Pakistan, Turkey friendship rooted in history: Ayaz

[muhammadali233]

@hellfire twe
@SarthakGanguly

A meaningless, vapid thread.

I noted with some amusement @hellfire 's enthusiasm on discovering this aspect of Jinnah. Ataturk was a very strong influence on him, and my amusement is due both to his lack of awareness of this very basic characteristic, and equally to the ignorance of all on this thread of the direct and fundamental contradiction encapsulated in this personal history.

When Gandhi supported the Ali Brothers in the Khilafat Movement, it was Jinnah who warned him, in vehement terms, not to introduce religion into the body politic. Look up that dire warning, and read for yourself the force and passion with which this essentially secular person cautioned Gandhi. We can safely say that this terrible step by Gandhi laid the foundation for the forthcoming alliance between the conservative Muslim and the ulama and the Congress, an alliance that led to their calling Pakistan Paleetistan, and jeering at Jinnah as the Kaffir-e-Azam. One of the main culprits was Maulana Maudoodi, about whom my limited vocabulary will fail to do justice; only the acid pen of a Yassir Latif Hamdani can adequately deal with it.

Meanwhile what has been described in a brilliant word as the Muslim 'salariat', led by the graduates of the Aligarh Muslim University, lined up with the Muslim League, as they saw a direct competition developing between them and educated Hindus for the loaves and fishes of office. They were leaderless and ineffective, except for British efforts to maintain their presence with tactful attention to the rules, and a positive disposition towards Muslims, until Jinnah returned from his self-imposed exile in Britain, upon which the movement caught fire and moved from strength to strength. It was at this point that the British Viceroys, from Linlithgow onwards, heaved a monumental sigh of relief and hauled up the Muslim League to a position of parity with the Congress, led, as always, by a completely unpredictable and idiosyncratic Gandhi.

It is interesting to note what a huge impact on the sub-continent these two Kutchis had.

To return to the point, Jinnah's vision was close to Ataturk's vision; both lie in ruins now. Ataturk has been betrayed by Erdogan and the return of Islamism to Turkey, and the current defeat of the Army, not necessarily a secularist Army, but possibly one affiliated to a different strand of Islamism, one opposed to Erdogan. Jinnah was betrayed in very short order; the nascent state left him to die in a broken-down ambulance, and soon moved to the Basic Objects resolution, which betrayed all his hopes and aspirations for his nation, including his faith in a confederation once the bitterness was over, and to the renegade Maududi's persecution of the Ahmedis, which led to a sentence of death for several crimes, a sentence never executed.

As a staunch admirer of Jinnah, not a blind admirer, but one who sees his greatness and his vision with admiration, while saddened at the loss of his great mind to the greater cause of south Asian progress and development for a narrow purpose which today makes no sense whatsoever, I am also wholly contemptuous of these hedge scholars who seek to co-opt him and his charismatic memory for their own narrow purposes.

A few days ago, a senior, sober, thoughtful member put up a book review on Churchill and the Muslim world; I forget the name. It was a brilliant review, by an obviously scholastically accomplished faculty member at LUMS, which might easily be described as IIM Lahore. I have already pointed out to a select few the harsh and dismissive terms in which that author deals with the illusions that our little shallow students have been hurling at us with the accompaniment of football fan vocabularies and barnyard imitations. Why @hellfire and @SarthakGanguly (whom I respect intellectually and socially as much as I detest his political alignment) bother to get into the drain to fight these battles I have yet to understand. I hope I never do.

Your SAT score must be above 2401?

I dont think there is any commonality between Ataturk and Jinnah.
Ataturk was nationalist and secular. Know the danger of keeping Islam in politics.

While in totally reverse, Jinnah brought religion in politics and even demanded separate electorate. Sorry, but Jinnah supported the Two Nation Theory, and its a disgrace to call his vision close to Ataturk .

Dont you think? these guys were opportunist that even dumped there nationalism into gutter?

A man in 1904 write "Sare Jahan se accha hindustan humara", and after Tagore won the Nobel, suddenly he started to say we cant live with these black ugly people?

Jinnah wanted a state on haterness, and he got one.

yup.
You must be from "Jinnahs country",cause what you wrote was hate speech.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Brilliant post. I don't know why you sell yourself short.

