Jinnah's Pakistan - Then and Now

[muse]

Come on now tariq, you just been a arbi for a few years but in the Bunjap before your parents and their parents became Muslims, what were they? Were they Sikhs or Hindus?

Be fair, not everybody can be a arbi - so before you dig into the Indian, at least pay him some respect, you know for old times and when you were not so different from them

And be grateful not everyone thought of doing to yours what you won't think twice to doing to them

 

[ashokdeiva]

Keep your thoughts to yourself and dont tell us what was 2000 years old and not.
islam is not like other religions its total a system and till the day of judgment.
we dont need to change our religion like Hindus , chiristains and others.

and again dont tell us what was pakistan created for. there are not two versions of Islam . only one exists.

now you are talking about Judgment day, the more you are not willing the evolve the more you start to revolt. The river takes the easy way. if you want to take the hard way to resist evolution of the human mentality then you are digging your own death pit.
We don't want the fanatics out, but we are trying to talk our way to make people like you to evolve rather than going back wards in time.
Taliban had a dream of a pure state of ISLAM to be created out of Afghan, but what happened they moved the country to stone age by prohibiting all the human achivments and finally the farmers have to invest on drug bearing crops to feul the nations ailing economy. Do you want to have such a life, were people are cut of their limbs and heads for doing some thing out of anger or mentally ill. Don't you wish to understand the psycology and remove the bad elements in man to do such acts or will stick with the former ways of brutality.

 

[muse]

AshokD


Once we though as you do that these can be saved, if only we can get them to understand that we are not the enemy - but we were deluded - because they are the enemy - and it's not just that they are Pakistan's enemy, they are just "the Enemy" they are everybody's enemy.

 

[ashokdeiva]

AshokD


Once we though as you do that these can be saved, if only we can get them to understand that we are not the enemy - but we were deluded - because they are the enemy - and it's not just that they are Pakistan's enemy, they are just "the Enemy" they are everybody's enemy.

I hope that there is a chance that fanatics will understand of evolving, but if they are not, its the dominant group that has always survived and fanatics are the minor group that will be wiped out.

Kindly people who say that ISLAM should be the only one, do not misinterpret my statement like I am talking that ISLAM be lost to the evolution. but I am advocating for the change/evolution in the fanatics mind so that ISLAM reaches the next stage.

 

[muse]

Actually they are not needed for the evolution of religious knowledge in Islam - I would encourage you to read the "Intellectual foundations" piece - it will become clear why they can't evolve and what the method of evolution is - recall, we discussed Epistemology before - and that's really what the theory of Expansion and Contraction of Shariah, is about - religious knowledge is like any other knowledge it;s nature is that it expands ("ages of Faith are ages of Reason") and contract (Christian Dark ages and the author comments about the lack of any intellectual production among the fundos).

 

[Mughal1]

Dear friends, we have already debated islam v religion and secularism in the other thread. I proved beyond a shadow of doubt that islam is for ever and for all. I also explained what islam is. However, debate now needs to concentrate on what islam is not.

Islam is not what mullahs claim islam to be. Why? Because they deliberately misinterpreted islam as well as misrepresented it.

If one visits various muslim forums one will soon find out that there are debates going on there about differences between sects eg shias v sunnies or brelavies v deobandies or sunnies v wahabies etc etc.

These debates are about books of ahadith, books of fiqh and about all aqaid based on these books eg tawheed and shirk, sunnah and bidah, halaal and haraam, taqleed, ijtihad etc etc.

All these discussions and debates are based on circular arguments ie no basis whatsoever.

One sect's definition of sunnah or bidah is not accepted by the other sects. One sect's definition of tawheed and shirk is not accepted by the other sects. All this shows what mullahs have done to islam over the centuries and worse how they damaged the ummah as a people.

People who go about understanding the quran by rules have no problem but people who use random arguments remain in confusion.

Even on this forum I see people have different views about islam but have no ability to explains them. This clearly shows they never studied islam properly. The conclusion, they do not know islam. They are followers of mullahs ie what some molvi told them, that is islam for them.

If molvi said dressing like this or that is islam, then that is islam and dressing any other way is unislamic.

