Secular and Nationalist Jinnah Review

[Taygibay]

Ismaili Imam HH Agha Khan was the first president of Muslim League and he occupied this position for 7 years. The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was also a Shia. Followers of Taliban / Wahhabis /Salafi factions kill the Shia & the Ismailis considering it Allah’s work. How could the founding fathers even think of creating a country where they would have their throats cut?

I'm sorry my good mate but I'm at at loss with that part.

Wouldn't a secular state protect those minorities better?
Are you saying that both of these founding Fathers and
also the presence of a Turner indicate an initial state at
the very least of qaum-type community?

And if that is indeed what you meant, does it not posit
that what is called Pakistan today had its inception not
to say true independence in 1971 ... more than in '47?


I'm also under the disturbing impression that islamic &
muslim are seemingly interchangeable in some excerpts
and which is more dismaying in some posts.

Let's hope it's only my ignorance at play.

Great day Niaz and all, Tay.

 

[Vapnope]

Following.

 

[python-000]

Yea you must live in your narrow minded world full of illiteracy.No need to face the truth,no need to correct what is wrong.Be a sheep who just follow the herd.
Instead give that Rs 1000 to a madrasa as a donation which trains a suicide bombers who will later blow up your fellow normal Pakistanis.
Even it if takes a bloody revolution pakistan must need to get rid from people like you.

oh so in your thinking the two nation theory was wrong what kind of people are you there are several tv channels projecting the same strategy in Pakistan

 

[niaz]

I'm sorry my good mate but I'm at at loss with that part.

Wouldn't a secular state protect those minorities better?
Are you saying that both of these founding Fathers and
also the presence of a Turner indicate an initial state at
the very least of qaum-type community?

And if that is indeed what you meant, does it not posit
that what is called Pakistan today had its inception not
to say true independence in 1971 ... more than in '47?


I'm also under the disturbing impression that islamic &
muslim are seemingly interchangeable in some excerpts
and which is more dismaying in some posts.

Let's hope it's only my ignorance at play.

Great day Niaz and all, Tay.

In my view Islam & Muslim are two different things. Most Pakistanis such as I are Muslim because we are born to Muslim parents.

Mohammed Abduh is a famous scholar from a famous Islamic University. Mohammed Abduh was granted the degree of 'Alim ("teacher") in 1877and later employed as a teacher of logic, theology and ethics at al-Azhar. In 1878, he was also appointed professor of history at Cairo's Darul Ulum permit me to use his famous saying:

“I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam.”

― Muhammad Abduh

(1849-1905)
Sheikh Muhammad Abduh
Head of Islamic Verdict Body (Mufti) In Egypt & Most Islamic Countries.


IMO in addition to copying the holy prophet (PBUH) in sporting correct length of the beard, wearing higher than ankle dress and observing regular prayers and fasting, Islam also involves practicing the Islamic virtues like honesty/fair dealing, justice, courtesy, courage, charity, kindness, patience, perseverance, righteousness and prudence. Regrettably most of my countrymen lack the virtues which represent the spirit of Islam. Whatever Sheikh Mohammed Abduh observed at the dawn of the 20th century with reference to Egypt is very true at the dawn of 21st century for most of Pakistani Muslims.

Majority of the religious leaders of the subcontinent considered All India Muslim League and her leaders such as Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (reportedly member of Freemasons), Agha Khan and the Quaid as ‘Westernised Elite’ lacking the knowledge and thus moral authority to create an Islamic State. For example Maulana Maudoodi wrote

“To pronounce these people fit for leading Muslims for the simple reason that they are experts of Western type politics and masters of Western organizational arts, and are deeply in love with their people, is a manifestation of an unIslamic viewpoint and reflects ignorance of Islam”. (Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” P.70)

Even Ch. Rahmat Ali, the man credited with giving Pakistan its name, believed that by agreeing to the terms of June 3 Plan, Jinnah had sold out the Muslim “Millet” and therefore had played the role of an agent of the Hindus and the British.

