By Nusrat Pasha
This nation still has hope if it succeeds in reverting to Jinnah’s Will :
1 : “….Religion should not be allowed to come into Politics….Religion is merely a matter between man and God”. [Jinnah, Address to the Central Legislative Assembly, 7 February 1935]
2 : “….in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans. ” [Jinnah, Speaking about the Shudras or Untouchables, during his address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934 ]
3 : “….I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.” [Jinnah, Press Conference, 14 November 1946]
4 : “…. 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. That has nothing to do with the business of the State.” [Jinnah, Presidential address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Karachi, 11 August 1947]
5 : “….no distinction 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.” [ Jinnah, Presidential Address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, 11 August 1947]
6 : “…. Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due 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 the individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State “. [Jinnah, Presidential Address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, 11 August 1947]
7 : ” But make no mistake : Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.” [ Jinnah, Message to the people of Australia, 19 February 1948 ]
Whenever Jinnah uses the terms “Islam” and “Islamic” with reference to Pakistan, they are by no means in the sense of a Shariah State. Instead of focusing on the apparent tenor, which more often than not remains subject to diverse interpretations, debate and dispute, Jinnah very wisely remains focused on the SPIRIT of Islamic teachings, which in essence is also the spirit of every single known revealed religion. Thus he succeeds in upholding the secular cause without sacrificing the elements of morality and universal appeal. This spirit, according to him comprises of three elements – Equality, Justice and Fairplay. Any state capable of providing these three to ALL its citizens, would be, for all practical purposes “Islamic” in nature. The following two references are worthy of consideration :
Riaz ul Hassan
January 26, 2010
nice work
Khullat
February 4, 2010
My salutations to Quaid-e-Azam. Let’s adopt his will.
Somone?!!!
July 5, 2010
is this khullat pashA?!!
Adeela
July 5, 2010
The will of Quaid-e-Azam is truly to be saluted. Absoultely religion is the matter of man and God.
Bin Ismail
February 5, 2010
Jinnah’s Will should be the spirit of our Constitution and Law.
Salman Latif
February 6, 2010
I believe it was rather this ‘ambiguous secularism’ on part of Jinnah and others on the front lines of Pakistan movement that procured the impetus to a possible theocracy in Pakistan.
Much that we may assert that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a liberal state, to which I readily agree, we can’t look off the historical facts that religion was still used as a central unifying point by the League, even if just to bear fruit to the efforts for a separate homeland. Compromises like these often have long-term impacts and that’s precisely what the chants for ‘Islamism’ and Jinnah’s ‘Islamic vision’ are, which are oft-heard today.
Bin Ismail
February 6, 2010
@Salman Latif
Besides the above mentioned 9 references from Jinnah,his numerous other statements and speeches ought to be carefully studied before one can call Jinnah’s secularism ‘ambiguous’.In fact his secularism is anything but ambiguous.His struggle was neither for Islam,nor in the name of Islam.In his own words”I am not fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan”.His fight was actually for the Muslim-majority states of Hindustan.
Chants of ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamic vision’ which you hear today are being deliberately attributed to Jinnah.This is like someone stating a disinformation campaign aimed at proving that Washington’s struggle for independence was in the name of Christianity,simply because the majority of the inhabitants of the states that later became USA,were Christians.
Salman Latif
February 7, 2010
“In his Chittagong 1948 broadcast, Jinnah espoused Islamic Socialism (Burke, 2007, pp.166). Before him Allama Iqbal had said God plus Bolshevism is Islam. Hasrat Mohani used the term Islamic Communism. Liaquat Ali Khan called Islamic Socialism the state policy of Pakistan (Symonds, 1976, pp.182). Fatimah Jinnah with reference to her brother’s Chittagong speech advocated Islamic Socialism (Khan, 1976, pp. 25, 26). Dr. Muhammad Ali Siddiqui is witness that the Raja of Mahmudabad favored Islamic Socialism, in Katrak Hall, Karachi in 1967 (Siddiqui, 1998, pp.18). Author witness that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto said that “Islamic Socialism is that part of Socialism which is not in conflict with Islam”.
At Sibi Durbar on Feb 14th, 1947, Jinnah said:”Let us lay down the foundations of our democracy on the study of truly Islamic ideals and principles.”
You can see that all above references clearly point to the fact that both Jinnah and his fellows were one way or the other, also using Islam in a bid to further the freedom movement. And that’s precisely why, even after more than 60 years, the rightist morons still have food enough to claim their notion of ‘Islamic state.’