These people have no idea what is concept of islamic state or what is to be taken as islamic law.

Molvi comes along and tells them anything and because they themselves have no idea they just go long.

These are the major reasons that muslims are killing each other in the name of islam. It would be better if people learned basic about islam so that they were not taken advantage of by mullahs or secularists.

It is for this reason knowing about sir seyyid ahmed khan is very important because he interpreted the quran by rules and not by baseless reports.

It is for this reason knowing about iqbal is very important because he too understood islam as per rules laid down by sir seyyid. jinnah too was convinced by iqbal because he explained islam to him in accordance with rules and not by baseless ranting of mullahs over the centuries.

If one looks at videos of alaama parwez he too is talking about same thing. So all people who are educated and use rules to live by look at islam the same way and all mullah like people look at islam the way mullahs do.

So the task for people who claim to be muslims and are educated is to educate the rest of muslim ummah. So that muslims could see what islam is and what it is not. So long as we do not take a stand on this the real islam will remain hidden and mullahs and the ruling elite will carry on as usual.

To help start debate on islam here is my question for all those who claim to be sunnies or shias, please define what is meant by sunnah of the prophet?

good luck, regards and all the best.

 

[Mani2020]

A nation who is still unable to understand and adopt their ideology , who tilts from one side to another in a matter of few months , who still has not choose a single stance to act upon is now fighting against corruption . First fight with the people who are playing with the ideology of this nation , who have made fun of this entity let alone the fight with corruption,

One leader says "Partition of sub-continent was biggest blunder in the history of sub-continent"
Another says " We and indians are one sharing everything same"
Third one says " In every muslim there lives an hindu"

And the nation is acting like a joker no-one is there to have their stance against those culprit cum jokers ,

All three leaders of 3 biggest political parties have made the mockery of Jinnah and the people who sacrificed their lives for Pakistan just because there generation can live with peace and harmony are left free by the nation , even not a single one is there to take stance against them and speaking about corruption.

What these 3 leaders have done is far bigger than corruption , first stop them then think of anything else.

Sleeping nation is not willing to wake up .sssshhhhhhhhhh let them sleep

 

[Zarvan]

The Quaid in his speech broadcast on 13, November 1939 said, “Man has indeed been called God’s Caliph in the Quran and if that description of man is to be of any significance it imposes upon us a duty to follow the Quran, to behave towards others as God behaves towards his mankind.” In the same speech he further said, “All social regeneration and political freedom must finally depend on something that has deeper meaning in life. And that, if you allow me to say so, is Islam and Islamic spirit.” The Quaid when asked by the students to give a message said, “You have asked me to give you a message. What message can I give you? We have got the greatest message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Jinnah's pakistan starts when we hang all politicians for crime against humanity

 

[muse]

The Jinnah discourse
Ahmad Ali Khalid


The ‘Jinnah’ argument is the heart and soul for the case of a “secular Pakistan”. It is the very reason why Pakistanis still cling to a vision for a secular state that guarantees a liberal framework of rights and liberties. The liberal discussion is very simply the ‘Jinnah discourse’. But sadly it has not evolved or built up a case that has greater reach and more clout.

Let me be clear — I do not think Pakistanis can ever move towards any form of secularism or liberalism without first negotiating the legacy of Jinnah. Every nation-state has to negotiate the existential legacy of their founding father(s), which act as a compass for any future ideological trajectories. In many ways whether we like it or not, it is the personality of the founding father that gives rise to the nature of the state. But we must build on it instead of parroting the same old tired arguments.

Because, as it stands, this ‘Jinnah discourse’ is incredibly myopic and counter-productive. Are we seriously arguing that the only reason to have a state that provides rights and is secular in nature is because of the whims of one man? Is secularism good just because Jinnah said it was good or because there is something morally commendable about having a secular state? And that is the critique of the Jinnah discourse: it has nothing else to support it — it is a desperate plea for righting a contemporary disaster by appealing to a sense of faint historical memory. What if, for the sake of argument, Jinnah advocated a theocracy? Would we accept it simply because he said it?

