Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

[Med911]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@rangoli

part from Mr. Jinnah August 11th speech!

"If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, ... is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. ...we must learn a lesson from this [our past experience]. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state ... we are starting in the days when there is no discrimination between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste, or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.... I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and 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."

he is just clearly saying no matter what community an individual belongs to there would be no discrimination towards any community. they will enjoy full rights as citizens of one state.

on being asked about theocratic state, this is what he said.

Question: "Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?"

Mr. M.A. Jinnah: "You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means."

A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and Non-Muslims would not be full citizens.

Mr. M.A. Jinnah: "Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck's back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

***You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state

***Call it whatever you like, but this is a secular state.

Examine Pakistan today and tell me that jinnah would support a state in which only a Muslim can become president, or people are prevented from writing the Kalima or calling their place of worship a mosque.

Now Jinnah in my opinion certainly did not believe that religion should guide the policies of the state. Although many policy makers in secular states are inspired by religious doctrine.

[khoji]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

Even after witnessing the destruction every islamist has inflicted in Pakistan, it is strange to see many people still supporting Islamic state. Presently Pakistan is between a secular and a religious state. But if tomorrow it becomes a truly Islamic state then it would be the death of reason, logic, development. If anyone has doubt about it then just look at ideology of current Islamist leaders in the country.
Quaid wanted minorities to be a part of Pakistan. But take a look at the plight of minorities today. Hindus are leaving the country because their life has been made a hell by the extremists. Hazards are another example of a community in ruins in balochistan because of them.

Now I know that supporters of these Neanderthals see nothing wrong in threatening and killing of minorities. But it is strange to see even those people who believe in Quaid's ideal of protection of minorities, but still long for very system and people who will definitely go against the Quaid's ideal.

If anyone truly support Quaid's Pakistan then secular democracy is the only way for Pakistan to go.

[khoji]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@rangoli

When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

Here Quaid equated democracy with Islam. But if we were to impose Islam according to the whims of its supporters then democracy actually equates to kufr or infidelity. And everyone, including Quaid, is a kafir for calling democracy Islamic.

[khoji]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Med911

Examine Pakistan today and tell me that jinnah would support a state in which only a Muslim can become president, or people are prevented from writing the Kalima or calling their place of worship a mosque.

... Or celebrating the conversion of a Hindu on live TV by Mullah Maya.

[kchughtai]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

A short video on secular state

btw, would you briefly put down your vision of an Islamic state or a secular state

[kchughtai]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

First, there was not a clear cut message from MA Jinnah about the Govt. role in terms of religion (s).

Second: It really did not matter as long as the ambition of the people and many who brought the idea of Pakistan matters.

Third:** Ultimate reason to have separate state within a larger state or what now became a country is/was religious difference between two majorities. Muslim League used this reason as a major reason for making Pakistan. Period**.

The reason for separation was not religion but a divide based on religion where muslims felt being marginalized. I think you would not like to be doing the same in your state where you have majority.

[rangoli]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Med911

***You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state

***Call it whatever you like, but this is a secular state.

Examine Pakistan today and tell me that jinnah would support a state in which only a Muslim can become president, or people are prevented from writing the Kalima or calling their place of worship a mosque.

Now Jinnah in my opinion certainly did not believe that religion should guide the policies of the state. Although many policy makers in secular states are inspired by religious doctrine.

I think, you misunderstood my point. I fully agree that Mr. Jinnah aimed for a secular country. but again he didnt really wanted a western sorta secularism, his idea of secular country was inspired from Islamic ideal and principles. which is all about justice, equality and impartiality. and its's really really sad, that after Jinnah loss and sudden Liaquat Ali Khan assassination, that dream never really got implemented.

[Captain1]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@khoji

Even after witnessing the destruction every islamist has inflicted in Pakistan, it is strange to see many people still supporting Islamic state. Presently Pakistan is between a secular and a religious state. But if tomorrow it becomes a truly Islamic state then it would be the death of reason, logic, development. If anyone has doubt about it then just look at ideology of current Islamist leaders in the country.

How conveniently we forget the role of our military, the geo-politics?