But then why was Jinnah so ambiguous about this business of state religion and the framework of constitution? He was obviously smart enough to know that the Muslim population was not enlightened enough to comprehend or conform to his views about the compatibility of Quran and Islamic values with a secular and contemporary constitution. Your average conservative Abdullah does not understand or accept the idea of sending a convicted thief to a correctional facility (instead of amputation) and with the fact that in doing so you're adhering to the spirit of the Quranic law but only in a manner that is more desirable and productive and one that would've been impossible to replicate in a Medieval state. So why not liberally use the term secularism along with liberty and equality when referring to the in-the-works constitution?

@Oscar @Azlan Haider

The problem was that he had to struggle to unite south Asian Muslims behind the idea of a protected territory (if one goes with Ayesha Jalal's reconstruction of his latter days). Please remember that his support base was UP and Bombay, and that the Punjab, the NWFP and even, to some extent, Sindh, was quite lukewarm or even disinclined towards the Muslim League. Bengal had its own share of mavericks, and he could not rely on either the impulsive Fazlul Haq or the faintly sinister Suhrawardy. That is why - I am borrowing this liberally from YLH, who is probably the greatest Jinnah expert other than Professor Jalal - he had to trim and hedge.

Please remember that he had diagnosed the problem as not being solvable by separate seats, or even by a separate electorate. He took it one step further, and proposed an artificially equated partnership of sub-states: even though the Muslims did not match the numbers of the Hindus, they were to get equal authority and power, embodied in equally empowered zones which would be two of them Muslim majority, in the north-west and in the east, and one of them would be a Hindu majority.

It was this that he hoped would protect the Muslim community from being drowned in a flood of Hindus. It was NOT, at that stage, IF one is to continue to go by Jalal's analysis, a question of an independent Pakistan. Even as late as the Cabinet Mission of 1946, he was willing to work within a confederation, consisting of these three zones.

To do all this, he had to be able to demonstrate to the British that he spoke for all the Muslims of south Asia. He had to defeat the conservative Muslim ulama, which in any case, thoroughly detested him and the idea of Pakistan, but at the same time, he had to capture the imaginations of all sub-continental Muslims, and not allow any of them to break away and support, as did Azad, the Congress.

That is why he had to be more royalist than the King.

Even then, when some smart alec stood up at a Muslim League meeting, and announced that he and his supporters had very successfully propagated the slogan,"Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Illaha ill Allah", a furious Jinnah thundered, "Sit down! Sit down! Neither the Muslim League Working Committee nor I ever passed a resolution [called] 'Pakistan ka matlab kya' — you may have used it to catch a few votes,” to the consternation of the poor idiot who thought he had done a particularly smart thing. His great fan, the Raja of Mahmoodabad, admitted in later life that he was terribly wrong, and Jinnah was right about Muslim fanaticism, as opposed to Muslim unity.

Unfortunately, this had its own consequences. The Congress grew leary of him and of his enthusiastic but rather mentally limited Liaqat Ali Khan, and their willingness to face challenges jointly. The ultimate, disastrous result was that while Gandhi was playing his own peculiar mind-games with himself, and Nehru and Patel were in charge of the Congress, the Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

This shock left Jinnah with no choice but to then fall back and demand what he had been threatening the Hindus with - an independent Pakistan. And it also acquired a momentum of its own; once he stopped havering, as he had essentially been doing, and it became clear that he was dead serious about Pakistan, the Punjab fell into line, the Unionists rapidly dissolved, and Sikandar Hayat Khan had no option but to align himself with the Muslim League.

This was the breakthrough.

The NWFP, isolated from the rest of the Congress strongholds, was abandoned by the Congress, "....thrown to the wolves", in Bacha Khan's poignant phrase, and a plebiscite gerrymandered, with a restricted electorate and precisely the number of disqualified votes needed for a 51 to 49 majority for the League, so that the Congress government was over-ruled (it continued for some more time, and one of the most high-handed acts of Jinnah's rule as the Governor General was the arbitrary dismissal of the Congress government.

I hope this gives you a flavour of the situation.

So, a great family always born genius, never idiots. If you don't know there is word called evolution.

Afterall Rahul Gandhi also born in a great family.

What makes you think that we evolve upwards and improve ourselves?

Look at you.