It follows that secular liberals in Pakistan are woefully out of touch — the glaring fault is the way liberals construct and present their arguments. Conservatives and those on the right in societies like the US and Pakistan usually claim to be authentic representatives of the dominant culture, tradition, community or faith. The Right claim their arguments appeal to the deeply held set of beliefs and principles of everyday people. The tragedy is that liberals let these questionable claims go undisputed by refusing to take sides in heated moral or religious debates, adhering (mistakenly) to the concept of ‘liberal neutrality’.

And there lies the problem, conservatives and the Right effectively mobilise and popularise notions of community, faith and tradition whilst liberals are left grappling with abstract and theoretical platitudes about ‘rights’ and ‘constitutionalism’. This is a problem that plagues most liberal thinking, especially in the Muslim world, where powerful forces like community illicit potent reactions and evoke strong memories revolving around loyalty, patriotism and identity.

In the debate between liberals and conservatives, there is a powerful alternative that can be offered, or at least this is what Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel argues in his work. That alternative is “liberal communitarianism”, which is a form of liberalism that does away with the obsession of rights but takes claims of morality, religion and community more seriously. Liberals, by virtue of their political reasoning, leave the powerful reservoirs of faith and community to conservatives. Liberals are marginalised because of their inability to appeal to the basic symbols and narratives of our society. So having said all this, a ‘religious left’ is a viable alternative — something that has not been seriously considered among the liberal intelligentsia.

In Jeffery Stout’s book, Democracy and Tradition, there is a very illuminating passage in his conclusion: “If the religious left does not soon recover its energy and self-confidence, it is unlikely that American democracy will be capable of counteracting either the greed of its business elite or the determination of many whites to define the authentic nation in ethnic, racial, or ecclesiastical terms.”

The Right thrive by making questionable claims about faith and community, but since they go unchallenged by the liberals, who hesitate to enter debates about ethics and morality, they stand true and proliferate at an alarming rate. A similar sort of judgement can be made about Pakistani society: that there needs to be a revival of religious liberalism which characterised much of early 20th century Muslim thought, as documented in Charles Kurzman’s works, ]Modernist Islam, 1840-1940: A Sourcebook and Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook.

Liberal democracy is fundamentally a moral project and, together with the input of religious and secular liberals, can be conceived of as an alternative to religious radicalism. We should not be ashamed that liberalism speaks of virtue; in the great work Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism, Peter Berkowitz writes:

“Liberalism’s enthusiasm for virtue has been less well documented. The enthusiasm springs from the understanding that liberty, as a way of life, is an achievement. This achievement demands of individuals speci?c virtues or, to speak less formally, certain qualities of mind and character — such as reflective judgement, sympathetic imagination, self-restraint, the ability to cooperate, and toleration — that do not arise spontaneously but require education and cultivation.”

For example, human rights cannot be separated from moral discussion and ethical philosophy. Why should we adopt human rights? What is the justification for human rights? Why not just let the majority legislate laws against minorities? These questions are left unanswered by liberals. The lack of a moral defence for human rights means that in popular mainstream media, ‘human rights’ is seen as a ‘western innovation’ rather than as a moral bedrock for a progressive democracy.

But ultimately what drives citizens, no matter in which country they reside, is a powerful and accessible notion of the ‘common good’ and ‘citizenship’, tinged with a sense of assured identity and security. Liberals need to take these claims seriously rather than push them aside as merely abnormalities and anomalies that can be ironed out. An ethic of autonomy fashioned out of the multiple narratives of faith, culture and history present in society must take root.

In many ways politics is about justice but one needs to realise that notions of justice are inextricably linked with moral and religious beliefs along with the canons of traditional culture and community. Civic renewal is needed in Pakistan, and it has to start from the bottom up.