Ahmad
March 27, 2010
While these are certainly valid points, they are mostly second hand sources attributing certain characteristics to people….i am not disagreeing with you….all i’m saying is (as you also mention) that Bhutto also gave a call for Islamic Socialism….do you really think Bhutto….a mullah-hating, wine drinking, extra-marital affair indulging man (something which btw, I have absolutely no problem with, to each his own) gave a damn about Islam….and as long as you are quoting sources let me quote one too:
“Bhutto espoused his Islamic Socialism vision by telling people that Jinnah also believed in Islamic Socialism, when nothing could have been further from the truth. Jinnah was a firm believer in Capitalism, owning many properties, and had loans from Banks who all charged interest.”
Stanley Wolpert, Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan.
This is paraphrased, and I don’t remember the exact page number, but i’ve read the book more than once and i’m damn sure its in there somewhere.
Salman Latif
February 7, 2010
Apologies for the unnecessary exaggeration at the end of the first excerpt
Bin Ismail
February 7, 2010
@Salman Latif
Apologies are not required.The rightist morons are very much around.
Now coming to the issue.Jinnah has indeed used the expressions of ‘Islamic principles’ and ‘Islamic idealism’,and on more than one occasion,but he has also defined them as Nusrat Pasha has very rightly pointed out in the above write-up.These principles and ideals are three:
a) Equality
b) Justice
c) Fairplay
Now to summarise Islamic ideals and principles as Equality, Justice and Fairplay is not a theocratic approach,is it.
Going back to the morons,they are capable of misinterpreting anybody – even God.
Bin Ismail
February 7, 2010
@Salman Latif
Apologies are not required.The rightist morons are very much around.
Now coming to the issue.Jinnah has indeed used the expressions of ‘Islamic principles’ and ‘Islamic idealism’,and on more than one occasion,but he has also defined them as Nusrat Pasha has very rightly pointed out in the above write-up.These principles and ideals are three:
a) Equality
b) Justice
c) Fairplay
Now to summarise Islamic ideals and principles as Equality, Justice and Fairplay is not a theocratic approach,is it.
Going back to the morons,they are capable of misinterpreting anybody – even God.
Salman Latif
February 7, 2010
“The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. 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. Broadcast talk to the people of the United States of America on Pakistan recorded February, 1948.”
Well..what I’ve gathered from Jinnah’s quotes is that he, even when clearly and totally renounced the notion of Pakistan being a theocracy, did admit and rather, cite at many occasions, Pakistan’s being a would-be Islamic state. Now how Jinnah perceived the two to be different, how the two are actually different and how our Mullah brathers take the very two to be different – that’s where the ambiguity lies.
Bin Ismail
February 7, 2010
@Salman Latif
Good quote.You’ve actually proven the point I was trying to make. Jinnah did not conceive a theocracy at any rate. He believed in imbibing the Islamic principles of EQUALITY, JUSTICE and FAIRPLAY in the constitution, and there’s nothing theocratic about this.This is very different from having what is generally understood as a Shariah State. Advocates of the so-called Shariah State envisage ulema in the seat of power, who would be functioning as the legislators, interpreters and enforcers.
I admire your magnanimity for calling the Mullas ‘our brothers’ because the only brotherhood the Mullas believe in is the Mulla Brotherhood. Trust me there’s no room in it for sinners like me and you.
The bottomline is to separate state and religion.
Khullat
February 9, 2010
As a nation, our first major deviation from the Will of the Quaid was the Objectives Resolution. This was followed by a rapid drift towards religious extremism and intolerance.Is there no one among us with the moral courage to acknowledge that we have to undo our mistakes.
Amaar Ahmad
February 12, 2010
I think the term ‘secularism’ puts off a lot of traditional or conservation people off. This is true in Pakistan but surprisingly even in a country like US where ‘liberalism’ is considered a threat to society by right-wing elements.
Unfortunately, the semantics is a major reason why people cannot make sense of the notion of a ‘secular’ society and confuse it as the exact opposite of a theocratic state.
In my view, any social structure which does not distinguish and discriminate among people on the basis of their religious/political views can be described as both ‘secular’ as well as ‘Islamic’. For example, when dispensing justice courts ought not to be concerned about the faiths of complainants. Similarly, when appointing public officials, the government should not decide on the basis of religion or social background.