[Ghost14]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@rangoli

I think, you misunderstood my point. I fully agree that Mr. Jinnah aimed for a secular country. but again **he didnt really wanted a western sorta secularism, his idea of secular country was inspired from Islamic ideal and principles. **which is all about justice, equality and impartiality. and its's really really sad, that after Jinnah loss and sudden Liaquat Ali Khan assassination, that dream never really got implemented.

"Inspired from", is not "same as". Islam believes in people's right to practice their religion, as long as they pay a tax. That's not true secularism. Islam allows freedom of religion, as long as Islam is top dog. That's not secularism. That's like the Israelis who consider the growing Arab population a "ticking time bomb". The state should be impartial, **period. **But given the current state, I would settle for Islamic secularism.

[Ghost14]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Captain1

How conveniently we forget the role of our military, the geo-politics?

Zia happened to be both a military dictator, as well as an Islamist. His extreme religious policies laid the groundwork for subsequent political destabilization, and persecution of religious minorities.

[diwana]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@kchughtai

The reason for separation was not religion but a divide based on religion ........

where muslims felt being marginalized. I think you would not like to be doing the same in your state where you have majority.

I am really sorry but I stopped reading at the end of red part of the sentence to think what that really means?

Whatever you said after this, the reason WAS religious difference.

It's like saying I did not choose my shirt based on color but based on the differences of colors between two shirts.

Kinda schizophrenic statement. :(

[Med911]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@rangoli

I think, you misunderstood my point. I fully agree that Mr. Jinnah aimed for a secular country. but again he didnt really wanted a western sorta secularism, his idea of secular country was inspired from Islamic ideal and principles. which is all about justice, equality and impartiality. and its's really really sad, that after Jinnah loss and sudden Liaquat Ali Khan assassination, that dream never really got implemented.

We have to remember, Jinnah was a politician at heart. And that is where the confusion lies. We tend to glorify our leaders, but forget they are mortal.

Like any politician I think he spoke to his audience. His pronouncements on the nature of Islamic govt does not convince me, the man was never particularly religious, and so it all sounds to much like any modern politician trying to speak to his base, and spinning things so that he pleases both sides.

Like any Politician, what they say before they are elected is never quite what you get after they are elected. Just look at Obama. Before elections they love everything you love, your values are their values, your concerns are their concerns. its only after the election that we begin to see the true man. Before Pakistan was official we see Jinnah wearing the Shirwaani, he knows his base is religious and so he wins them over by citing Islam, but he keeps it vague so as to not alienate his progressive supporters or give away his own secular leanings. So he tells us that Pakistan will not be a theocratic country, but then he also tells us that Islam is completely compatible with Democracy, and then tells us that Islam had introduced it millennia ago! What?!?! So will it be secular or will it be based on some amalgam of Islam and British common law? Sounds to me like a classic spin. You see it in Politics all the time. He manages to satisfy both the right and left.

Ofcourse there are always those who are unconvinced by the hype. When during the last election in the US, people were drooling all over Obama, there were those in the know who warned that we should stay grounded and not be seduced. Similarly, I believe it was the Ulema of the time who would oppose the man knowing him to be left leaning, perhaps center left, but couldn't fight his charisma among the people.

And as I mentioned, its only after an election that you see the true character of a politician, just as we see with Obama, we see the same of Jinnah. While during his fight for Pakistan he would often cite Islam, and people often reference that period when defending a religious state, once Pakistan was a done deal, we see this speech. This speech then, along with what we know of him before he began to truly fight for Pakistan, I think is the true measure of the man that was Jinnah. no longer fighting for support, he could tell us what his true vision was, and where he stood. Everything before that was spin. At least in my opinion.

Unlike Obama, who has been a huge let down for many people, Jinnah was fortunate in a way. He died at his zenith. Had he lived and actually had to deal with the hornets nest that constituted the new state, he may well have lost much of his shine.

[chaibiskut]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

Zia was not a mullah.

As for the all or nothing Scenario you have a valid point but judging by the nature of some posters I am afriad it is being hijacked by many. I do agree though a compromise of sorts is not a bad idea but to reach it we need more eductation... all I see is biggots on all sides.

