: Yes, but not the religious one of this type; it was a more liberal kind. Quaid-e-Azam himself said the basis was religious but Pakistan was visualised as secular and democratic. Today Pakistan is out and out a theocracy and under that garb, every vestige of personal freedom is snatched away. We are ruled with injunctions and ordinances as to what we should do, how we should dress, how we must relate to each other......
https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153802


That's exactly what Jinnah wanted, A Secular and Democratic Pakistan based on the Islamic principle of absolute equality of mankind !!


Also, on the night of March 7, 2011, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal was interviewed on a TV channel on the nature of the Pakistani state. He held that Pakistan, as envisaged by Jinnah, was to be a secular state.:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/135012/was-jinnah-secular/

 

[MultaniGuy]

He never used word "Islamic State" as well, in fact he thoroughly disapproved the idea of having an Islamic State as pointed out in the article you yourself quoted in a previous post

Islamic Socialism and Islamic Democracy are compatible with secularism, no contradiction there

As pointed out by Begum Raana Liaquat Ali in an interview:

Question: But Pakistan was visualised as a Muslim homeland.

Ra'ana Liaquat Ali: Yes, but not the religious one of this type; it was a more liberal kind. Quaid-e-Azam himself said the basis was religious but Pakistan was visualised as secular and democratic. Today Pakistan is out and out a theocracy and under that garb, every vestige of personal freedom is snatched away. We are ruled with injunctions and ordinances as to what we should do, how we should dress, how we must relate to each other......
https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153802


That's exactly what Jinnah wanted, A Secular and Democratic Pakistan based on the Islamic principle of absolute equality of mankind !!




Also, on the night of March 7, 2011, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal was interviewed on a TV channel on the nature of the Pakistani state. He held that Pakistan, as envisaged by Jinnah, was to be a secular state.:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/135012/was-jinnah-secular/

LOL, I am not convinced.

He says this:
"What more can one really expect than to see that this mighty land has now been brought under a rule, which is Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent State." ( Speech in reply to the Welcome Address by the Principal, Staff and Students of Edwards College, Peshawar, 18 April 1948)

https://nation.com.pk/25-Dec-2015/jinnah-s-pakistan-islamic-state-or-secular-democracy

Anyways You are entitled to your opinion.

We can agree to disagree since it seems we will. You cannot be convinced because of your stubbornness.

Besides that All Pakistanis want an Islamic state. You cannot fight the will of the majority.

I cannot debate on the internet forever. This debate ends with me saying I disagree with you. I do not live an electronic life you know.

Yes Pakistan is supposed to be an Islamic state, otherwise there was no point of partition.

End of discussion.

 

[Asim B.]

He never used word "Islamic State" as well, in fact he thoroughly disapproved the idea of having an Islamic State as pointed out in the article you yourself quoted in a previous post

Islamic Socialism and Islamic Democracy are compatible with secularism, no contradiction there

As pointed out by Begum Raana Liaquat Ali in an interview:

Question: But Pakistan was visualised as a Muslim homeland.

Ra'ana Liaquat Ali: Yes, but not the religious one of this type; it was a more liberal kind. Quaid-e-Azam himself said the basis was religious but Pakistan was visualised as secular and democratic. Today Pakistan is out and out a theocracy and under that garb, every vestige of personal freedom is snatched away. We are ruled with injunctions and ordinances as to what we should do, how we should dress, how we must relate to each other......
https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153802


That's exactly what Jinnah wanted, A Secular and Democratic Pakistan based on the Islamic principle of absolute equality of mankind !!




Also, on the night of March 7, 2011, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal was interviewed on a TV channel on the nature of the Pakistani state. He held that Pakistan, as envisaged by Jinnah, was to be a secular state.:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/135012/was-jinnah-secular/

Can you answer this simple question:

If Pakistan was not meant to be a Islamic state then what was the purpose of partition?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Can you answer this simple question:

If Pakistan was not meant to be a Islamic state then what was the purpose of partition?

The purpose of the partition was to create a Muslim majority homeland to protect and safeguard the socio-economic, religious and political rights of the Indian Muslims which Jinnah believed was not possible in a Hindu majority India ruled by Congress, but this protection was not supposed to come at the expense of the same rights of Non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim majority areas as according to Jinnah (and in his own words) Islam believed in absolute equality of mankind ...

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The purpose of the partition was to create a Muslim majority homeland to protect and safeguard the socio-economic, religious and political rights of the Indian Muslims

Rubbish.

• Muslims in Muslim majority provinces needed no protecting because they were dominant numerically. Indeed it was the other way round - Hindu/Sikh minority that needed protecting.
• 
  
• Muslims in Muslim minority areas needed protecting. They [over 170 million] are still if not even more unprotected in India.

The effect of the partition was to protect those who needed no protecting and leaving those who needed protection even more exposed and vulnerable.

 

[Asim B.]

The purpose of the partition was to create a Muslim majority homeland to protect and safeguard the socio-economic, religious and political rights of the Indian Muslims which Jinnah believed was not possible in a Hindu majority India ruled by Congress, but this protection was not supposed to come at the expense of the same rights of Non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim majority areas as according to Jinnah (and in his own words) Islam believed in absolute equality of mankind ...

Okay, so we can agree that Pakistan was created as a Muslim majority state. Great.

Now let me ask you this: is that a secular or a religious basis?

It certainly is not secular because a secular state is indifferent to which religious groups is the majority or not.

Therefore it is safe to assume that Pakistan was not intended to be secular but rather Islamic.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Rubbish.

• Muslims in Muslim majority provinces needed no protecting because they were dominant numerically. Indeed it was the other way round - Hindu/Sikh minority that needed protecting..
• 
  
• Muslims in Muslim minority areas needed protecting. They [over 170 million] are still if not even more unprotected in India.
• 
  
• The effect of the partition was to protect those who needed no protecting and leaving those who needed protection even more exposed and vulnerable

Hindus and Sikhs, despite being in minority, owned most of the real estate and agricultural land even in the Muslim majority areas ... For example, although Muslims (53%) were a majority in united Punjab, Sikhs (14.6%) and Hindus (30%), besides owning most of the agricultural land, together owned roughly 75-80 % of commerce, manufacturing and even real estate... As for the protection of the rights of the Muslims in Muslim minority areas, the protection of the rights of Hindu minority in Muslim majority Pakistan was supposed to ensure the protection of the rights of Muslim minority in Hindu majority India .... That it didn't work is another thing

Okay, so we can agree that Pakistan was created as a Muslim majority state. Great.

Now let me ask you this: is that a secular or a religious basis?

It certainly is not secular because a secular state is indifferent to which religious groups is the majority or not.

Therefore it is safe to assume that Pakistan was not intended to be secular but rather Islamic.

As stated earlier, Islam and secularism are compatible .... So, you don't have to be Islamic OR Secular ... You can be both at the same time ... Your argument is invalid as it is based on a false assumption that Islam and secularism are mutually exclusive