Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean that Pakistan was not intended as a country where Islam as it was understood would have no role in governance? And if this is not what you meant, well then what was the point of that white part, after all, it's not what Pakistan was about -
See develepero, that's what this thread is about --- Jinnah is quoted as saying:
But make no mistake : Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.”[/B] [ Jinnah, Message to the people of Australia, 19 February 1948 ]
8 : ” The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..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.” [ Jinnah, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]
9 : ” Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws ?……Islamic principles today are are as much applicable as they were 1300 years ago……Islam and its idealism have taught Equality, Justice and Fairplay to EVERYBODY.
These all confirm what you say - and yet, our own Zarvan also quotes Jinnah and thast does not confirm what you say.
This contest of to whom does Jinnah belong, it seems to partisans of Jinnah, is one they have to move beyond -- so a very exciting time it is, as Pakistan may finally be coming to define herself, in her own time, with reference to the present
8 : ” The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..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.” [ Jinnah, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]
9 : ” Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws ?……Islamic principles today are are as much applicable as they were 1300 years ago……Islam and its idealism have taught Equality, Justice and Fairplay to EVERYBODY.
Regarding the red part above, Jinnah speaks of equal rights of Pakistans minorities.
However just 8 years ago in his speech at Lahore, he had summarily rejected the notion of Hindus and Mussalmans co-existing together, declaring thst to yoke them together will only lead to disintegration.
Ironic.
Jinnah had built up his support on the basis of a state inspired by religion, probably only after he got it did he realise that the genie he had let out wouldn't go away. His frantic efforts to pull away from that ideology could not convince his people till his death.
He gave the masses their opium, and they only too happily stuck to it.
Regarding the red part above, Jinnah speaks of equal rights of Pakistans minorities.
However just 8 years ago in his speech at Lahore, he had summarily rejected the notion of Hindus and Mussalmans co-existing together, declaring thst to yoke them together will only lead to disintegration.
Ironic.
Jinnah had built up his support on the basis of a state inspired by religion, probably only after he got it did he realise that the genie he had let out wouldn't go away. His frantic efforts to pull away from that ideology could not convince his people till his death.
He gave the masses their opium, and they only too happily stuck to it.
Most reasonable people acknowledge that the norms of 6th century Arabia are somewhat different to today's reality and allowances need to be made. It is also an opportunity to showcase the progressive, tolerant side of Islam.
The two statements can be reconciled quite easily. Jinnah was berating the failure of British India to harmonize Hindus and Muslims. He feared a post-independence India would be no better and wanted to create Pakistan to show that it could be done.
They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality;
Address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League, Lahore, 1940The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government,
I have the actors and the "magic" in question, at least clear to me, and that witchcraft is still at work today, for the same purpose.
"Most would agree?? really? If that was the case, we would not be arresting Brigadier level officers for HT sympathies, we would not have air force personnel attempting to assassinate a president, we would not have the revelation that all major operations against militants are leaked to the militants, we would not have the acceptance of excommunicating entire sects, really the list is too long -- No, I don't think there is merit to the suggestion that most would agree about that --- indeed most do not agree that there ought to be such things as "human rights" or "rights of "non-muslims" because there is no historical precedent of such in Islamic history -- and that makes "progessive" Islam, one which exists in theory not practice, anywhere - alas.
And yet, the same leadership of the Hindus was no doubt equally pleased to be rid of the challenge. - May I request that we focus on the present, Indian friends go on and on about partition - it's done, it's over, lets look beyond it.
There was no mention of British India in that speech, nor have I come across any speech by Jinnah blaming the Brits for the rift. Perhaps you could provide me with one?
Jinnah had contended that Hindus and Mussalmans can not live together, because of their cultural differences quite clearly.
What used to be avant-guard and progressive in the 12th century won't work any more. We need to get our heads out of the sand and catch up with the world
He was talking about the India of the day -- hence the term British India. It doesn't mean he blamed the British. If you like, we can use the term 'pre-independence India'.
His point was that the Indian society of the day -- which was mostly managed by Hindus due to the Brits' preference for Hindus over Muslims -- had failed to provide harmony between the two religions and he saw no reason why things would change post-independence.
Nehru lived many years after independence, and Jinnah died barely a year later --