Surely, when decisions are made on the basis of merit and competence, you can describe that , in both religious and secular terms, as good. Jinnah wanted a country which achieved goodness in both the spiritual and the corporal sense and certainly the two mean the same thing for people who reach the pinnacle of excellence
Bin Ismail
February 12, 2010
Very well said indeed.
Khullat
February 12, 2010
” Equal citizens of one state “. Isn’t that the golden Islamic principle of ” Musaawaat ” ? Only a secular state can guarantee this to its citizens. A theocracy can not.
Nusrat Pasha
February 12, 2010
@Khullat
You’re absolutely right. That is why I say that a Secular State is by nature Islamic because it guarantees equality among all its citizens.
Adeela
July 5, 2010
@Khullat
All Citizens of a state may not be equally powerful, but they may be equally free. With respect to this quote God has made ma equal and not superior to one another. But this is something not many people seem to understand .
Adeela
July 5, 2010
All citizens of a state may not be equally powerful, but they may be equally free. This is a statement not many people seem to understand.
For God works in our souls in the deepest depths…..
Bin Ismail
February 26, 2010
I agree that the infamous Objectives Resolution was the first major deviation from the will of Quaid-e Azam – the first visible drift from the Quaid’s secularism towards the Mullah’s theocracy. With 62 years lost in wandering in this deviation, we should seriously ask ourselves,”Do we have the luxury of losing more time?”You don’t need an IQ of 170 to answer this simple question. No, we do not have the luxury of losing any more time. Losing any more time could actually mean losing our existence.
abid
March 5, 2010
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.” [Feb. 1948, Jinnah’s broadcast address to the people of the United States of America]
Amit
March 6, 2010
Forgive my pitiful ignorance, but was it not Jinnah who declared that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations who could not live together?
Now if that is the case they why quote all of the above. If Jinnah wanted a a state based on people’s religious alleigeince then it is only fair that the state be taken to its logical end. That is why Pakistan is an Islamic nation.
Look you can’t have it both ways, you can either have a state for Muslims in accordance with the Shariah or you may live in a secular country where religion does not matter.
Suppose if Hindus were allowed to grow naturally and in Pakistan and by a matter of chance they reproduced faster than Muslims and became a majority in the country, what then? Would Muslims feel scared again of the Hindu infidel and ask for another division or would they go ahead and do what they have been doing since the last 60 years in Pakistan.
Nusrat Pasha
March 6, 2010
@Amit
As late as November 14, 1946, which means merely 9 months prior to independence, Jinnah said, “….I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.” Jinnah pursued Pakistan neither in the name of Islam, nor exclusively for Muslims. You see, Quaid-e-Azam was more than willing to endorse an undivided India, which he openly did when he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Congress leadership, not Jinnah wriggled out of this last chance of keeping India undivided. All that Quaid-e-Azam wanted was to ensure that the social and economic interests of the conglomerate of the Muslim-majority states remained secure. This was an assurance that Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were not willing to extend. The weaker and smaller conglomerate of the Muslim-majority states was at risk of being economically subdued by the larger and more prosperous conglomerate of the Hindu-majority states. So, Pakistan was created neither in the name of Islam, nor exclusively for Muslims, but rather in pursuance of a secure economic future for the Muslim-majority states of the Subcontinent. By any standards, Jinnah was perfectly right – morally, legally and politically right – in doing so.
The two nations in the “Two-nation theory” were not the religious denominations of Hindus and Muslims, as perhaps many would like to believe, but rather the Hindu-majority states and the Muslim-majority states.
CONCLUSION: Jinnah did not pursue Pakistan in the name of Islam, as is commonly claimed. There is a huge difference between creating a state in the name of Islam and securing a safe politico-economic future for the economically vulnerable Muslim-majority states of the subcontinent.
Amit
March 8, 2010
Thank you very much for the reply, but can you confirm the following for me, as to whether Jinnah said that or nor
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.
Now if Jinnah said that I would call him a pragmatist. I am not sure if he was secular or not, but he could definately see that Hindus and Muslims really are different nations.
For all your claims about him being worried about Muslims being subdued and stuff, I would wonder why? What made Jinnah think that Muslims would be illtreated in an undivided India? What was his basis for saying something like this. Look I am not saying that Jinnah was wrong in his thesis. Maybe he was right, maybe we was wrong. Maybe he didnot take in to consideration that there are other things besides religion that inspire people to fight with each other.
Nusrat Pasha
March 8, 2010
@Amit
If you had kindly given the reference [occasion and time] of the above quote, it would indeed have been more convenient to respond in a more proper way.