Don't you think Mr. Jinnah was of idea of united India - as he joined Congress first. But after seeing agenda and attitude of Congress, he decided to leave it and join Muslim League for Muslims...

Congress alienated Jinnah to such extent.....Mr. Jinnah wanted to save minority's rights so he gone for separate homeland. No? I don't think he just wanted to have separate homeland for Muslims in his hatred of Hindus....He might have seen that the interests of Muslims will not be safe under Congress and thus gone for Muslim league.

Not exactly.

The Congress was hijacked from under him and his mentor Gokhale. Although Gandhi made specific promises to both of them about the Friends of India Society, he broke every single promise.

So, a great family always born genius, never idiots. If you don't know there is word called evolution.

Afterall Rahul Gandhi also born in a great family.

Ah, the paw under the door!

And this Sanghi claims he is Muslim. LOL.

1966 hit.

Oh shucks. But then I was dodging the Naxals and my Dad's policemen. Both imprisoned me for short spells of a few hours each, the former to face a Gono Adaalat.

Your SAT score must be above 2401?


yup.
You must be from "Jinnahs country",cause what you wrote was hate speech.

Why are you beating me up? What's a SAT score of above 2401? Is that good or bad? I can guess it isn't very nice, but tell me anyway.

 

[Hellfire]

So, a great family always born genius, never idiots. If you don't know there is word called evolution.

Afterall Rahul Gandhi also born in a great family.

You do realise you are coming out as a fool, I hope? But then, if not, unlucky you!

Common sense was neither a constitutional right nor something exclusive to any human being, it is only something someone has to work hard to loose. You seem well on your way.

Good and better members than you are guiding you if you want the knowledge (not me, they are guiding me also), cutting across national boundaries. But, your ignorance and the baseless aura of your 'invincibility' in knowledge stemming out of it, blinds you to researching and correcting facts FOR YOURSELF!

As for me, my usage of tricolor: it is my right, my pride and a constitutional authorisation, something which, men and women far better than you, have laid down their lives and/or dedicated it to defend the same.

 

[RAMPAGE]

The problem was that he had to struggle to unite south Asian Muslims behind the idea of a protected territory (if one goes with Ayesha Jalal's reconstruction of his latter days). Please remember that his support base was UP and Bombay, and that the Punjab, the NWFP and even, to some extent, Sindh, was quite lukewarm or even disinclined towards the Muslim League. Bengal had its own share of mavericks, and he could not rely on either the impulsive Fazlul Haq or the faintly sinister Suhrawardy. That is why - I am borrowing this liberally from YLH, who is probably the greatest Jinnah expert other than Professor Jalal - he had to trim and hedge.

Please remember that he had diagnosed the problem as not being solvable by separate seats, or even by a separate electorate. He took it one step further, and proposed an artificially equated partnership of sub-states: even though the Muslims did not match the numbers of the Hindus, they were to get equal authority and power, embodied in equally empowered zones which would be two of them Muslim majority, in the north-west and in the east, and one of them would be a Hindu majority.

It was this that he hoped would protect the Muslim community from being drowned in a flood of Hindus. It was NOT, at that stage, IF one is to continue to go by Jalal's analysis, a question of an independent Pakistan. Even as late as the Cabinet Mission of 1946, he was willing to work within a confederation, consisting of these three zones.

To do all this, he had to be able to demonstrate to the British that he spoke for all the Muslims of south Asia. He had to defeat the conservative Muslim ulama, which in any case, thoroughly detested him and the idea of Pakistan, but at the same time, he had to capture the imaginations of all sub-continental Muslims, and not allow any of them to break away and support, as did Azad, the Congress.

That is why he had to be more royalist than the King.

Even then, when some smart alec stood up at a Muslim League meeting, and announced that he and his supporters had very successfully propagated the slogan,"Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Illaha ill Allah", a furious Jinnah thundered, "Sit down! Sit down! Neither the Muslim League Working Committee nor I ever passed a resolution [called] 'Pakistan ka matlab kya' — you may have used it to catch a few votes,” to the consternation of the poor idiot who thought he had done a particularly smart thing. His great fan, the Raja of Mahmoodabad, admitted in later life that he was terribly wrong, and Jinnah was right about Muslim fanaticism, as opposed to Muslim unity.

