The fiction of the Ideology of Pakistan: YLH

[TMA]

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/are 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 interpretation/understanding of Islam with Mullahs' (which is opposite to Jinnah's interpretation) ... As a result, 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) .... ... The truth is that Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... of a progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. not 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.



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

"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.” - Muhammad Ali Jinnah ...




We want Jinnah's Pakistan where no citizen is discriminated against on the basis of religion, where Jinnah's Islamic ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind are properly implemented ... Where religion is a matter of personal choice and not the business of the state ...


You don't have to remove Islam from the constitution to create Jinnah's Pakistan. The 1951 Libyan Constitution is a perfect example of what Jinnah wanted for Pakistan .....

The 1951 Libyan Constitution proclaims Islam as the state religion but formally sets out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations "without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions"

Islam and Secularism are indeed compatible ..

You know I also agree in a sense that Islam and secularism are compatible but it just depends on how you define secularism.

What is the correct interpretation? According to whom? Why?

This is the beauty of Islamic tradition, that in jurisprudence there have been so many diverse opinions and everyone still got along on a day to day level.....it was during the time of British India that the British for purposes of administration found the oft diverse opinions even within the Hanafi School irksome, so they just chose certain opinions and made them "Law" for the Muslims of British India, as this was easier to administer instead of the plurality of opinions. Unfortunately this British idea has now permeated to the common Muslims in Pakistan.

This idea of a Statutory Legislation is not really found in classical Muslim societies. The rulers ruled but often the Mufti and Scholars of Deen issued verdicts against the Ruler....and often they were imprisoned for this. True Muftis and Uelema were independent of the Ruler/State...and this idea of bringing a curriculum to the Madrassa from the State's perspective, whilst trying to rid society of terrorism, may end up backfiring. For most of post Prophetic history, Muslim states have not truly followed Islam fully and it was the ulema/awliya who were vanguards so to speak...and Pakistan as a state still is not fully Islamic and therefore I think that the State should not cherry pick one way of thinking and make it the "only Islamic Curriculum".

I used to think that in order to defeat the terrorist ideology the State needs to take ownership and whilst the state needs to be involved, it ought not to act as a dictator but facilitator....really the scholars of the Deen need to grow up and improve themselves....

 

[VCheng]

Wrong answer. There is a correct way to interpret the Qur'an and Hadith.

You cannot understand the Qur'an in some willy-nilly way.

Islam orders its followers to understand the religion for themselves, and not by following some half-baked prejudiced pandering manipulator.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Islam orders its followers to understand the religion for themselves, and not by following some half-baked prejudiced pandering manipulator.

Wrong answer, you cannot interpret the Qur'an and Sunnah according to your whim's and desires. Nice try though.

 

[VCheng]

Wrong answer, you cannot interpret the Qur'an and Sunnah according to your whim's and desires. Nice try though.

But I can interpret Islam with my INTELLECT, not whims and desires. The Quran commands me so, so no one can deny me that right.

 

[MultaniGuy]

But I can interpret Islam with my INTELLECT, not whims and desires. The Quran commands me so, so no one can deny me that right.

Yeah, but there is a right way to interpret it. You have to have the right opinion or judgement on the matter.

Nice try though.

 

[VCheng]

Yeah, but there is a right way to interpret it. You have to have the right opinion or judgement on the matter.

And the Quran gives me the right to do so for myself. No one can take that away from me what the Quran orders.

 

[MultaniGuy]

And the Quran gives me the right to do so for myself. No one can take that away from me what the Quran orders.

Don't try obfuscate. You have to interpret it correctly, not the way you want to, don't try your circular logic with me.

 

[VCheng]

Don't try obfuscate. You have to interpret it correctly, not the way you want to, don't try your circular logic with me.

I am not interpreting Islam for you Sir. I have the right to interpret it for myself, just as you do for yourself. But you, or no one else, has the right to interpret Islam for me, or to force your interpretation upon me.

No obfuscation here, merely clarity of thought. And the end of discussion.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I am not interpreting Islam for you Sir. I have the right to interpret it for myself, just as you do for yourself. But you, or no one else, has the right to interpret Islam for me, or to force your interpretation upon me.

No obfuscation here, merely clarity of thought. And the end of discussion.

You can believe whatever you want, because clearly you are dishonest you want to interpret they way you want to, not the correct way.


Anyways end of discussion. Anyone can believe whatever they want. That is a right you certainly have.