Jinnah: desire for a secular Pakistan?

Arts & Culture Culture, Arts, Literature & Linguistics
1

Regarding the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan - was it comprised of a secular government?

If you read his speeches/articles in particular, or just read his biography by S. Wolpert, it seems as though that is what he desired. i don’t have the reference to the speech on hand with me at the moment, but in August 1947, didn’t Quaid-e-Azam state that he wanted a secular state? If so, then how does that reconcile with our notions that Pakistan is a Muslim state, founded ‘for Muslims’, by Muslims - if the founder himself seems to have inclined towards desiring a secular state where a person’s religion was to play no role vis-a-vis their status as political citizens of the state.

“…make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds and we welcome in closest association with us all those who of whatever creed are themselves willing and ready to play their part as true and loyal citizens of Pakistan.” (Source)

“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.” (Source)

You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed and that has nothing to do with the business of the State. You will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."

So - first question: did he desire a secular Pakistan and, if in the affirmative, then how does that reconcile with today’s Pakistan being run by a Muslim administration? i mean, in Pakistani history books, we are taught that obviously Pakistan was created by Muslims in order to establish a separate homeland ‘for Muslims’. But if it’s a secular country that Jinnah wanted, then how would Jinnah react to these sentiments? Are there any aspects of the government in Pakistan, in 2004, that Jinnah would have felt are in opposition to his desires for seeing the state not play a role in a citizen’s religious belief? How does that go down with our MMA officials?

By the way, this 25 July article is sort of what got me thinking regarding this subject: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-7-2004_pg7_28

2

Pakistan Ka Matlab Kiya ...La Ilaaha Illalaah is the national slogan of pakistan and it was the running blood in the veins of the struggle for or this land

as far as secularism is concerned Islam gives the right to every one to practice his religion the way he wants it ... "Tableegh" never means to force ur religion on someone

and dont worry the above qouted extracts by you dont provide a safe conclusion that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan ... he just wanted a tolerant islamic society

3

Shehenshah,

i am not “worried” about this issue. i am curious.

**
Let me be the devil’s advocate here just for a second to see what responses i may receive. If Quaid-e-Azam was in favour of an Islamic society, why would he state, In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.? “Theocracy”, “priests with a divine mission” → that sounds an awful lot like a religious state. He specifically stated that “Pakistan is not going” to follow that model. Of course, Allah’s Will was that he did not live long enough to see the fruition of his efforts.

i forgot to give a source for the last quote by him; this is it.

And if his perspectives were as you state, then why does the article cited above mention that, Mr Jinnah’s famous speech incited strong reactions from those who were against the Quaid’s liberal vision. Religio-political parties and other like-minded groups and individuals have always argued that people with ‘vested-interests’ misinterpreted his speech.

i don’t understand; what misinterpretation ?

4

he has been misquoted on this issue....
if pakistan was not to be an Islamic state, why was it even established....
not just to have a muslim government....
many muslims, even prominent leaders, lost almost all their wealth in the process of moving to pakistan....

why was it needed????

had pakistan not been made, muslims wud have been in majority in many areas besides the current pakistan....
muslim stronghold wud have been greater....
their economics wud not have been hurt so bad....

but it was all about an Isamic state....

but yes, Jinnah has been misquoted on the issue....

P.S. thoughts taken from my talk to an elderly who has witnessed he formation of pakistan and moved from india to pakistan just to live in an Islamic state and nothing else....

5

Re: Jinnah: desire for a secular Pakistan?

Nadia, what Jinnah said is more or less in line with what Maulana Abul Ala Maududi was saying in the 1940s.

Maududi explicitly stated that an Islamic state is not a theocracy. He actively disapproved of the concept of an Islamic state that is ruled by clergy. Maududi actually stated “we are against theocracy because it has nothing to do with Islam”. (You can see Professor Khurshid Ahmed, a prominent Jamaat-i-Islam leader, say this at http://www.ips.org.pk/mediaprogram/articles2000/Jinnah.htm )

Maududi also made much of the duty of the State to protect its non-Muslim citizens, saying on radio that they have freedom of belief, freedom to manifest their belief, freedom to propagate their belief, and criticise Islam within limits that should be defined by law and decency, as well as having equal rights before the civil laws of the country.

[quote]
If Quaid-e-Azam was in favour of an Islamic society, why would he state, In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.? “Theocracy”, “priests with a divine mission” → that sounds an awful lot like a religious state. /quote

My dear Nadia, as I said, this goal of avoiding a state ruled by clerics with a devine mission was not what Maulana Maududi had wanted for Pakistan either - but surely you would not try and say that Maudidi did not want an Islamic state?

