First we have to understand that Jinnah was a politician and lawyer.. We have to stop seeing him as Hazrat Mohamad Ali Jinnah. A politician/ Lawyer will tailor is speech to the audience he is addressing. A lawyer may speak passionaltely on behalf of a criminal, or against him, but it all depends on who he is representing. In this case he was representing the Muslim Minority of India. To win the over to his side, he had to transform himself into what they would be most receptive to. But, there is Jinnah the leader, and Jinnah the Man, and you cannot deny the fact that through out his life, Jinnah was an Avid secularist. Sadly, he did not live long enough to lead his people or his country in any real way. Had he lived even a year or two longer, perhaps we could have seen the foundation of a purely secular society, perhaps based on Islamic influences. The reason he did not follow Attaturk is that he obviously did not have the time to lead his country in the same way as Attaturk, and because while he admired him, he obviously did not agree with Attaturks methodology.
Attaturk turned his back on Islamic culture completely, Jinnah sought to incorporate Islam into his plan for the sake of winning Muslims to his side. But I believed he would have tailored his state so that while Islam was the source of inspiration and influence, it was not the recognized religion of the state.
When he said "“When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago..” I dont think that necesarilly means he wanted a Theocracy. He simply meant that he wanted a society that was influenced by Islamic precepts, but not one that relies solely on Islam or refers to it as the official religion. He was a pragmatist as you said, he say that in a society where 95 percent are Muslim, Islam would definently play a role in the state, but I dont think he wanted to be directly connected with the state. You see this in America where Bush is obviously influenced by Born Again Christianity, but this doesnt mean that there is no seperation of Church and State.
Same idea in this “Jinnah spoke of ““liberty, fraternity and equality as enjoined upon us by Islam”. Again, not a very secular stance.”
Im a secularist and I believe in the same things, democracy and Islam are compatible, and so are liberty and fraternity and equality. Islamic Democracy only works if everyone is Muslim and have the same views. Equality can only be given at the expense of political equality in the eyes of the govt and state. I dont think that a country which professes one relgion as the state religion can ever be truly equatable towards those that dont belong to that relgion. A democracy is a representative govt, so how can a govt be representative govt that only represents a single community be representative?
Pakistan is the example, where only Muslims may become head of state!
Your example I get… Your saying that if a group such as the Gay or Black in America for example, dont feel they are represented, it is the same as the lack of representation of religious Minorties in a theocracy.
The problem is that your assuming this is ok. A group that isnt being represented has a right to demand more representation. This is the logic behind secularist, by not professing any relgion or any creed, you are trying to level the political playing field for ALL groups. In a secular society, all groups are able negotiate a better deal through the mechanism of the govt. The Secular state is inclusive by nature. In a non Secular state, minority groups that are misrepresented are not able to change their status, because the very nature of the state. A Theocracy is one in which the same principles enshrined by the state, those being that state and relgion are one, are the same that exclude Minority religous groups from being represented, these principles are writtten in stone and cant be changed… So a Minority groups is effectively allienated from the govt and political mainstream simply because of the very nature of the theocratic state, which by its very definition, excludes certain groups.
America may not represent Muslims, but neither does it represent any other religous group. All religous groups are equal in the eyes of the US govt. Non are given preferential treatment. And yet Muslim are represented through secular leaders who are willing to represent their cinstituency as long as it is not at the expense of any other religous group or does not infringe on the secular principles of the state.
As for france, they are starting to take it to far. The US allows religous symbols in school and that is fine. I agree that prayer should not be allowed in state schools however, although High schools have allowed some exceptions for Muslim students. Besides, there are religous schools in the US that are free to pray all day if they like.
As for the will of the Majority in Pakistan, this is very dangerous thought.. You saying that a if the Majorirty wills it, any group can be singled out? Isnt this what lead to the holocaust? If tommorow, American Christians decided that Muslims were to dangerous to continue to live in the US, and they should ALL be expelled on masse, you woul support this? If Pakistan were a secular society the Ahmedis would not have been allowed to be discriminated against in this way. Even if they were labeled as non Muslims, the injustices hoisted on them would have been avoided.
I agree with your point on Europe and the role of the Church as compared to that in the Muslim world, you got me there.
But, you have to agree that Muslim dark ages, which I really think we are in today is not due to lack of education but due to something far deeper, and people can and have writted entire books on the issue. I think its a dark ages brought upon by our inablitity reconcile with changing times. Its a struggle between the moderates, the secularist and the hard liner extremist. These problems within ourselves, this inability to reconcile with Islam in the classical sense and the modern world, thats keeping us behind. This I blame on the Clergy. A secular govt would allow us to overcome this conflict, allow people to practice their religion on their own and let the state fnction independantly and not take sides.
Im willing to accpet that at least on paper, a religous Islamic society can be on par with a secualr society, after all, even a non muslim could represent a Muslim majority, but this is only on paper. Fact is that we have to take human nature into account, and mixing religion and politics is very dangerous especially in the world of today, it may have worked before but I dont think it can work today.
Pakistan can only be just society if it drops the idea of state sponsered relgion. If it doesnt it will always be unrepresentative and dangerous.. How many more Ahmedi groups will crop up for example, how many more injustices will be wrought upon the hapless minorities at the behest of the Majority and the govt that represents them?