Not sure if any of you realized this, but Pakistan just celebrated its 60th birthday. So I thought this would be an opportune time to rehash the Jinnah and the Islamic State debate. I was actually reminded of this by Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy's article on this topic.
Overall it was a well written article as he tried to objectively address the subject of Muhammad Ali Jinnah's stance on a secular versus Islamic State in Pakistan. However, he failed to address some very simple points on the issue.
So as a service to you all, I figured that I would quickly address this subject so next time you're hangin' with your boyz at a pizza joint talking about the origins of Pakistan or you and the sisters are chillin' at a Henna party arguing over Jinnah's view on the Islamic State, you would have some talking points.
You can thank me later...
It seems when the liberal lot want to argue for a secular state in Pakistan, they consistently revert to its founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and his staunchly secular stance. I find this approach very dishonest and insincere.
First of all, no one will argue Jinnah's secular beliefs. He actually made them very clear in his infamous August 11, 1947 speech where he said:
"You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state... in due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to Muslims- not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state."
But in other venues, he also made many references to an Islamic state:
"Therefore Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually.", Eid Speech, September 1945
"Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles", Karachi, October 1947
Professor Hoodbhoy refers to this event in his article:
"...in a broadcast address to the people of the United States of America in February 1948 - (ironically, the same speech of which a portion was quoted earlier in this essay as an example of Jinnah coming out forcefully against theocracy), Jinnah described Pakistan as “the premier Islamic State”."
So I think any references to Jinnah are inconclusive as its clear from studying his political career that he was a master politician. His greatest skill was in uniting the liberal elite with the conservative layman – both groups were needed to separate from India and create Pakistan, which was his ultimate goal.
When found in a setting of the religious, Jinnah called for an Islamic state. When needed to unite various groups, Jinnah became a secularist.
Ultimately, his practice shows him to be a secularist, as Professor Hoodbhoy concludes in his article.
But I contend all that is besides the point. Because he wasn't alone in the creation of Pakistan.
So many of his peers were explicitly clear in their calling for a nation governed by the principles of the Quran and Sunnah that it makes absolutely no sense when the secularists invoke Jinnah and his beliefs.
Allama Iqbal, the soul of Pakistan to Jinnah's brain, was consistent in his writings for the need to return to the principles of the Quran.
In an Eid message to the nation in 1945, he said:
"Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. Everyone except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code; it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all, to those of each individual; from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet (S) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Holy Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines and rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society in every department of life, collectively and individually."
Muhammad Asad, the first Pakistani ambassador to the UN, wrote a very poignant article on the Islamic nature of the Pakistani state.
Liaqaut Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister, proposed the Objectives Resolution which included the very unsecular statement "the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah". The Resolution was passed by the Constituent Assembly in March 1949, less than one year after Jinnah's death.
I understand that the facts on the ground today are very different from all these historical references. But I just wanted to debunk the oft-used tactic of a secular Jinnah when attempting to counter the Islamic State argument for Pakistan.
WAW
2 days ago
18 comments:
I learned some good stuff on history of Pakiland.
I'll leave this tidbit, Mahatma Gandhi was Gujurati! :)
Pakistan zindabad!!!
It is interesting that secular jinnah is ALWAYS brought to the forefront. The real issue, I think, is not what the founder wanted for this nation. It is what pakistanis want for the nation. That people are referencing the Quaid's secularism as a way to prove that wanting a secular state is more authentic is, like you said, very dishonest.
Salaam
There is no doubt that an Ideal state has to based on Islam.
Problem begins when you start to define an Islamic state. The Shari'a as it is, has many flaws. It has to be adapted to the modern situation keeping the principles intact.
For example the Shari'a does not address the issue of computers very coherently.
And in my opinion, these laws should not be formulated by people who studied Islam just because they did not get admission into anything else. Unfortunately most of our religious scholars of that type.
If you look at the Companions, none of them were full-time religious guy who earned from his knowledge of religion. All of them depended on some profession or the other for bread. Deen was their passion. All these people had training in some professional knowledge or skills. Even right into 14th century, many of the important theologians were leading Scientists, Jurists and Businessmen and women.
I would like such people formulate the Shari'a.
Wow, some people actually read this post! I'm impressed.
Truth be told, methinks Rabia the lawyer didn't read anything but the post title, thereby explaining her comment.
Rabia, quick, without looking back, who was the first Prime Minister of Pakistan? Jinnah or Justin Timberlake? ;-)
Trick question! Answer is neither. It was Rick Springfield (crazy General Hospital reference for ma boy Arif!)....
This blog is degenerating and its all thanks to you two!
AA- Sophister,
Thanks for you thougths,
"The real issue, I think, is not what the founder wanted for this nation. It is what pakistanis want for the nation. "
I'm actually on the fence with regards to this. I say that because the people seem to not care what they get - that's why Bhutto and Sharif are even in the picture. They just want to eat and take care of their family and live in peace.
Asking people in such desperation is not the answer, IMO
AA- Manas,
"I would like such people formulate the Shari'a."