However, assuming the quote to be precise, and without the luxury of going back to examine the complete text and its context, I would like to point out the following:
1. “…They are not religions in the strict sense of the word…”
Well, these words confirm his secular attitude because he is not treating and differentiating Muslims and Hindus on the plane of religion, is he. The comparison is being made in a social context. Now, bearing these ‘social’ identities in mind, when you take into consideration the fact that there were 2 distinct groups of states within undivided India, the Hindu-majority states and the Muslim-majority states, then you begin to see 2 distinct and different sets of political aspirations as well. The sad part of the story, that has to be realistically taken into account, is that even a millennium of common history had failed in removing the trust deficit between these 2 social denominations, which manifested itself in its worst form during the communal riots around independence.
Discussing “whose fault” would be futile. Confronting realities is essential. In one of his first post-independence speeches, he appeals to the Muslims of India to remain loyal and committed to their country. He also assured the Hindu community living in Pakistan that they would be equal citizens with their Muslim fellow citizens in Pakistan – an assurance his successors could not live up to.
Unfortunately, neither Pakistan nor India remained on the course of true secularism later on. The ways in which the authorities in Pakistan handled minorities, and the manner in which the Indian government handled the states of Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh, are indeed not in line with secular statecraft. In fact India’s handling of Kashmir has only vindicated Jinnah’s theory.
2. “…Now if Jinnah said that, I would call him a pragmatist…”
He was indeed a pragmatist as well as a realist. Founding a state comprising of Muslim-majority states does not conclude that he wanted to create a theocracy. That would not be a logical inference. He envisioned 2 parallel secular friendly states coexisting together as friends. Latter deviations on either side should not be attributed to the visionary pioneers.
3. “…there are other things besides religion that inspire people to fight with each other.”
Very true. Bangla Desh proves this point. Jinnah knew this well. He only tried to leave the Subcontinent with one less a reason to fight over.
4. The Cabinet Mission Plan was the last hope of keeping India undivided. Jinnah endorsed it. The Congress leadership adroitly evaded the commitment. There was no other plan on the table and Jinnah moved on.
Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh must now realize that the future lies ahead and not behind them. If these 3 nations succeed in moving ahead with the spirit of secularism in their internal as well as interstate affairs, they surely have a lot to look forward to.
Regards
Bin Ismail
March 6, 2010
People generally fail to distinguish between the following 4 terms and interchange them with considerable liberty:
1.Islam
2.Muslims
3.Muslim-majority states
4.Politico-economic wellbeing of Muslim-majority states
Out of these 4, the latter is what Jinnah actually strived for. Jinnah saw the Indian states as comprising of 2 sub-categories:
1.Muslim-majority states
2.Hindu-majority states
Of these 2, the politico-economic condition of the former was evidently precarious. Jinnah stood to struggle for them. He was essentially a pro-minority activist. Muslims were not the only minority who caught his eye. His concern for the community of the Untouchables was even greater. He said, “in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans. ” [address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934]. One could argue that this was mere rhetoric, but then how much of rhetoric do we otherwise come across in the meticulous and dispassionately practical speeches of Jinnah.
Moreover, Jinnah never envisioned Pakistan and India as rival neighbors, one representing Belief and the other Disbelief – certainly not. In November 1946, he said, “The two states [Pakistan and India] will be friends and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Munroe Doctrine more solid than in America.”
Bin Ismail
March 9, 2010
Dear everybody,
The following 2 links are highly recommended for everybody:
#1: http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/pakistan-must-be-a-secular-state-or-it-will-perish/
#2: http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/onwards-to-peoples-republic-of-pakistan/
Regards
Nusrat Pasha
August 12, 2010
Even the most pathetically incompliant and rebellious posterity shows respect towards to the will of its dying father. The vision and will of the father of this nation was a “Secular Pakistan”. Not only was his will not respected, it was defied contumaciously. And we, as a nation, have paid most dearly for this mutiny against the founder of the nation.
We must repent, and repent now. We must revert towards carrying out the will of the Father of this Nation by fulfilling Jinnah’s vision of a “Secular Pakistan”.
Junaid
September 26, 2010
The article is a classic example of secular bigotry .
If pakistan is to be purely democratic it should focus on what majority of the people want rather than what Jinnah said or did not say!
If the majority votes for a secular Pakistan, then they should have a secular pakistan. If the majority votes for a islamic pakistan then they should have a islamic pakistan irrespective of what someone though 60 years ago.