Jinnah was, is and will continue to remain important. But liberals must have something else to offer and bring to the table. Appealing to historical memory is important but is not nearly enough. Where are the moral, religious, philosophical, economic and social arguments for a secular state? In a religious society there has to be an attempt to create a religious-based desire for a secular state — it has happened in the US with spectacular success, with the theologian Roger Williams its finest exponent.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He tweets at Ahmad Ali Khalid (@AhmadAliKhalid) on Twitter and can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com

 

[Zarvan]

The Quaid in his speech broadcast on 13, November 1939 said, “Man has indeed been called God’s Caliph in the Quran and if that description of man is to be of any significance it imposes upon us a duty to follow the Quran, to behave towards others as God behaves towards his mankind.” In the same speech he further said, “All social regeneration and political freedom must finally depend on something that has deeper meaning in life. And that, if you allow me to say so, is Islam and Islamic spirit.” The Quaid when asked by the students to give a message said, “You have asked me to give you a message. What message can I give you? We have got the greatest message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”

 

[muse]

In response to Ahmad Ali Khalid's article above, lets examine Mr. Husain's prescription - Where as Mr. Khalid suggests greater attention to a "communitarian Liberalism", Mr. Husain, offers:

Clothes for the empire
By Waris Husain


There are certain inflexible constants that are applied to the analysis of Pakistan and its governance, one being that Islam is an indelible part to the identity of the people and the functions of the state. However, to organise a nation in such a manner not only limits the ability to develop a constitutional legal framework to guarantee rights but it also harms the spiritual body of the religion as well.

The separation of mosque and state can be a process which is individualised to Pakistan, but a process that must take place for the nation to hasten its constitutional and spiritual development. Many of the readers of this column may dismiss such an idea based on their understanding that the Pakistani people and their leaders absolutely value Islamic- based governance. However, the same dependence on religious-based governance and identity existed 200 years prior in the United States. While the case of Asiya Bibi may reveal the frightening religious intolerance embodied in Pakistan, the Salem Witch Trials conducted in the beginning of US saw the death of thousands of women based on Church convictions of “heresy” and “witchcraft”.

The founders realised that if religion was their only unifying principle to form the nation, it would divide the State by giving the majority religion rights at the cost of the minority. James Madison, a founding father, once said, “What influence have [religious] establishments had on Civil Society. In some instances they have been sent to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny….. Rulers who wished to subvert public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries (partners).”

Yet, the link between religion and politics was strong even to the Great Enlightenment philosophers who advocated for the creation of the secular US democracy. Their belief was that every public official would act out of a duty to the State and the Constitution, but would also be dictated by the religious morals engrained in him. George Washington acknowledged the separation of Church and state but also stated that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to political prosperity and that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle".

The dichotomous way of looking at governance as either Westernised/ secular or based on medieval Shariah law forgoes these lessons of America’s history concerning religious identity. The solely religious unifying element of Pakistan’s people has forced the ruling elite and the courts to legitimise all their actions with appeals to faith rather than legal principles. This allows for groups like the Taliban, who challenge the writ of the Pakistani state, to gain acceptance as part of the Islamic brotherhood and Pakistan’s Muslim identity.

Thus, one way describe the benefit of a secular and modern state is to understand that the body of Pakistan may undoubtedly be Islamic for some. However, just as any human body requires clothing to protect itself from the elements, so does a religious-minded public require secular and tolerant policies that provide protection against the political elements.

Just as when individuals put on clothing to protect themselves, their body remains unchanged, a tolerant secular state does not challenge the beliefs in the heart of Pakistani Muslims. Rather, it provides protection for their faith unfettered by political winds. This protection is especially necessary when facing a harsh environment, which well describes a Pakistan beset with economic crises, a war raging across its border, and its flood of international extremists.

Without recognising that the fallacy of obsessively attempting to create an Islamic state devoid of tolerance, the Pakistani Islamists are walking through a cold winter night naked, believing they will not catch pneumonia and die. However, we know that if the body continues to stay in the environment of Pakistan today, it is destined to become sicker and sicker until it meets an unfortunate end. And it would not just symbolise the death of Pakistan, it would be demise of the true components of Islam that compose its body.

The only way for the nation to survive is to cover it with ‘clothing’ — in the form of a governance concerned with constitutional freedoms and equality rather than religious chauvinism. However, such an abrupt alteration to the nation’s status quo may cost leaders the support of followers today in exchange for the admiration of the generations to follow. Individuals like Thomas Jefferson may have forged a secular identity for their religiously minded nation, but even he was called an ‘infidel’ publicly by his competitors and by the England Palladium published in 1800. However, giving clothing to the spiritual body of the empire through the development of legal/ constitutional protections will be essential to the long-term success of Pakistan.

