Was Jinnah A Secularist?

[Coolyo]

 

[Patriot]

I think people who lived through the time know better then Zaid Hamid.Look it up Sajjad Haider analysis or Honorable Mr Niaz analysis regarding Jinnah.Anyway it is a no brainier.Whether Jinnah was a secularist or not..he was a great man . However I too think Quaid was not a secuarlist rather he wanted a country where every mintory can live freely and majority would be Muslims so that Muslims dont suffer from Hindus.

 

[alirulesall123]

what kind of bullshilt question is this? of course he was a secularist. He wanted the basis of Pakistan to be Nationalism, not Religion. He wanted the Goverment to have nothing to do with Islam, like it should have been.

 

[Coolyo]

what kind of bullshilt question is this? of course he was a secularist. He wanted the basis of Pakistan to be Nationalism, not Religion. He wanted the Goverment to have nothing to do with Islam, like it should have been.

Are you kidding me, or are you just delusional?

What nationalism? Pakistan has over 20 languages...

Our nationalism is based on our religion

Jinnah was one of our founding fathers who helped build an Islamic Republic!

Get out of your little box of ignorance and see the truth for what it is!

Zaid Hamid speaks the truth in this video! See Jinnah's speeches during the later part of his lifetime!

 

[SQ8]

Jinnah vision was of an Islamic state, Not the one asked by the Taliban or the religious parties. But one based on the initial condition in Medina.
Mohajiran and Ansar lived in harmony, no tribal or racial prejudice.
People of other religion lived without persecution or humiliation.
The Law was dealt with on a more personal level and with quality of justice. Religion was one's PERSONAL matter. Nobody had say in it.
So while I too do not think Jinnah was a secularist. He was no Wahhabi, He enjoyed his life and lived it as he so wished.

 

[muse]

Alirulezall

It's "Cleaver" -- you missed what Mr. Hamid actually said -- Mr. Hamid choses to define "secular" as "ladeen or ladeeniyat", that is to say, as "Godless" -- Whereas the definition of "secular" is "Ilmmaniyat" -- see, Ali, in the European terms, the religious worldview competed with the Science, knowledge of the natural world, based point of view --for example, religious point of view that the Earth is the center fo Universe as opposed to the Science based view of the planets, sun and universe.

In this way, if you choose to agree, that there can be only one worldview, that is to say, no view of the world and the experience of life, other than one seen through lens of a particular definition of religion, then clearly Mr. Hamid is not mistaken.

However; if one should not seek to be captive of a misleading defintion, such as Mr. Hamid here employs, then Mr. Hamid is not only wrong in this case, but also does a great disservice to the cause of open and learned and questioning peoples and society.

The Quaid was not "Godless" and nor are those who understand that there are multiple lens, multiple streams of knowledge with which to view the world, religious science, is but one science in a ocean of sciences; that some assert that it, religious science, a world view derived from a particular understanding of religious sciences is the only valid point of view, is clearly, itself deficient.

If you are based on your study and understanding convinced that the religious point of view competes witht he science based point of view, then clearly Mr. Hamid will have to reexamine his definitions, and if you are persuaded that the only valid point of view is that of a particular group of scholars who it is clear will insist that any who differ with them are "Godless", then, it leaves little to to talk about.

 

[niaz]

Let me first post some quotes from Quaid e Azam’s later speeches:

On the very threshold of what little power and responsibility is given, the majority community have clearly shown their hand: that Hindustan is for the Hindus; only the Congress masquerades under the name of nationalism, whereas the Hindu Mahasabha does not mince words. The result of the present Congress Party policy will be, I venture to say, class bitterness, communal war, and strengthening of the imperialistic hold as a consequence. I dare say that the British Government will give the Congress a free hand in this direction, and it matters very little to them, nay, on the contrary, it is all to the good, so long as their interests, imperial or otherwise, are not touched, and the Defence remains intact; but I feel that a fearful reaction will set in when the Congress has created more and more divisions amongst Indians themselves, and made the united front impossible.
Luknow 1937 Presidential address


I have always maintained that no nation can ever be worthy of its existence that cannot take its women along with the men. No struggle can ever succeed without women participating side by side with men. There are two powers in the world; one is the sword and the other is the pen. There is a great competition and rivalry between the two. There is a third power stronger than both, that of the women.
Speech at Islamia College for women March 25, 1940.