Restricting democracy to serve secular needs is equal in bigotry to restricting demoracy to service islamic needs. Whether it is religious mullahs or secular mullahs (Eqbal Ahmed included) both suffer the same veneral disease.
The site itself is a contradiction to the pristine ideal of democracy. Let the majority decide, that is the spirit of democracy.
S.Taha Rizvi
January 1, 2011
Of course the majority will vote for a Islamic Pakistan, but they will do so thinking that laws pertaining to their fiqhs will be applied…..
Bin Ismail
February 25, 2011
@ S.Taha Rizvi
True. The Barelvi Sunni would vote for Islam, imagining that the Barelvi interpretation of Islam is being voted in. The Deobandi Sunni would vote for Islam, imagining that the Barelvi interpretation of Islam is being voted in. The Isna Ashari would vote for Islam, imagining that the Isna Ashari interpretation of Islam is being voted in. The same would apply to the Ahl-e Hadees, Ahl-e Quran, Ismailis, Dawoodis and so on.
Bin Ismail
February 25, 2011
Corrigendum: Please read as:
“…..The Deobandi Sunni would vote for Islam, imagining that the [Deobandi] interpretation of Islam is being voted in…..”
Sorry for the typo error.
Fact Catcher
July 3, 2011
@ Nusrat Pasha,
For God’s sake, don’t spread your intellectual “dualism” on your blog by fiercely distorting the speeches of Quaid-i-Azam.
The references you have quoted are in a manner similar to that of looooooooser, by “cherry picking” the sentences from Quaid-i-Azam’s various speeches disregarding the proper context.
If this is the manner how YOU present YOUR OWN twisted perception of “secular” Pakistan by giving about 8 “out of context and twisted” references, I can produce a total of 138 well researched references, both pre and post partition that staunchly speak for a state based on Islamic ideals and principles.
I am just amazed how painstakingly you dug out these limping, deaf and dumb 8 references and ignored those that I found NUMBERING ABOUT 138….
Loser!!!! You are a looser. Just one reference below to substantiate my claim.
January 11, 1938: After hoisting the flag of Muslim League in Gaya Bahar.
“This is the flag of Islam, for you cannot separate the Muslim league from Islam. Many people misunderstand us, when we talk of Islam, particularly our Hindu friends. When we say, this flag is the flag of Islam; they think we are introducing religion into politics, a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only a religion, but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam, we take it as an all embracing word. We do not mean any ill will; the foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand of liberty, equality and fraternity.”
Loser!!! Go read Saleena Karim’s book, “Secular Jinnah, what the nation does not know”, which will bust your fake bubble of “secular” Pakistan.
Go and UNDERSTAND the Islamic principles of democracy and fraternity
You are but a progeny of Pervez Hoodbhoy…..
Fact Catcher
July 3, 2011
YOUR SENTENCE (Below your reference 8)
Whenever Jinnah uses the terms “Islam” and “Islamic” with reference to Pakistan, they are by no means in the sense of a Shariah State.
YOUR PROVIDED REFERENCE #9
” Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws ?……Islamic principles today are are as much applicable as they were 1300 years ago……Islam and its idealism have taught Equality, Justice and Fairplay to EVERYBODY.”
[Jinnah, 25 January 1948. Address to Bar Association Karachi]
MY REFERENCE:
January 25, 1948, Address to Karachi Bar Association.
“…I could not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create a mischief and propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat”… “Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”
Let me ask you; do you see an apple and call it a banana, or that you cannot differentiate between a male and a female? or that you consider everyone a “hermaphrodite”?
It is not about Shariah, it is about “SECTARIANISM”…..go improve on your understanding first…..
In an Islamic State (a true Islamic state is non-Sectarian) based on the principles and laws of Quran and Sunnah (which you attribute as “Shariah state” under the intoxicating blurring influence of SECTARIAN feuds), non-Muslims are well protected and as long as they remain loyal to the Law of God, they can rise as high as they can.
You don’t need to create a “secular” state for this purpose.
Bin Ismail
August 8, 2011
Dear Fact Catcher,
May the Good Lord pacify your cantankerous soul – Amen. Before making any futile attempt to disentangle your thought process, allow me first to respond briefly to some of your gems of wisdom, which I have the rare honour of quoting below.
1. “…..I can produce a total of 138 well researched references…..”
I assure you that many on this blog, including my humble self, keenly look forward to those “138 well researched references”. Please be gracious enough to present them, and preferably at the earliest.
