Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!
Many of the quotes you gave are also used by Islamist groups as evidence that Jinnah wanted an Islamic Pakistan.
"“Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state? You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.”
“But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it....”.
“In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.”
You overlook look the fact that at the exact same time period that Jinnah was saying these quotes, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi of the Jamaat-i-Islaam was giving speeches saying how as Islamic state is NOT one ruled by clerics.
Maulana Maududi explicity stated an Islamic state would not be a theocracy; it would not be ruled by the whims of clerics and would instead be ruled by men adhering to the principles that God laid down. Indeed, if you look at previous Islamic states (the Abbasid, Mamluk and Uthmani states) the political powers of clerics were generally quite limited.
Jinnah's guarantees of the rights of minorities were also almost exactly the same as the rights of minorities in an ideal Islamic state as preached by Maulana Maududi.
And finally, whilst I have no doubt that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state to be created but was hampered by the fact that in 1947 there was no concensus over what the nature of an Islamic state was, there is one final argument against secularism.
As Muslims, are we not supposed to put the commands of Rasoolullah (pbuh) about how to live our lives and conduct our affairs over and above the wishes of later men?
Should Turkey remain strictly and oppresively secular simply because that's how Ataturk wished it to be? Should Turkish women be persecuted for wearing the hijab forever because that is how Ataturk wished it to be? Should Turkey have remained a one-party dictatorship forever simply because that is how Ataturk ruled it?