No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live.

Speech at a meeting of the Muslim University Union, Aligarh March 10, 1944.



We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed --that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing our future Constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete Sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan.


The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this --remember that you are now a Sovereign Legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions.

My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest Nations of the world.

As you know, history shows that in England conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.

Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August, 1947.


The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. 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.

Broadcast talk to the people of the United States of America on Pakistan recorded February, 1948

Yet this is a truth people so easily seem to forget and begin to prize local, sectional or provincial interests above and regardless of the national interests. It naturally pains me to find the curse of provincialism holding sway over any section of Pakistan. Pakistan must be rid of this evil.
Reply to the Civic Address presented by the Quetta Municipality on 15th June, 1948.

We are now all Pakistanis--not Baluchis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis and so on--and as Pakistanis we must feet behave and act, and we should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else.

Reply to the Civic Address presented by the Quetta Municipality on 15th June, 1948.
.
We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.

Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi October 11, 1947.
The exploits of your leaders in many a historic field of battle; the progress of your Revolution; the rise and career of the great Ataturk, his revitalization of your nation by his great statesmanship, courage and foresight all these stirring events are well-known to the people of Pakistan.
Reply to the speech made by the first Turkish Ambassador to Pakistan at the time of presenting Credentials to the Quaid-i-Azam on 4th March. 1948.

You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of democracy, social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.
Address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir, Karachi February 21, 1948.

I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organization in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideas of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is not facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantages, of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.
Opening of State Bank, July 1, 1948 (last speech)

Unquote


I have had the opportunity to read about the life of our founder by quite a few different authors, I came to conclusion that Quaid e Azam was a Muslim, may not be a practicing Muslim but Muslim nonetheless and certainly not a secularist.

However he was very liberal and moderate in his outlook. He believed in education for women, and believed in the equal rights and justice for all of Pakistani citizens. He was also a democrat and believed in the supremacy of the parliament. Quaid was also against the theocracy and would turn in his grave at the thought of the likes of Sufi Mohammed and Munawwar Hassan of JI coming to power in Pakistan.

 

[Patriot]

Alirulezall

It's "Cleaver" -- you missed what Mr. Hamid actually said -- Mr. Hamid choses to define "secular" as "ladeen or ladeeniyat", that is to say, as "Godless" -- Whereas the definition of "secular" is "Ilmmaniyat" -- see, Ali, in the European terms, the religious worldview competed with the Science, knowledge of the natural world, based point of view --for example, religious point of view that the Earth is the center fo Universe as opposed to the Science based view of the planets, sun and universe.

In this way, if you choose to agree, that there can be only one worldview, that is to say, no view of the world and the experience of life, other than one seen through lens of a particular definition of religion, then clearly Mr. Hamid is not mistaken.

However; if one should not seek to be captive of a misleading defintion, such as Mr. Hamid here employs, then Mr. Hamid is not only wrong in this case, but also does a great disservice to the cause of open and learned and questioning peoples and society.

The Quaid was not "Godless" and nor are those who understand that there are multiple lens, multiple streams of knowledge with which to view the world, religious science, is but one science in a ocean of sciences; that some assert that it, religious science, a world view derived from a particular understanding of religious sciences is the only valid point of view, is clearly, itself deficient.

If you are based on your study and understanding convinced that the religious point of view competes witht he science based point of view, then clearly Mr. Hamid will have to reexamine his definitions, and if you are persuaded that the only valid point of view is that of a particular group of scholars who it is clear will insist that any who differ with them are "Godless", then, it leaves little to to talk about.

