It was not a random
statement by Maududi, it was a demand put forward by him. The government conceded to his demand.
As for your claim that
In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content, I would ask you to quote a few examples here.
And as for Misaq e Medina, you have copy/pasted stuff from someone's blog without realizing that Misaq e Medina was probably the
first ever constitution/covenant describing a pluralistic society. It described Muslims, Jews and Non Muslims living in Medina as a single Ummah. It granted freedom of religion to all. This Islamic-Secular and Pluralistic covenant/doctrine is an antithesis to Maududi's political theory which demanded a second-class citizen (dhimmi) status for Pakistani Non Muslims..
And that is exactly what I had said in my posts (
#101, #175 and then in
#179). That's why I had been asking you to read carefully what had been posted on the thread alteady. Anyway, thanks for proving me right .... In your post (#183) you said
"... you say Pakistan was not about Western secularism but it's own version of secularism.. seems you are confused on this one." .. Now read what you yourself have posted/pasted here (#233)... Hope that clears up YOUR confusion
Wrong again .... I suggest you read both documents.
Misaq e Medina did not mention that Sovereignty over the entire universe belonged to Allah alone. It accorded equal rights to all, including religious minorities, as equal citizens of the state.
The Objectives Resolution, on the other hand, attempted to establish nationhood in Pakistan through religious conformity. This meant that the laws and regulations would be framed in accordance with Islam, exposing the vulnerable communities of the new state to religious exploitation. It did not accord equal rights to all. It was inline with Maududi's political theory, and it completely ignored Jinnah's
Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind ..
Yes, it DOES matter. Whatever anyone does in his private life is no one else's concern, but when a
politician enacts Islamic laws in a country for political reasons only when there is nothing Islamic about him or his lifestyle, it does make him a hypocrite. We don't have a problem with Islam,
"Prostitution of Islam to meet political ends" is something else
I have posted enough on this topic already. And it's there for everyone to see. So, let's leave it to the readers to decide. No point in going round in circles now.
You should have been more clear then. You said "before sending him to gallows" and AFAIK, he
was sentenced to death (later commuted) in 1953 only. Correct me if I am wrong.
And when did I say he was upset on the new constitution ?? (which was enacted 8 years after his death anyway)
Jinnah had lost hope towards the end of his life. I quoted his doctor and his official biographer.
My advice for you is to carefully read/follow the discussion before quoting/replying.
Thank You
As for your claim that In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content, I would ask you to quote a few examples here.
A sovereign power has 'absolute' sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control.
Prior to written constitutionalism, it was Islamic law/Quran which had historically existed as a kind of natural, higher law “constitution” that constrained and limited temporal authority (of caliph) in different times of Muslim world esp. during Ummayads an Abbasids time , when they were bound to consult Quran in case of a conflict So they themselves were never absolutely sovereign but it was the shariah law that could supersede all the secondary legislation for governance.
For muslim world the debate was always between divine sovereignty (aristocracy to west)and the kings sovereignty. The peoples sovereignty was only discussed much later after 'the renaissance' yet the the first modern time written constitution of Muslim world in 1876 ignored the popular sovereignty on the apex.Throughout the Ottoman empire the overriding law of the empire was the Shariia which as the divine law of Islam and was outside of the Sultan's powers to change so the islamic law always had the supremacy in their case call it absolute sovereignty of Allah or Islam or Quran/Shariia they are all in essence the same thing.
Misaq e Medina did not mention that Sovereignty over the entire universe belonged to Allah alone. It accorded equal rights to all, including religious minorities, as equal citizens of the state.
And similarly i quoted in my last post about misaq-e-madina where it asks the ruler to consult quran and hadith in matters of conflict and i had put that in bold but i guess you missed that.BTW I have not just merely copy/pasted, i have give a reference as well.
The Objectives Resolution, on the other hand, attempted to establish nationhood in Pakistan through religious conformity. This meant that the laws and regulations would be framed in accordance with Islam, exposing the vulnerable communities of the new state to religious exploitation. It did not accord equal rights to all. It was inline with Maududi's political theory, and it completely ignored Jinnah's Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind ..
Correction..Laws and regulations against Islam wont be enacted for legislature.
-.Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed. They include equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality. (Muslim/ Non Muslim alike)
-Adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes.
-Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely progress and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
Jinnah's
Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind.
Your "claim" that Objective Resolution reiterates what Maududi asked for.
Perhaps you missed that Muadudi asked for complete sovereignty of Pakistan (only) to be vested in Allah.
Whereas the Objective Resolution very cleverly puts it as "absolute soverignty over the entire universe", ofcourse they could have put it as " whole world " instead but they didnt want to make it sound like we were born to conquer the world. Maududi thought otherwise ofcourse.
Also thats not the only thing Muadudi asked to include.There were three other points.
1.
That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in Allah Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign‟s Will.
2.
That Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.
3.
That all existing or future legislation contravene, whether in letter or in spirit the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of constitution.
4.
That the power of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of Islamic Sariaih alone
May i ask if Maududi was really a darling why the other three points werent added to the Objective resolution?
And that is exactly what I had said in my posts (#101, #175 and then in #179). That's why I had been asking you to read carefully what had been posted on the thread alteady. Anyway, thanks for proving me right .... In your post (#183) you said "... you say Pakistan was not about Western secularism but it's own version of secularism.. seems you are confused on this one." .. Now read what you yourself have posted/pasted here (#233)... Hope that clears up YOUR confusion
Proving you right? how? you have been advocating the western notion of secularism( zero interference of religion in state ) and not exactly the absence of clergy in decision making.
While those discussing it back then in the assembly had an idea there would be confused minds that need to understand that a particular aspect of secularism is being adopted .
Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi further while debating the resolution in Assembly: Since Islam admits of no priest craft, and since the dictionary meaning of the term "secular" is non-monastic -- that is, "anything which is not dependent upon the sweet will of the priests,"Islamic democracy, far from being theocracy, could in a sense be characterized as being"secular." However, he believed that if the word "secular" means that the ideals of Islam, that the fundamental principles of religion, that the ethical outlook which religion inculcates in our people should not be observed, then, I am afraid,...that kind of secular democracy can never be acceptable to us in Pakistan."
Yes, it DOES matter. Whatever anyone does in his private life is no one else's concern, but when a politician enacts Islamic laws in a country for political reasons only when there is nothing Islamic about him or his lifestyle, it does make him a hypocrite. We don't have a problem with Islam, "Prostitution of Islam to meet political ends" is something else
Well thats your conclusion for Liaquat Ali Khan or others with him that they were not following Religion.Maybe God forgives his sins for some other good deed you dont even know about. How exactly will you conclude they are momineen enough to pass a resolution Islamic in nature? this shouldnt even be debated considering we dont really know the degree of truth in it.
Liaquat Ali Khan while debating in assembly: "the Muslim League has only fulfilled half of its mission (and that) the other half of its mission is to convert Pakistan into a laboratory where we could experiment upon the principles of Islam to enable us to make a contribution to the peace and progress of mankind."
"Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remindthe house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings onthis matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation inunmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today.
@ Topic
Pakistan-Turkey relationship was there way before the first world war.
For those interested please read this resource.
https://www.academia.edu/6380410/Ottoman-Mughal_Political_Relations_circa_1500-1923