Faris, your objection is a semantic one. That Zia was not an official clergyman does not detract from my point that he imposed his wahabi ideologies on the Constitution and the people. He was as good as a mullah in army fatigues. His regime fostered the rise and normalization of fundamentalism. He sought to create a hard-line Sunni Islamist state. His Islamization project transformed the social and political landscape for decades to come. He criminalized dissent, flogged religious and political dissenters in public squares, destroyed parliamentary politics, trashed arts and culture, and reversed the status of women. All in the name of a return to Islamic values. I responded to Diwana's clownish claim that godless secularists are to be blamed exclusively for Pakistan's problems. Never mind that the PPP represents the closest we've come to secular politics, if you agree with him your sense of history is curiously selective, if not warped.

Your hijacking comment is another strawman. You say you see bigots 'on all sides' - name the secular bigots. The bigotry and intolerance enshrined in the Constitution can be credited to religious leaders or leaders appeasing religious groups. If anything is being hijacked, it's religion. Secularism is being shot to death in broad daylight. Not only is education needed, it needs to be reformed. The Saudi-American apparatus of the Cold War - madrassas - need to be dismantled. The military and ISI need to be gutted and de-radicalized. The political will to stop appeasing and subsidizing the fanatic minority needs to be found. You call this 'secularization,' I call it normalization. The onus is on you to build your case against secular reform and/or explain how secularism has has been 'hijacked' to date. The country dabbled in Islamization and the results are being reaped for generations to come. It's time to move away from politicized religion, and this requires removing religion from politics.

[QUOTE]

@Ghost14

Muslim countries would also be trading white slaves sunshine. The Ottomans and the Caliphates engaged in slavery. Times change, but apparently you don't want Pakistan to change with the times.

I like how nobody has sound, objective reasons for why secular rule of law is a bad thing. All I see is irrational lashing out, thinking that secularism is sole property of the West. Europe imported a lot of it's customs from the East.

Pakistan will still be a Muslim majority. The PM and judges will still be influenced by the Quran. The difference is that the judges, and only the judges, will be able to change the law. Ridiculous fatwa's would have no credibility. That's secularism. That's how you ensure it in writing. There is no way to have a theocracy, and then tell a mullah with a following that his fatwa is ill timed or flat out biased.

@Faris_Udeen

Well it aint easy but it can and has been done.

[/QUOTE]

Any lawmaker will find this comical. "It ain't easy" cannot become the basis for an independent judiciary and parliament. You're deliberately ignoring Ghost's point. If it ain't easy, why make it difficult? As a non-theocracy Pakistan is already at the mercy of religious fringes. Are you suggesting it introduce even more religion into the mix? For those dreaming of an Islamic Utopia, don't hold your breath. There are too many interpretations of Islam and too many schools of thought to create and sustain a homogeneous state non-violently. If a Sunni wants to be able to (peacefully) dissent from a Shia, a Hanafi from a Maliki, and so on, it's in their interest to promote a secular democracy where everyone gets the right to opine but not to impose. How much violence and instability do people need to experience before they beat this reflex to support religious politics, regardless of its demerits and what it has done to Pakistan. Pity the nation that insists on its own downfall.

[chaibiskut]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@diwana

Oh my bad!

How did I forget Allama Aala Hazrat Ziaul Haq Rehmatullah Aleh Maddu Zillahu as being the elected, religious and spiritual leader of the Pakistani people?

You know what, mere mentioning Zia in response to my post is sole proof you have no idea of Pakistan, its history and its problems but you love to bring your two cents anyways.

Sigh. What a tiresome waste of bandwidth. Your replies amount to calling me hilarious, ignorant, and/or advising me not to call myself Pakistani. I have no issues with any of these labels; the likes of you are entertainment for the likes of me. Carry on, jaani.

@Ghost14

That's not true. France is about freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. People actually brought up the point that Christians like George Bush and Tony Blair, while presiding over secular countries, are very devout men. So much so, that perhaps their views on Israel are clouded. Your religious views are a part of you and will influence your policies. That's not always a good thing, as I just mentioned.