Yep..secularism has nothing to do with Aeithism.

 

[Coolyo]

Jinnah vision was of an Islamic state, Not the one asked by the Taliban or the religious parties. But one based on the initial condition in Medina.
Mohajiran and Ansar lived in harmony, no tribal or racial prejudice.
People of other religion lived without persecution or humiliation.
The Law was dealt with on a more personal level and with quality of justice. Religion was one's PERSONAL matter. Nobody had say in it.
So while I too do not think Jinnah was a secularist. He was no Wahhabi, He enjoyed his life and lived it as he so wished.

Why do people think that when someone asks for an Islamic state that he/she automatically becomes a Wahabi?

Yes, the Wahabis are to blame for terrorism, the taliban, violence against minorities and women, etc.

But their is also another group of people, like Allama Iqbal, etc. Who seek an Islamic state based on the teachings of Islam, NOT Wahabism!

These are the people who know that only through the love of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (S) can we succeed! If you know what I mean!

We need the Sharia of the Prophet Muhammad (S) & the Ahlul Bayth & Sahaba!

NOT the sharia of Abdul Wahab or Ibn Taymiyyah!

 

[Mercenary_ali]

Secularism is Indeed ladeeniat. Deen is an Arabic word usually translated as "religion" but also as "way of life", especially referring to Islam, known as ad-dīn "the deen", or dīn al-haqq "the true deen" (e.g. ayat 48:27, 9:33 = 61:9).

It is the Way of life for A Muslim to follow. Therefore it is not wrong to say that Secularism is Ladeeniat because In Secularism a Way of life is not devised according to a Religion.

Well, as far as Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jimmah is concerned, He was not a secularist. Creating a Nation of Muslim Majority where people of Religious Minority can live with complete freedom is not secularism but its what Islam has taught us to do.

 

[muse]

You can choose to define a dog with the defintion of a elephant, does that mean the dog will acually be a elephant?

The word "secular" (without reference to religion) refers to a world view animated by undertanding of sciences.

You now want to add to the defintion, AKA "way of life" -- you are of course free to choose to define things in any manner you want. However; consider, the next time you frame a position from a scientific point of view, will you be a Godless Atheist ?? And exactly where do you think you are going in this world without science??, HAin, ji?

 

[Mercenary_ali]

You can choose to define a dog with the defintion of a elephant, does that mean the dog will acually be a elephant?

The word "secular" (without reference to religion) refers to a world view animated by undertanding of sciences.

You now want to add to the defintion, AKA "way of life" -- you are of course free to choose to define things in any manner you want. However; consider, the next time you frame a position from a scientific point of view, will you be a Godless Atheist ?? And exactly where do you think you are going in this world without science??, HAin, ji?

When did the science come in between the two terminologies?

Well, Dogs will remain a Dog and Elephant will remain an Elephant, that's for sure. Similarly Secularism is what I have written previously.
Now it depends how the readers perceive it . Changing shape will not affect the mass.

 

[Patriots]

what kind of bullshilt question is this? of course he was a secularist. He wanted the basis of Pakistan to be Nationalism, not Religion. He wanted the Goverment to have nothing to do with Islam, like it should have been.

Which nationalism????????

 

[Patriots]

Why do people think that when someone asks for an Islamic state that he/she automatically becomes a Wahabi?

Yes, the Wahabis are to blame for terrorism, the taliban, violence against minorities and women, etc.

But their is also another group of people, like Allama Iqbal, etc. Who seek an Islamic state based on the teachings of Islam, NOT Wahabism!

These are the people who know that only through the love of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (S) can we succeed! If you know what I mean!

We need the Sharia of the Prophet Muhammad (S) & the Ahlul Bayth & Sahaba!

NOT the sharia of Abdul Wahab or Ibn Taymiyyah!

Can anyone explain to me what is wahabism???????