The writer holds a Juris Doctorate in the US and is a researcher on comparative law and international law issues.

 

[Zarvan]

In response to Ahmad Ali Khalid's article above, lets examine Mr. Husain's prescription - Where as Mr. Khalid suggests greater attention to a "communitarian Liberalism", Mr. Husain, offers:

Clothes for the empire
By Waris Husain


There are certain inflexible constants that are applied to the analysis of Pakistan and its governance, one being that Islam is an indelible part to the identity of the people and the functions of the state. However, to organise a nation in such a manner not only limits the ability to develop a constitutional legal framework to guarantee rights but it also harms the spiritual body of the religion as well.

The separation of mosque and state can be a process which is individualised to Pakistan, but a process that must take place for the nation to hasten its constitutional and spiritual development. Many of the readers of this column may dismiss such an idea based on their understanding that the Pakistani people and their leaders absolutely value Islamic- based governance. However, the same dependence on religious-based governance and identity existed 200 years prior in the United States. While the case of Asiya Bibi may reveal the frightening religious intolerance embodied in Pakistan, the Salem Witch Trials conducted in the beginning of US saw the death of thousands of women based on Church convictions of “heresy” and “witchcraft”.

The founders realised that if religion was their only unifying principle to form the nation, it would divide the State by giving the majority religion rights at the cost of the minority. James Madison, a founding father, once said, “What influence have [religious] establishments had on Civil Society. In some instances they have been sent to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny….. Rulers who wished to subvert public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries (partners).”

Yet, the link between religion and politics was strong even to the Great Enlightenment philosophers who advocated for the creation of the secular US democracy. Their belief was that every public official would act out of a duty to the State and the Constitution, but would also be dictated by the religious morals engrained in him. George Washington acknowledged the separation of Church and state but also stated that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to political prosperity and that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle".

The dichotomous way of looking at governance as either Westernised/ secular or based on medieval Shariah law forgoes these lessons of America’s history concerning religious identity. The solely religious unifying element of Pakistan’s people has forced the ruling elite and the courts to legitimise all their actions with appeals to faith rather than legal principles. This allows for groups like the Taliban, who challenge the writ of the Pakistani state, to gain acceptance as part of the Islamic brotherhood and Pakistan’s Muslim identity.

Thus, one way describe the benefit of a secular and modern state is to understand that the body of Pakistan may undoubtedly be Islamic for some. However, just as any human body requires clothing to protect itself from the elements, so does a religious-minded public require secular and tolerant policies that provide protection against the political elements.

Just as when individuals put on clothing to protect themselves, their body remains unchanged, a tolerant secular state does not challenge the beliefs in the heart of Pakistani Muslims. Rather, it provides protection for their faith unfettered by political winds. This protection is especially necessary when facing a harsh environment, which well describes a Pakistan beset with economic crises, a war raging across its border, and its flood of international extremists.

Without recognising that the fallacy of obsessively attempting to create an Islamic state devoid of tolerance, the Pakistani Islamists are walking through a cold winter night naked, believing they will not catch pneumonia and die. However, we know that if the body continues to stay in the environment of Pakistan today, it is destined to become sicker and sicker until it meets an unfortunate end. And it would not just symbolise the death of Pakistan, it would be demise of the true components of Islam that compose its body.

The only way for the nation to survive is to cover it with ‘clothing’ — in the form of a governance concerned with constitutional freedoms and equality rather than religious chauvinism. However, such an abrupt alteration to the nation’s status quo may cost leaders the support of followers today in exchange for the admiration of the generations to follow. Individuals like Thomas Jefferson may have forged a secular identity for their religiously minded nation, but even he was called an ‘infidel’ publicly by his competitors and by the England Palladium published in 1800. However, giving clothing to the spiritual body of the empire through the development of legal/ constitutional protections will be essential to the long-term success of Pakistan.

The writer holds a Juris Doctorate in the US and is a researcher on comparative law and international law issues.

Islam is the only solution for Pakistan and Islamic System will be established

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

Assalam alaikum

farigh log hain sofay per baith ker jo marzi likthay raho. U know u got no appeal.

TARIQ

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

sorry

TARIQ