The point I am trying to make is that current belief of the people brainwashed by the extremist ideology that Pakistan was meant to be an Islamic State like that of Saudi Arabia is totally incorrect. How can westernized leaders of Muslim League intend to create a fundamentalist Islamic State?

Another point that you raised was wouldn’t a secular state protect minorities better. Sadly No; at least in the case of the subcontinent because of the mind-set of the people.

India is a declared secular state, but we see attacks on Muslims and Christians by the Shiv Sena and BJP/RSS karsaveks. Babri masjid was demolished by BJP karsaveks in presence of the police sent to safeguard the same.

The bitter truth being that despite having laws and the court decrees; majority will always have a tendency to persecute the minority primarily because most of the lawyers, judges and the police also belong to the majority community. Pakistani laws also guarantee minorities freedom to practice their religion but the churches are bombed and PTI gov't of Imran Khan donates Rs 300-million to the breeding school of the extremists.

No need to change Pakistan into a secular state; what is needed is to find an antidote to the poison of extremism nourished by the bigot Zia ul Haq and now cherished by the extremist sympathisers.

 

[SecularNationalist]

oh so in your thinking the two nation theory was wrong what kind of people are you there are several tv channels projecting the same strategy in Pakistan

Two nation theory in those circumstances was 100% right and i support it because jinnah supported it as well but putting religion into the constitution and eroding the secular values of our founding father was wrong.

 

[Taygibay]

Okay @niaz, we're on the same track.

My remark was not about you but that
quote and precision were very welcome.

The Jinnah part I knew and agree with
but I might have undervalued the Desi
mindset that you brought forth. It is
important to note however, that I also
put extra weight on a secular state.

That's what being from a nation that
had its religious wars prior to becoming
a secular state & already had the ability
to enforce such laws will do to a point of
view.

Sorry for the interruption;
thanks for the answer, Tay.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Sharing a true historical event.
According a raja of mehmoodabad in 1926 when he was just a young boy he met jinnah at a political meeting.Jinnah first asked him about his studies etc and later asked him "are you a muslim first or a indian first?"
Raja said at that time i did not understand the deep meaning and implication of his question and said i am a muslim first.Jinnah replied back in angry tone "No my boy you are indian first"

 

[Enigma_]

Sharing a true historical event.
According a raja of mehmoodabad in 1926 when he was just a young boy he met jinnah at a political meeting.Jinnah first asked him about his studies etc and later asked him "are you a muslim first or a indian first?"
Raja said at that time i did not understand the deep meaning and implication of his question and said i am a muslim first.Jinnah replied back in angry tone "No my boy you are indian first"

If I was there my answer would've been why can't he be both? Allegiance to faith does not mean you cannot pledge allegiance to your nation.

 

[El Sidd]

Sharing a true historical event.
According a raja of mehmoodabad in 1926 when he was just a young boy he met jinnah at a political meeting.Jinnah first asked him about his studies etc and later asked him "are you a muslim first or a indian first?"
Raja said at that time i did not understand the deep meaning and implication of his question and said i am a muslim first.Jinnah replied back in angry tone "No my boy you are indian first"

Fascinating

People keep telling me i am Pakistani first.

Ye tu khula tazaad hai

 

[SecularNationalist]

If I was there my answer would've been why can't he be both? Allegiance to faith does not mean you cannot pledge allegiance to your nation.

In a personal sense yes you can be both but not in a political sense.That,s was jinnah,s meaning.

Fascinating

People keep telling me i am Pakistani first.

Ye tu khula tazaad hai

Khula tazad?
Are you muslim first or pakistani first?

 

[El Sidd]

Khula tazad?
Are you muslim first or pakistani first?

Me yahan sabko batata phir raha ho Pakistani first. Per meri koi sunta nahi.

Actually anyone who says we are muslim first and Pakistani later are under the scanner of raddul fassad ala @El Sidd on pdf.