Let us dream together, shall we? :-)
I really like your points. We need to redefine the role of our scholars. We need to redefine the role of education.
"And in my opinion, these laws should not be formulated by people who studied Islam just because they did not get admission into anything else. Unfortunately most of our religious scholars of that type."
This is a major root of our problems. How to change this? Poverty plays such a major role in this dynamic.
I'd like to hear people start to address this problem - how to redirect our best and brightest into the field of Islamic studies while also working on their worldly studies (to support themselves).
Is Jinnah a freemason or Illuminati agent ? The partiton of India seems to be based on Hegelian dialectics.
Anon,
" Is Jinnah a freemason or Illuminati agent?"
Please, lets not even go there. I strongly believe that any and all references to freemasons is counterproductive.
"The partiton of India seems to be based on Hegelian dialectics."
Fine, so what? Any event can be seen as an outcome of Hegelian dialectics. The war on terror, the clash of civilizations, my marriage, etc.
It all depends on how macro a level you want to take your analysis.
Anyways, I'm interested to hear what your point is?
Some interesting info about the partition drama of India.
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/
articles/Art004_19022004.html
On the 8th of July 1947 Sir Cyril Radcliffe arrived in Delhi. He was summoned by the Viceroy to meet Nehru and Sadar Patel for Congress, and Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan for the Muslim League. Sir Cyril pointed out that it was a considerable task that had been assigned to him and his two boards of judges. He spoke of the vastness of India, of the multitudinous population, of the difficulty of slicing hectares of territory on each side of the Subcontinent so that communities of people would be cherished, districts saved from division, towns and villages linked to their land. He insisted that this job would take even the most careful arbitrators years to decide, but he realised that the matter was urgent. He and his two Commissions would do their utmost to help. How long had he got? “Five weeks,” said Mountbatten. Before Sir Cyril Radcliffe could express his astonishment and dismay, Nehru interrupted: “If a decision could be reached in advance of five weeks, it would be better for the situation.” The others, Jinnah included, nodded in agreement.
In the middle of July Sir Cyril went to Lahore. Lord Mountbatten gave him his own plane to fly the terrain but the flight was cancelled due to storm. Justice Din Muhammad, however, saw the flight plan which he had obtained from the pilot, and it was along the boundary line which eventually went on the map attached to the Award. Justice Din Muhammad said that it showed conclusively that the boundary had been determined before the award was made. On the outbreak of the Indo-Pakistan War of September 1965 Radcliffe admitted, “I was not aware of the Kashmir thing at all. If I had been, it might have been a factor to take into account.” Justice Munir summed up as follows: “When I read the text of the Award I was stunned. A two-page document and a line on a map, drawn as the fancy of its drawer dictated, that divided the fourth largest country in the world.”
The British Sir Lord Strachey, who served as the regent on several occasions and who was a member of the (Indian Organization), states about the Muslim-Hindu enmity, "Anything that will be done in order to dominate or sow discord is compatible with our government's policy. The greater support for our policy in India is the co-existence of two autonomous societies who are hostile to each other." Aggravating this hostility, the British supported the Hindus continuously from 1164 [A.D. 1750] until 1287 [A.D. 1870], and joined them in all the massacres of Muslims they perpetrated.
You are a victim of a grand drama played by pawns and paid shills over a multi-layered chessboard
orchestrated by the Satan-worshipping Illuminati henchmen. These Satanic cryptocracy used a common strategy to
rule the Muslim countries. Let me reveal you the truth piece by piece. You should put those pieces together and solve the puzzle.
ISLAM'S REFORMERS
http://www.hakikatkitabevi.com/english/
english.htm
Macaulay's Children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Thomas_Macaulay
Muslim Scholars in India
http://attalib.blogspot.com/2007/
07/forgotten-pages-of-history.html
Puppets (?) in Pakistan
http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com
/modules.php?op=modload&name=
News&file=article&sid=85&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0
Machiavelli , the writer of the book "The Prince ". Leave the colony physically , but rule it by proxy.
http://www.yursil.com/blog/2007/05/princes/
The Bigger goal
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/
livingstone.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/
livingstone_reply.htm
http://www.redmoonrising.com/
Ikhwan/Clash.htm
Following the dictates of Hegelian dialectic, the Globalists have created two antagonizing forces, the "Liberal-Democratic" West, against Terrorism, or "political Islam", to force us into the acceptance of their final alternative, a New World Order.
Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State
You should use the Turkish lens to evaluate the entire group of Nehru , Jinnah and others. But Gandhi and Netaji Subas Bose might be out of the Illuminati control.
Let's have a look in the Ottoman Empire.
