Re: Did Jinnah mean to create a Islamic State?
What were their stated goals? At the time, The Religious parties advocated Muslims remaining a part of a united India.
Perhaps the followers of "Ulema" can elaborate on their goals for opposing Pakistan. Their goal now is to impose Sharia Law as they define it.
A liberal who heavily played to the religious sentiment (and fears) of the Muslims.
More like a liberal that wanted to protect followers of one religion from the extremist religious element of another religion.
Not wanting theocracy does not mean one wants secularism.
Call it what you will (since some people are allergic to term secularism), Jinnah wanted a state where any person can freely practice his or her religion regardless of the religion and one religion does not dominate another.
Hindus made it clear that they did not want a theocracy; and they never at any point had one after the creation of modern India.
Jinnah wanted a seperate state for muslims because the extremist hinu element, not because he did not want to live in a secular state. His opposition to Congress was not because Congress was officially secular but because he considered Congress to be primarily a hindu party.
As was clear from the onset, Pakistan was not meant to contradict or throw out Shariah either. Again, the idea of a "Muslim majority" state as a secular entity is a very modern concept, and carried no meaning back in those days. A Muslim majority state was understood to necessarily be defined by (in some form) it's adherence to Islamic principles. It may not be a traditional Islamic state, but it was an Islamic state of some sort. Jinnah used those very terms to describe Pakistan. As an Islamic welfare state.
He could not have foreseen Sharia Law being implented. He would have been branded Kafir (wait, he already was) and would been found liable to Hadd (Capital punishment)
Yes, the reigns of power were not going to be blindly given over to the Ulema. But nor were ulema to be excluded.
They were excluded from All India Muslim League automatically by difference in philosophy and motivation.
Jinnah was NOT Attaturk, and keep in mind the two personally knew each other. It is not as if Jinnah was ignorant about secularism, or Kemalism. He personally rejected such principles, or at the very least cared not to publicly support them.
That I agree with. We should include Islamism (as we know it today) to the list.
Jinnah may not have wanted a traditional Islamic state (e.g. Caliphate, Ottoman style), but there is NO evidence he fancied a secular state where Islam and state were firmly and forever separated.
But in Sharia, Caliphate is the only way of governing. Modern ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy are against Sharia. We can certainly agree that Jinnah was for a democratic state?