After all, if you’ll leap on Jinnah’s anti-theocracy statements and uphold them as proof that Jinnah did not want an Islamic state, why would you not not try and use Maulana Maududi’s similar statements too to suggest that Maududi was against an Islamic state? :slight_smile:

6

okay i greatly get puzzled by people trying to constantly bring up jinnah's secular bent, as a way to legitimise their notions of how the pakistani state shud be. in my opinion the man got killed cuz his designs for the new state, did not match with the wishes of the regional powers in pakistan, and they could not get their way as long as this 'towering' nobody's representative hung around.
since islam got created in the name of islam, and the muslim league got votes on this slogan, even if these earlier men like jinnah and his other mouthpiece wanted otherwise, they could not have done much in the face of the mainstream conservative forces in pakistan.
part of the reason we still haven't solved our constitutional problem, is because the jinnahs and muslim leagues of the day were just not powerful enough to get their secular wishes, whilst at the same time paying lip service to islam, fulfilled even back then.
even if he had hung around, i doubt he would have got away with creating a replica of the british state, in pakistan.

7

No matter how great a leader is, even if he said that Pakistan is not to be an Islamic state with ISLAMIC LAWS, then we are to follow what the Quran and the Prophet :saw: say. Jinnah was a great leader but also a human who can make errors. Lets not take his words so literally.

Pakistan was created for Islam. Otherwise there is no need of Pakistan. Let it be with India then. They have secular laws, so a bigger country would be better if Islam is not needed as a system.

What is an Islamic state? What defines it? Are there any special laws? Is Quran a book just to be read and not followed. For example it says give 100 lashes to fornicator and fornicatress…so who would do that? Ofcourse not you or me, it is the state that has to implement it. Thus the state has to be Islamic, implementing ISLAM.

8

The only reason for which Pakistan was created in my sense was....A country for Muslims to be governed by Muslims....But nowhere in the constitution it says that Non-Muslims can't live here or can't openly practice there.....Infact Jinnahs vision was perfectly correct in having a state which is governed by Secular Muslims(Islam in itself is secular.....allowing all other faiths to live is peace,a phenomenon called "Rawadaari")
Now the only difference b/w Pakistan & India should be:India is a country with majority Hindus governed by secular(or non-secular hindus-BJP) & Pakistan is a country with majority(95%)Muslims governed by Secular Muslim Ideology,allowing others to pratice & live.....
Similarly in my opinion this is the only reason why we don't see Jamaat-e-islami & others taking power in Pakistan....But again this doesn't make Pakistan or Pakistanis less muslim or islamic(a wrong concept altogether...)

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Goliko: *
The only reason for which Pakistan was created in my sense was....A country for Muslims to be governed by Muslims....But nowhere in the constitution it says that Non-Muslims can't live here or can't openly practice there.....Infact Jinnahs vision was perfectly correct in having a state which is governed by Secular Muslims(Islam in itself is secular.....allowing all other faiths to live is peace,a phenomenon called "Rawadaari")
Now the only difference b/w Pakistan & India should be:India is a country with majority Hindus governed by secular(or non-secular hindus-BJP) & Pakistan is a country with majority(95%)Muslims governed by Secular Muslim Ideology,allowing others to pratice & live.....
Similarly in my opinion this is the only reason why we don't see Jamaat-e-islami & others taking power in Pakistan....But again this doesn't make Pakistan or Pakistanis less muslim or islamic(a wrong concept altogether...)
[/QUOTE]

So according to your logic if it was all about secularism and rwadaari then why can't we live with India in secularism and rawadaari? If secularism is rawadaari than why this hesitation in joining India. Why Pakistan in the first place? Does that mean Islamic Law isn't about tolerance and peace? ...and secular law is?

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *
Does that mean Islamic Law isn't about tolerance and peace? ...and secular law is?
[/QUOTE]

First of all... Islamic Law is "Secular"....It is not a form of any Extremism(not allowing others to live)...There is nothing like a seperate Secular law....Muslims are peace searching & loving people that allows others to live in "Harmony"...Would you deny it???

"""""So according to your logic if it was all about secularism and rwadaari then why can't we live with India in secularism and rawadaari? If secularism is rawadaari than why this hesitation in joining India.""""

Because than we would be living in a Hindu Majority country "Governed" by a "Hindu Maafia"......That's what Quaid-e-Azam M.A.Jinnah didn't wanted....& Yes "Rawadari" is a part of Islamic Pillars,Don't deny it...

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Goliko: *

First of all... Islamic Law is "Secular"....It is not a form of any Extremism(not allowing others to live)...There is nothing like a seperate Secular law....Muslims are peace searching & loving people that allows others to live in "Harmony"...Would you deny it???

"""""So according to your logic if it was all about secularism and rwadaari then why can't we live with India in secularism and rawadaari? If secularism is rawadaari than why this hesitation in joining India.""""

Because than we would be living in a Hindu Majority country "Governed" by a "Hindu Maafia"......That's what Quaid-e-Azam M.A.Jinnah didn't wanted....& Yes "Rawadari" is a part of Islamic Pillars,Don't deny it...
[/QUOTE]

I only have one answer for you. Read the quran and hadith with meanings and most importantly pray 5 times a day if you don't. InshaAllah you may start seeing things differently.

12

^I would never go against what you just said....But then i would just advice you...to keep your approach a bit loosened....