But i amazed at the irony of this if i had met jinnah in 1926. Specially if one understand the fall of the ottomon empire happened just in 1924 and in 1926 i assume news had even reached memodabad to commoners let alone a capitalist raja lol

Chor do bhai sach bolo log asan samjhenge.

 

[Solomon2]

...The bitter truth being that despite having laws and the court decrees; majority will always have a tendency to persecute the minority primarily because most of the lawyers, judges and the police also belong to the majority community. Pakistani laws also guarantee minorities freedom to practice their religion but the churches are bombed and PTI gov't of Imran Khan donates Rs 300-million to the breeding school of the extremists.

No need to change Pakistan into a secular state; what is needed is to find an antidote to the poison of extremism nourished by the bigot Zia ul Haq and now cherished by the extremist sympathisers.

I don't understand your logic here, since imo the extra-legal persecutions you describe are justifiable and sustained by the qualifications and religious bigotry enshrined in Pakistan's constitution.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Me yahan sabko batata phir raha ho Pakistani first. Per meri koi sunta nahi.

Actually anyone who says we are muslim first and Pakistani later are under the scanner of raddul fassad ala @El Sidd on pdf.

But i amazed at the irony of this if i had met jinnah in 1926. Specially if one understand the fall of the ottomon empire happened just in 1924 and in 1926 i assume news had even reached memodabad to commoners let alone a capitalist raja lol

Chor do bhai sach bolo log asan samjhenge.

Good to know you are a pakistani first.
But you are saying i made that up by myself ?
That ottoman thing is your thinking does not mean everyone else thought that way as well in 1926.
That,s coming straight from Raja Jee. Well we don,t have a proof of raja lying or telling a truth.
But in my humble opinion he is telling a truth. Raja of mehmoodabad was one of close associates of jinnah.Even later jinnah scolded him many times not to make muslim league a party which is striving for the existence of islam in his speeches as people will think it,s coming from jinnah.Jinnah later said to him "muslim league is only fighting for the rights of indian muslims"

 

[El Sidd]

Good to know you are a pakistani first.
But you are saying i made that up by myself ?
That ottoman thing is your thinking does not mean everyone else thought that way as well in 1926.
That,s coming straight from Raja Jee. Well we don,t have a proof of raja lying or telling a truth.
But in my humble opinion he is telling a truth. Raja of mehmoodabad was one of close associates of jinnah.Even later jinnah scolded him many times not to make muslim league a party which is striving for the existence of islam in his speeches as people will think it,s coming from jinnah.Jinnah later said to him "muslim league is only fighting for the rights of indian muslims"

1926 and 1947. Thats like 21 years.
Opinions change. Times change.

Khilafat movement was a big movement. Ofcourse now they would be all terrorists but you see the beauty why its called a miracle.

But sure. Lets ask people if they are indian first or muslim or pakistani. But interesting though. Jinnah was all for united india. Its a documented fact.

But Something clicked in his head in later life.

Jisko am zaban me kehte hai emaan le aya ya parhezgar hogaya ya sudhar gaya ya hidayat mil gayi. Lol just saying.......

 

[SecularNationalist]

1926 and 1947. Thats like 21 years.
Opinions change. Times change.

Khilafat movement was a big movement. Ofcourse now they would be all terrorists but you see the beauty why its called a miracle.

But sure. Lets ask people if they are indian first or muslim or pakistani. But interesting though. Jinnah was all for united india. Its a documented fact.

But Something clicked in his head in later life.

Jisko am zaban me kehte hai emaan le aya ya parhezgar hogaya ya sudhar gaya ya hidayat mil gayi. Lol just saying.......

Jinnah opinion did not change his circumstances changed.As i said in the first post of this thread.The attitude of congress made him bitter.He realized with such communal attitude of congress the position of indian muslims will be weak and hence they cannot co exist.Jinnah opposed khilafat movement btw
Jinnah was a very practical man."Na wo aiman laya,no wo parhezgar howa us ne bas waqt ke mutabiq khud ko dhala"