If Pakistan was to become secular, the reality is that anyone who is a non-Muslim would have a very hard time getting elected, and a Muslim PM will always be mindful of his or her Islamic heritage. The difference is that our laws would not be open to an extremist's interpretation, and a hateful culture that targets religious minorities would have official opposition from the state. The way we've treated minorities is absolutely sickening.

Such a critical point. Freedom from religion vs. freedom of religion. Given the religious paranoia on this forum, the definition of secularism and what it entails deserves a thread of it's own, if not a sticky.

[khoji]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Captain1

How conveniently we forget the role of our military, the geo-politics?

Radical extremists wouldn’t have succeeded without the military’s backup. Especially true for Zia’s era.

Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military: Husain Haqqani: 9780870032141: Amazon.com: Books

[khoji]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@rangoli

... he didnt really wanted a western sorta secularism, his idea of secular country was inspired from Islamic ideal and principles. which is all about justice, equality and impartiality.

I used to argue the same way. But then I realized that Quaid used to follow a simple rule that everything good is Islam. Thus justice, equality and impartiality is good. And therefore, they are all Islamic.
Unfortunately this is not true today. People who represent Islam today have their own twisted interpretation of what constitutes justice, equality and impartiality; which would be totally different from what Quaid thought.

This is why I think those statements of Quaid where he talks of "Islamic" principles and ideals, should be taken with a pinch of salt. Because such talk is very vague, and can mean different things for different people.

[Captain1]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Ghost14

Zia happened to be both a military dictator, as well as an Islamist. His extreme religious policies laid the groundwork for subsequent political destabilization, and persecution of religious minorities.

@khoji

Radical extremists wouldn’t have succeeded without the military’s backup. Especially true for Zia’s era.

Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military: Husain Haqqani: 9780870032141: Amazon.com: Books

yes, Zia, Zia, Zia… he did everything bad for the country. What about later military commanders? What about Musharraf? What later on? Nothing has changed, Zia was just a show piece.

[The_Jinx]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

yes, Zia, Zia, Zia.... he did everything bad for the country. What about later military commanders? What about Musharraf? What later on? Nothing has changed, Zia was just a show piece.

Before the 11 years of Zia, Pakistan was corruption-less. Everyone was happy. Education level was reaching 100%. Pakistan was a developed country. Major cities had Mass Transit system. There was no lower middle or lower class. The feaudals were giving equal rights to their slav .. er .. employees.

Same is true for post Zia era after 25 years of his time. (Sarcasm specially intended)

[GoldenAsif]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

Pakistan was created because of the fear that POLITICAL rights of Muslim minority might be usurped by Hindu majority India. India and Pakistan were not supposed to be 'enemy' countries to begin with. It was the mass killings and plunder during migration ( primarily because of idiotic border lines and lack of planning by British and local politicians) that bred hatred.

Even if we accept that Pakistan was supposed to be an Islamic state, we didn't move in that direction either. Many western governments are more 'Islamic' in terms of providing security of life and property to citizens, justice, education and medical care and protection to minorities. I don't think anyone would have a problem if such 'Islamic' government is installed in Pakistan. For us, 'Islamic' has mainly been prayers, fasting, clothing and superficial expressions of piety.

Agreed for the vast majority of rigid and backward-thinking Pakistanis that is what Islam is. Add ...** excessive expressions of religiosity and blasphemy and the picture is complete. in other words all just banawat or dikhawa.
**
Call it secularism or liberalism (a better word perhaps) but it only means separation of state and religion - freedom, liberty and equality thereby ensuring citizens of all faiths are protected and treated equally under the law. It doesn't mean you stop practising your respective faiths.

[khoji]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

yes, Zia, Zia, Zia.... he did everything bad for the country. What about later military commanders? What about Musharraf? What later on? Nothing has changed, Zia was just a show piece.

Zia was mentioned because extremist radicalism was being discussed. Zia is mentioned by many people due to his obvious critical role in propagating extremism through his policy of Islamization.
When discussing radical extremism, just talking about military dictatorships is not enough. The military continued to play the same role in this regard even during democratic times.