Unfortunately, this had its own consequences. The Congress grew leary of him and of his enthusiastic but rather mentally limited Liaqat Ali Khan, and their willingness to face challenges jointly. The ultimate, disastrous result was that while Gandhi was playing his own peculiar mind-games with himself, and Nehru and Patel were in charge of the Congress, the Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

This shock left Jinnah with no choice but to then fall back and demand what he had been threatening the Hindus with - an independent Pakistan. And it also acquired a momentum of its own; once he stopped havering, as he had essentially been doing, and it became clear that he was dead serious about Pakistan, the Punjab fell into line, the Unionists rapidly dissolved, and Sikandar Hayat Khan had no option but to align himself with the Muslim League.

This was the breakthrough.

The NWFP, isolated from the rest of the Congress strongholds, was abandoned by the Congress, "....thrown to the wolves", in Bacha Khan's poignant phrase, and a plebiscite gerrymandered, with a restricted electorate and precisely the number of disqualified votes needed for a 51 to 49 majority for the League, so that the Congress government was over-ruled (it continued for some more time, and one of the most high-handed acts of Jinnah's rule as the Governor General was the arbitrary dismissal of the Congress government.

I hope this gives you a flavour of the situation.

Of course he had to let the romantics continue their fascination with a potential Islamic state and keep the Mullah biradri in line but he had the field to himself after 15th august. Why not clear the misconceptions then?

It's time I looked into this Ayesha Jalal.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Of course he had to let the romantics continue their fascination with a potential Islamic state and keep the Mullah biradri in line but he had the field to himself after 15th august. Why not clear the misconceptions then?

It's time I looked into this Ayesha Jalal.

Did you know that the Pakistanis had no money for pins, and kept their papers together with thorns? Worked in Nissen Huts? Had no money for arms and ammunition? If India had invaded, it was all over. And this sick, dying man, whose doctor had told him the score, had to keep the whole damn' thing together.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Did you know that the Pakistanis had no money for pins, and kept their papers together with thorns? Worked in Nissen Huts? Had no money for arms and ammunition? If India had invaded, it was all over. And this sick, dying man, whose doctor had told him the score, had to keep the whole damn' thing together.

Now you're disappointing me, Joe.

What exactly was stopping him from using the term secularism in his statements given after the partition and especially those regarding the constitution. Surely not the lack of pins and paper. That's what I would like to know.

 

[Hellfire]

@Joe Shearer

I recall somewhere that MK Gandhi had termed the partition as a temporary measure and was planning to work to remerge the two nations again .... Was it Shourie? Just cant recall, history not being my forte

 

[M. Sarmad]

.

While in totally reverse, Jinnah brought religion in politics .

"Jinnah left the Home Rule League and the Congress after Gandhi took them over because he (Jinnah) strongly disapproved of the introduction of religion into politics by Gandhi, and because he disapproved equally strongly of unconstitutional means to secure swaraj." H.M. Seervai -- Legend and Reality, p.169

"Jinnah had told him that he (Gandhi) had ruined politics in India by dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements in Indian life and giving them political prominence, that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he (Gandhi) had done." Transfer of Power Documents, Vol.VI, p. 617

"Jinnah, however, warned Gandhiji not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers. Indeed, he was not the only person who foresaw danger in the Khilafat Movement." K.M. Munshi, Pilgrimage to Freedom -- p. 22


In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru ‘Gandhi was essentially a man of religion, a Hindu to the inner-most depths of his being [Jawahar Lal Nehru, The Discovery of India, 7th ed. Lahore, 1968, p. 307]

In the words of Jinnah : Gandhi was the one man responsible for turning the Congress into an instrument for the revival of Hinduism’ [Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad, ed., Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah Vol. I, p. 77.]

Gandhi played cleverly on the religious superstitions of the ignorant and poverty-stricken millions of India and got away with it [Kanji Dwarkadas, India’s Fight for Freedom 1913-1937 An Eye-witness Story, Bombay, 1966, p. 103]



Gandhi did not like Jinnah from day 1 . Jinnah welcomed Gandhi when he came to India in 1915 . Below is an excerpt from Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence; by Jaswant Singh; one of the founder members, of BJP.