"
Towards its declining years, the Ottoman Empire sent students and statesmen out to Europe. Some of these students and statesmen were persuaded into joining masonic lodges. Those who were to learn science and technology were taught techniques for demolishing Islam and the Ottoman Empire. Of these people who did the greatest harm to the Empire and to Muslims was Mustafa Rashid Pasha. His stay in London was entirely appropriated to disciplining him as an avowed and insidious enemy of Islam. He cooperated with the Scottish masonic lodges. It was too late when the Sultan, Mahmud Khan, took heed of Mustafa Rashid Pasha treacherous acts and ordered that he be executed; for the remainder of his lifetime was not long enough for him to have his order carried out. After the Sultan's passing away, Mustafa Rashid Pasha and his colleagues returned to Istanbul and did Islam and Muslims the severest harm they had ever suffered. "
I really don't know anything beneficial at all about the conflict...however while listening to NPR yesterday on the way home the entire segment was focused on the political fallout of the potential return of either Nawaz Sharif and/or Benazir Bhutto.
What amazed me was the analysts complete support of either option as being a great move for a Democratic Pakistan with no mention of WHY they were exiled or no mention of any of their purported corruption scandals.
I know i know...what do you expect?
An interesting perspective.
But there is something which I have never really understood, and it could be quiet crucial to this discussion is the role of 'Islamists' before the creation of Pakistan. It seems that the Muslim freedom fighters and those who had initiated the freedom movement which Gandhi was also part of were not too pleased with the idea of a separate State. I have used the term 'Islamist' as it refers to pro Islamic scholars with political views almost emanating from Islam such as the Ali brothers, Mahmood al-hassan and later Abul kalam Azad or even Maududi wasn't a big fan of creation of Pakistan!!
I don't particularly know the underlying cause of why they were oppose to the idea, was it the idea of nation state, Jinnah's intenetions, or political agendas of their own? I am not too hot on Pakistani history to be able to understand it, but perhaps someone else can shed some light here.
AA- Tia,
"I don't particularly know the underlying cause of why they were oppose to the idea, was it the idea of nation state, Jinnah's intenetions, or political agendas of their own?"
The basic premise for their opposition was the fear of disunity. They felt that any division in India would weaken the overall strength of the land and play into the hands of the departing British colonialists (ie. divide and conquer).
Their argument (and there is a strong case to be made here) was that Muslims in India were not being prevented from being Muslim (like Muslims in the West) and the potential gain from a newly-created Muslim nation would be outweighed by the division and overall weakening.
Sadly, history has proven them to be correct for the most part. Two enormous nations have plundered the resources of their peoples for 'military defense'. Imagine what could have happened if they remained one united land (throw Bangladesh with its 150mil into the mix as well)?!
On this topic:
Quaid e Azam's last speech:
http://www.sbp.org.pk/about/history/h_moments.htm
Iqbal & pakistan http://www.iqbalians.com/iqbal/iqbal.asp
http://cyclewalabanda.blogspot.com/2007/09/pakistan-ka-matlab-kya-pakistan-jinnah.html
the 22 points of Objectives resolution
http://cyclewalabanda.blogspot.com/2008/04/22-points.html
Guys! I just stumbled across this discussion whilst searching for something else on net.
I carry a Pakistani Passport and live in a Western country. I have a few questions that I am finding difficult to get proper answers. So hopefully someone might be able to help me here.
1) I have read somewhere that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan collaborated with the British Raj during 1857 War of Independence and gave away names of key freedom fighters to British. Is that correct?He called the freedom fight of 1857 " a mutiny" , as is obvious from the book he wrote titled " Asbab-e-BAGHAWAT-e-hind".
2) All India Muslim League opposed Khilafat movement organized by the Congress in support of Ottoman Caliphate during 1st world war. Muslim League aligned it self with the British Raj during that time. Is it correct?
3) Can any one give me names of Indian Muslim Leaders that belonged to Muslim League , who were jailed by the ruling British for opposing British Raj? Names Please.
4) If Jinnah wanted a separate homeland for the Muslims of India in the name of Islam, why did he then decide to make it a secular country where Muslims, Hindu's . Sikh's etc could live in peace and harmony? Why wasn't the Shariyah Law declared the Law of the State soon after the creation of Pakistan. Did Jinnah ever mentioned Shariyah Law as the future law of ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN in his speeches leading up to the partition?
5) As a great politician who fought the British to snatch Pakistan out of their jaws, how much time did Jinnah spend in British prison? I have heard most freedom fighters are usually punished and imprisoned by the ruling colonials. examples Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, etc
6) Islam and Christianity have remain old foes since the dawn of Islam. From Tariq Bin Ziyad and Salahuddin to Suleman the magnificent and Tipu Sultan...Islamic civilization has clashed with Christianity at every stage in the history. WHy would then British allow the creation of "FORT OF ISLAM" ie Pakistan in their occupied territories? What benefits were they going to achieve from creation of Pakistan? Did they suddenly forget the fall of Spain and Constantinople?
7) Two main provinces that fought against British rule were Punjab and Bengal.Isn't it funny that whilst creating Pakistan, it was made sure that these provinces are split time and time again?
8) What was the logic of creating East Pakistan and West Pakistan with thousands of miles of Indian territory in between?
9) Why are Jinaah's grand children not a Muslim !!!? Why did Jinnah's daughter decide to live in India not Pakistan?
I have got few more question but wuld be grateful if someone could answer these first.
Thanks
Post a Comment