What comes first?Nation or religion?

[nightcrawler]

1) An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.

2) Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state "should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology." Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.

3) An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law "Shari`a" guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they "become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government."

So what you are trying to prove that Jinnah Pakistan didn't have religious roots!!
Fascinating

 

[Comet]

How can something an Islamic political party say or does could not have anything to do with Islam. They are Islamic parties and they used the pretext of Islam to suit their political needs. So when they used this reason against the creation of Pakistan, it had everything to do with Islam. Its like some people representing a company, what they do or say is seen by others as actions of the company itself. Now you might say that religion is not a business, but the Pakistani High Court itself compared Islam to Coca Cola in the early 90's.

As for your questions, they (Islamic Parties) were correct because an Islamic state is a theocracy encompassing the Ummah under Khilafat. Pakistan wasn't certainly going to encompass the whole Ummah and its leadership certainly wasn't the Khilafat. Thus a Nation-State such as Pakistan cannot be an Islamic state, an Islamic republic perhaps not an Islamic state and it was not going to be one either. Shariah law does not have a political parties or voting and such other things. In the Pakistan being envisioned at that time, all of that was to occur and so it was disliked by the hardline religious elements.

This is what Maududi wrote in those day.



As you Jinnah was all for equality between different minorities and this was another point that irked these people. We had many non Muslims in higher positions chosen by Jinnah himself. Everyone interprets religious text and examples differently, the Islamic political parties opposed the idea of Pakistan as their views clashed with what Pakistan was being built up to be.

We are back where we started.
If Pakistan was not "Islamic" why the likes of Usmani joined the movement?

The stance taken by the "Islamic Parties" at that time was more of Political Nature than Theological.

 

[Cynic Waheed]

self delete

 

[T-Faz]

So what you are trying to prove that Jinnah Pakistan didn't have religious roots!!
Fascinating

You have the whole history in front of you, you can research it for yourself and come to a conclusion. In my opinion, Jinnah addressed all the issues on the role of religion within our state very well.

We are back where we started.
If Pakistan was not "Islamic" why the likes of Usmani joined the movement?

The stance taken by the "Islamic Parties" at that time was more of Political Nature than Theological.

Usmani like many of the Islamic scholars of the time was also politically motivated.

He supported the creation of Pakistan and got to introduce religion into the constitution of Pakistan after Jinnah's death through the Objective Resolutions.

 

[Pride]

You have the whole history in front of you, you can research it for yourself and come to a conclusion. In my opinion, Jinnah addressed all the issues on the role of religion within our state very well.



Usmani like many of the Islamic scholars of the time was also politically motivated.

He supported the creation of Pakistan and got to introduce religion into the constitution of Pakistan after Jinnah's death through the Objective Resolutions.

T-Faz, I like your post as you are actually trying to tell the truth. I also read this, Only a few section of people was ready for separate nation while many Islamic scholars and parties (as I mentioned earlier) were rejecting this demand as Islam does not support any such country/land for separate religion.

The issues religiously started when AIML asked for autonomy/ specific seats for Muslim majority states which Congress denied. Then Politically (Not religiously) Muslim League did see that future may have been in trouble if such scenario will take place post independace.

Jinnah was a great leader, to whom not only Muslims but Parsis, Sikhs and even many Congress leaders listen Hence AIML found him as the best choice to be their voice. Jinnah also politically found that it would be better to have separate administration and Political state for Muslims rather than everyday's clashes. This is the reason when even a separate nation carved He invited Sikh leaders to be part of their country and talked Parsis too which they refused. On freedom speech, Jinnah anounced Pakistan a state for all religion, caste and creed. He asked Jagannath, a Hindu Poet, to write National anthem for Pakistan which was there by 1952. The sad part was he died so early which resulted Pakistan to took over by hardcore Islamist Muslim League leaders and since then ethics of Pakistan start changing.

This would also has happened with India if "Hindu Mahasabha" took over India politically but thank god it never happened. This resulted India to be a secular nation with multi religion, multi lingual & multi cultural with few black dots of ethnic clashes.

 

[Sound of Silence]

A.O.A, Absolutely irrelevant, thus no comparison
@ Pride good input, agrees to some extent, but believe you me that being Islamic state we can insure the rights of followers of any other religion, they would be more secure and protected, can implement the model of Islamic economic system which is blend of all the good characteristics of socialism and capitalism so that no rift between have and have not's, only if we become more tolerant and don't misinterpret Islam or to say any religion. Remember only a good human being can be a good Muslim. Regards

In taza khudaon main baRa sab se watan hai

Jo pairhan iss ka hai, woh mazhab ka kafan hai

 

[nightcrawler]

You have the whole history in front of you, you can research it for yourself and come to a conclusion. In my opinion, Jinnah addressed all the issues on the role of religion within our state very well.