Although the families of both Jinnah and Gandhi had once lived just about 40 miles or so apart in Kathiawar (Gujarat), this adjacency of their places of origin did nothing to bring their politics close together. At their very first meeting, at the Gurjar Sabha in January 1915, convened to felicitate Gandhi upon his return from South Africa, in response to a welcome speech, with Jinnah presiding, Gandhi had somewhat accommodatingly said he was 'glad to find a Muslim not only belonging to his own region's sabha but chairing it.' Gandhi had singled out Jinnah as a Muslim, though, neither in appearance or in conduct was Jinnah anywhere near to being any of the stereotypes of the religious identity ascribed by Gandhi. Jinnah, on the other hand, was far more fulsome in his praise.

Gandhi had reached India by boat in January 1915 when many leaders, including Jinnah and Gokhale, went to Bombay to give him an ovatious welcome. By this date Jinnah had already engaged as an all India leader and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the Muslims and the Hindus, Extremists and Moderates, but also among various classes of India. To receive Gandhi, Jinnah had forsaken attending the Madras Congress meet of 1914. Gandhi, upon reaching Bombay, had been warmly welcomed by Jinnah who wanted to enlist his services for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. It was because of his popularity and standing that Jinnah had been invited to preside over a garden party given by the Gurjar Sabha, an association of the Gurjar (Gujar) community, arranged to welcome Mr and Mrs Gandhi, on his arrival on 13 January 1915.

In his presidential address, Jinnah 'welcomed... Mr and Mrs Gandhi, not only on behalf of Bombay but on behalf of the whole of India.' He impressed upon Gandhi that the greatest problem was 'to bring about unanimity and co-operation between the two communities so that the demands of India (from Imperial Britain) may be made absolutely unanimously.' For this he desired 'that frame of mind, that state, that condition which they had to bring about between the two communities, when most of their problems, he had no doubt, would easily be solved.' Jinnah went to the extent of saying: 'Undoubtedly he [Gandhi] would not only become a worthy ornament but also a real worker whose equals there were very few.' This remark was greatly applauded by a largely Hindu audience, accounts of that meeting report. Gandhi, however, was cautious and somewhat circuitous in his response. He took the plea that he would study all the Indian questions from 'his own point of view,' a reasonable enough assertion; also because Gokhale had advised him to study the situation for at least a year before entering politics. This, too, was all right but then, needlessly, he thanked Jinnah for presiding over a Hindu gathering. This was an ungracious and discouraging response to Jinnah's warm welcome and had a dampening effect.

Gandhi, somewhat hesitant at first, could, in that early phase, see no other route but of following Gokhale, Jinnah and some of the other moderate leaders. This was also because (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak had also, by then, come around to the moderate line. Gandhi did cooperate with all of them, but only until about 1920, after which he clearly became the prominent voice and position. Besides, by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who 'exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.' This was the period when the British government, very concerned about Jinnah, his Hindu-Muslim unity moves, was endeavouring hard to keep the All India Muslim League away from the Indian National Congress

=================

@PaklovesTurkiye


The Khilafat movement actually divided the Muslims further. The first anti-Khilafat announcement was made by the Nizam of Hyderabad on 22 May 1920. His "firman" stated that since the Khilafat was an anti-Muslim movement it was henceforth declared illegal. Khilafat Movement had sectarian undertones. Later it was supported by different politicians (for political purposes) . Maulana Abdul Bari founded "Bazm e Sufiya e Hind" in 1913 which was active against the Wahabis , who were demolishing holy shrines in Hijaz (Mecca/Medina) , and supported the Sunni Ottoman caliphate against Wahabis . Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Maulana Shaukat Ali , the leading figures of Khilafat movement came from his Madrassah e Nizami . Sir Agha Khan and Sir Ibrahim Harun Jafar joined the Movement later (for political gains) .

Gandhi`s support of Khilafat movement led it to gain much popularity. But it was a dangerous political move as Gandhi and Congress were directly supporting "Pan Islamism" and thus indirectly supporting future "Pakistan Movement"; Indian Muslims supported Turkish Muslims on the basis of same religion only i.e Islam. When Gandhi withdrew his support,the leaders of Tehreek e Khilafat saw it as "Congress betraying Muslims " so they joined Muslim League and later on played a very important (anti-Congress) role in Pakistan Movement .