Besides Quran Sharif never says "to Kill/Mistreat/Dis-Respect those who are Non-Muslims,just based on they being Non-Muslims...(A Secular aprroach & this is what i only said...& this is what every Pakistani Believes in)"...Besides i guess the term secular is not clear to many(& no it doesn't include those who do not pray 5 times a day)....

I would rest my case here & would not answer you anymore regarding this .....It is your right to "Think whatever you think is right & ... to be extreme, how extreme you want to be"......

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Goliko: *
^I would never go against what you just said....But then i would just advice you...to keep your approach a bit loosened....

Besides Quran Sharif never says "to Kill/Mistreat/Dis-Respect those who are Non-Muslims,just based on they being Non-Muslims...(A Secular aprroach & this is what i only said...& this is what every Pakistani Believes in)"...Besides i guess the term secular is not clear to many(& no it doesn't include those who do not pray 5 times a day)....

I would rest my case here & would not answer you anymore regarding this .....It is your right to "Think whatever you think is right & ... to be extreme, how extreme you want to be"......
[/QUOTE]

When someone talks about completely implemeting what the Quran says so that there is real peace, people call it extremism. The Quran which is our holy book and deserves attention, gives the guidance to solve our problems and ensure a just , prosperous and a peaceful society that no other law provides.

Where does Islam say, kill non-Muslims? That is not the case. A country which has above 97% Muslims, surely needs Islamic laws as that is what these laws are for. Trust me we could live much happily in India also under their secular laws. Think about it, it is very simple and clear, Pakistan if is a separate country for Muslims has to have separate laws for Muslims. Otherwise there is no need for this division.

I would also conclude and not answer you again, that seriously think about learning and understanding Islam by yourself. Do not rely on false propaganda. You sound as if shariah law is some sort of barbaric law in which non-muslims die. Brother, do read Islamic history also, and you will discover how Muslims who had the Islamic laws, contributed to the world.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *

You sound as if shariah law is some sort of barbaric law in which non-muslims die.

[/QUOTE]

You're right. Not the non-muslims but the muslims are the real victims of these brutal and inhuman laws.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *You're right. Not the non-muslims but the muslims are the real victims of these brutal and inhuman laws.
[/QUOTE]

So you think we should disobey God who created us, and will hold us to account, and live by other rules?

God's proscribed a way for us, and we have to follow. End of story.

16

^ Amputation, stoning or other cruel punishment are inhuman to me and I'll always denounce them.

17

^
but it seems very fair to u that a thief, a murderer and other criminals go around unpunished????

imprisonment only makes matters worse for a criminal psychologiaclly....
he'll be worse when he comes out, except on rare exceptions....
and a fine means a rich guy can get away with anything....

u just have to be more far-sighted....

18

Nadia, as you can see the idea of a secular Pakistan doesn't go down very well with the MMA supporters.

Anyway, political leaders are human beings and a leader as charismatic as Jinnah, it's not surprising that he has controversy surrounding him. Same was the case for other leaders of sub-continent at that time. Gandhi was never religious, instead his narrations of pre-train-station-incident tell a story of him being anything but religious. Though, he did portray that image. Similarly, his idea of non-violence was not absolute; instead it was very cleverly put forward.

To understand how the whole argument surrounding the ‘Islamic state’ vs. ‘Muslim home land’ came into being, you have to understand the politics of partition. Two points to give fuel to your curiosity are: 1) Up till the very end Jinnah & most Muslim Leaguers were ready for a Federation of a united India’. 2) Muslim League had very little support in the (West) Pakistan. NWFP was majority congress supporters and Punjab & Sindh’s politics were very locally charged. The only way the elite leaders of Muslim League, who were almost all ‘mahajirs’ from states like UP could hold power in post-partition was on the name of religion. Maududi took the greatest advantage and till this day Pakistanis are not so sure what Jinnah really meant.

Anyway, all those who are making comments here should read Jinnah Papers and read some of the independent studies that do no divulge into making opinions but basically produce the papers, letters written between 1900 to 1955 … among political leaders & British officials.

19

Why should we care what Jinnah said. Allah chose him for a job which he did by the will of Allah. He was a human being like us and ofcourse made mistakes also . Lets not take his words like God’s words. As a Muslim what should matter most is what teh Prophet :saw: says. The commandment of Allah :swt: is more important than any personality.

All that happened before is gone and must be buried. Let live today and think of tomorrow. Think that we all are answerable to Allah for our deeds. We will be asked if we just took Quran and loaded it on our backs like donkeys or acually read it , undestood it and implemeted it.

20

^And that my friend I have heard so many times from an MMA supporter cornered. Actually from a non-MMA Jinnah hater cornered as well.

Even though I agree in principle that any nation belongs to the people, what the fore fathers vision it to be has significance, but they were after all human beings. I am willing to give up on the visions of Jinnah or others for that matter if people stop coming up with arguments that ‘Pakistan Islam kay na’am par hasil kia gia tha’.