Usmani like many of the Islamic scholars of the time was also politically motivated.

He supported the creation of Pakistan and got to introduce religion into the constitution of Pakistan after Jinnah's death through the Objective Resolutions.

I researched a lot & never came up with a solid conclusion

People like Nadeen Paracha & Aysha Jalal repeatedly stress the creation of Pakistan has nothing to do with religion. While others (you must know their name) dictate otherwise!!

You being senior you tell me what you think & what I am supposed to conclude

 

[Pride]

A.O.A, Absolutely non-relevant, thus no comparison
@ Pride good input, agrees to some extent, but believe you me that being Islamic state we can insure the rights of followers of any other religion, they would be more secure and protected, can implement the model of Islamic economic system which is blend of all the good characteristics of socialism and capitalism so that no rift between have and have not's, only if we become more tolerant, don't misinterpret Islam or to say any religion. Remember only a good human being can be good Muslim. Regards

SOS, I know what you are saying.. neither the problem is with Islam or Islamic state.. The only problem is when people twist the religion for one's benefit.. Examples are General Zia-ul-Haq and Talibans.. General Zia had their own version of Islam and hence Blasphemous law is in place which has been misused most of the time against minorities.. When people will start following the basics principles of Islam and Sharia.. I dont think that we would have even such discussion..

 

[Comet]

Usmani like many of the Islamic scholars of the time was also politically motivated.

He supported the creation of Pakistan and got to introduce religion into the constitution of Pakistan after Jinnah's death through the Objective Resolutions.

Yes. My Point!
Usmani supported Pakistan(Political Decision). Other Muslim Scholars didn't(again Political Decision).

 

[T-Faz]

I researched a lot & never came up with a solid conclusion

People like Nadeen Paracha & Aysha Jalal repeatedly stress the creation of Pakistan has nothing to do with religion. While others (you must know their name) dictate otherwise!!

You being senior you tell me what you think & what I am supposed to conclude

Conclude that Pakistan was a nation made for Muslims of India but was supposed to be based on a democratic system where religion was not going to play a role in state affairs.

Jinnah had himself vetoed a presented resolution saying that the future constitution of Pakistan should be based on Islam in 1943. The only thing that was going to be based on Islamic law was our banking system.

Yes. My Point!
Usmani supported Pakistan(Political Decision). Other Muslim Scholars didn't(again Political Decision).

Then why do these people call themselves religious parties when their decisions are politically inclined. I assume it is to fool the populace by using religion to gain popularity.

This is why these people should have been kept away from Pakistan, these so called scholars only do things in their interest and not for the greater good. Ahraris are the prime example of such a religious/political group formed by the congress.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Religion comes first as it is divine and will help us in after life,
Nation is for this temporary world, today it is, maybe tomorrow it will not be, so its second.

A very wrong assumption neither religion nor a nation state is permanent.

Sikhism, Islam ,Budhism, Christanity are relatively recent relgions..they did not exist 2000yrs ago..but some religions which existed 2000yr are are not practiced anymore

eg Greek Olympian Gods(Zeus , Ares , Athena etc ) or Roman pagan religion or Arabic pre-islamic religion ..

Hence religion like a nation state is a human creation and is not permanent.

 

[Comet]

Then why do these people call themselves religious parties when their decisions are politically inclined. I assume it is to fool the populace by using religion to gain popularity.

This is why these people should have been kept away from Pakistan, these so called scholars only do things in their interest and not for the greater good. Ahraris are the prime example of such a religious/political group formed by the congress.

Agreed on Bold Part!

wait a minute. are you saying that only religious politicians are lying and other politicians aren't?

 

[Comet]

A very wrong assumption neither religion nor a nation state is permanent.

Sikhism, Islam ,Budhism, Christanity are relatively recent relgions..they did not exist 2000yrs ago..but some religions which existed 2000yr are are not practiced anymore

eg Greek Olympian Gods(Zeus , Ares , Athena etc ) or Roman pagan religion or Arabic pre-islamic religion ..

Hence religion like a nation state is a human creation and is not permanent.

Wrong!

The people who follow religion consider it divine and its teachings above everything thus making it eternal. You may not think of religion this way but for believers it is eternal.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Wrong!

The people who follow religion consider it divine and its teachings above everything thus making it eternal. You may not think of religion this way but for believers it is eternal.

Believers can belive what ever they want but the fact remainis same.religion is not eternal. 'neither right nor wrong ' has mentioned some examples to prove that.
Nobody can Gurantee that after 1000 years islam,hindu, or christian religions will be there.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Wrong!

The people who follow religion consider it divine and its teachings above everything thus making it eternal. You may not think of religion this way but for believers it is eternal.

It does not matter what ppl believe or consider..history speaks otherwise!!
Religion is a man's creation and like all the things, the man has created it too is perishable..just the like numerous religions, which have perished before.