Allama Muhammad Iqbal came to know that his nephew(Sheikh Ijaz) was willing to join Khilafat Movement, He wrote to his brother Sheikh Ata Muhammad (father of Ijaz), on Dec 14 1921 (rough translation):

"........ Members of Khilafat committee are not trustworthy, they might appear to be passionate Muslims, but in reality are "brothers of Satan(devil)" . That is why I resigned from the post of secretary Punjab of khilafat movement . The reasons behind my resignation should not be made public, if I did that, people would be really shocked ."

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now you're disappointing me, Joe.

What exactly was stopping him from using the term secularism in his statements given after the partition and especially those regarding the constitution. Surely not the lack of pins and paper. That's what I would like to know.

He did. Indirectly. But he was simultaneously facing a challenge from the rapid turning of their coats by the fundamentalists, and even by the hooraws of his own party. Maududi came across around that time; I'm not too clear about the sequence, but this was the ferment going on. And he had other problems besides; the East Pakistanis were getting edgy about the language policy. So it was a combination of all this that kept him from a blunt declaration and kept him punting the ball, playing for time. And time was the one thing that he didn't have.

 

[RAMPAGE]

He did. Indirectly. But he was simultaneously facing a challenge from the rapid turning of their coats by the fundamentalists, and even by the hooraws of his own party. Maududi came across around that time; I'm not too clear about the sequence, but this was the ferment going on. And he had other problems besides; the East Pakistanis were getting edgy about the language policy. So it was a combination of all this that kept him from a blunt declaration and kept him punting the ball, playing for time. And time was the one thing that he didn't have.

Indirectly! That's the thing. Didn't do us much good, did it?

 

[M. Sarmad]

@RAMPAGE

Jinnah was absolutely clear on what he was doing ... :

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" irrespective of religion, caste,ethnicity etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" (In Jinnah's own words)... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were diametrically opposed in their interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal believed was the "true spirit" of Islam, that was considered "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah where he has talked about Islam, but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah`s definition of Islam with Mullah`s definition of Islam (which is opposite to Jinnah`s def.) ... The result is that one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... Truth is, the only hypocrites are the Mullahs and the conservatives ... Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

Dr. Javed Iqbal (Allama Iqbal`s son) explains this in the following words ...... it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indirectly! That's the thing. Didn't do us much good, did it?

You don't need me to reply. The Expert on Everything has turned up.

 

[RAMPAGE]

@RAMPAGE

Jinnah was absolutely clear on what he was doing ... :

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" , irrespective of religion , caste etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" ... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were diametrically opposed in their interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal believed to be the "true spirit" of Islam was considered "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah where he has talked about Islam, but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah`s definition of Islam with Mullah`s definition of Islam (which is opposite to Jinnah`s def.) ... The result is that one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... Truth is, the only hypocrites are the Mullahs and the conservatives ... Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

Dr. Javed Iqbal (Allama Iqbal`s son) explains this in the following words ...... it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state.

All that has already been established. What Jinnah thought and what people think he thought are two very different things. And that's something I would blame Jinnah for unless given reason to believe otherwise. My argument is that Jinnah was too ambiguous. He was smart enough to understand that and yet he didn't came out and use the term secularism. It was not as if the term was unheard of.

You don't need me to reply. The Expert on Everything has turned up.

Lets not do this.

I desperately need answers and I don't care how I get them.

Chor ka bhai chor hi hota hai... You only find friends like you are deep inside

Hum aapki lardkiaan nahi chori kartay bhai. Khud hi aa jati hain bhaikia karen.

 

[M. Sarmad]

All that has already been established. What Jinnah thought and what people think he thought are two very different things. And that's something I would blame Jinnah for unless given reason to believe otherwise. My argument is that Jinnah was too ambiguous. He was smart enough to understand that and yet he didn't came out and use the term secularism. It was not as if the term was unheard of.

Jinnah (and Iqbal too) didn't want Western Secularism, He wanted to establish a modern Islamic democratic welfare state where all citizens of the state, in accordance with the Islamic fundamental principles of equality and liberty, would be free to practice their religion without any interference from the state (thus making that Muslim State essentially secular in character).

 

[Hellfire]

@RAMPAGE @Azlan Haider

Members, I will post the link to a discussion held in 2011. Just found it. May I request add from there?

https://defence.pk/threads/why-gandhi-supported-kalifah-movement-and-jinnah-didnt.89905/

@Joe Shearer I recall you addressing it earlier. But could not recall the year. Found it