2. “…..The references you have quoted are in a manner similar to that of looooooooser…..”
In your moment of anguish, you seem to have been unable to lift your typing finger from the “o” key. That would seem to be the only plausible explanation for eight “o”s in a row. If indeed, there is an alternative explanation, I’m all ears.
3. “…..Loser!!!! You are a looser…..”
In the first instance, there is one “o” and in the second there are two. I suppose, you are trying to break the monotony involved in having to type the word “loser” so frequently.
5. “…..Go read Saleena Karim’s book…..”
And in the same vein, may I suggest that you undertake a dispassionate reading of Quaid-e Azam’s 11th August 1947 Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.
6. “…..It is not about Shariah, it is about “SECTARIANISM”…..”
I agree. When you have close to seventy sects of Muslims in Pakistan, which Islam and which Shariah and whose interpretation will be treated as final? Pray, do us the honour of naming one. Until you provide us with the name of that sect/denomination, may I respectfully suggest that the solution does lie in a “Secular Pakistan” as envisioned and willed by the Founder of Pakistan. Try catching this fact.
malikhumzayunasnandla
August 14, 2011
Jinnah is one of the my favorite
amir jafri
September 5, 2011
http://preserveurdu.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/قائد-اعظم-کی-زندگی-کا-روحانی-پہلو
This is a very important write up about our beloved Quaid-i-azam…This should put to rest all the evil propaganda being unleashed relentlessly by the english-medium westoxicated seularoon liberaloon and kanjaroon of Pakistan to turn Pakistan into an image of their vile selves.
This will never be allowed to happen by muslims.
Mehwish Khan
November 11, 2011
thnxs
its really nice…. 
thnxs again
MilesToGo
February 18, 2012
If only Jinnah was prophet…
Bin Ismail
March 9, 2012
@ MilesToGo
“…..If only Jinnah was prophet…”
If he had been a prophet, he would have faced even worse opposition from the Clergy.
Omar
March 10, 2012
I am an Indian, I have not seen so much of confusion in any people about their country…
People of Pakistan have confusion between secularism and atheism. They even dont know what is Hindu. This misunderstanding of the word Hindu have misled them. Still they are ignorant.
They have forgetten the very objective of welfare state. Feudalism, corruption are walk of life. They are illiterate. They have linguistic chauvinistic. They talk about big ideals but they are lifeline of NATO. They have no self esteem. They lack eemaan, they are hypocrites of highest order.
Losers!
Muhammad Abdullah
June 15, 2012
@ OMAR march 10
why so angry dude . . . . .
If you dont like Pakistan then keep on living in INDIA…
Aap ka time to bahut qeemti hai …….Apna kaam karo
Pakistan kay baray main itna sooch ker kyun tension lay rahay ho ?
Pakistanion ki yahi baat hai……Mulk tabah ho jayay …tenison nai laitay
Syed Amaar Ahmad
March 19, 2012
@ Omar
//~I am an Indian, I have not seen so much of confusion in any people about their country~//
Well, I am a Pakistani and I have absolutely no confusion about my dear country. At the moment Pakistan is a hostage to the Mullah. Pakistan will rise and come out of this. Pakistan has learned enough lessons in 64 years. Pakistan will turn to Jinnah’s vision of a secular and modern Muslim-majority state, in which religion will finally be separated from the state.
sta
April 6, 2012
The height of this bitter tragedy is that Jinnah’s vision of a “Secular Pakistan” got hijacked by those who had opposed the very creation of Pakistan. Both the Jamiatul Ulama and the Jamaat-i-Islami were committed opponents of Jinnah. Once Jinnah succeeded in getting Pakistan on the Worldmap, these maulvis, like hyenas and vultures fell on Pakistan. The maulvis are as committed to the anullment of Pakistan as they were to preventing its creation. If Pakistan is not rescued from the maulvis, they could well succeed in their abominable designs of removing Pakistan from the Worldmap.
Kashif N Chaudhry (@KashifMD)
April 23, 2012
@ sta
//..Once Jinnah succeeded in getting Pakistan on the Worldmap, these maulvis, like hyenas and vultures fell on Pakistan..//
Please don’t insult the hyenas and vultures.
//..If Pakistan is not rescued from the maulvis, they could well succeed in their abominable designs of removing Pakistan from the Worldmap..//
The maulvis have already succeeded in killing around 30,000 Pakistani civilians and 7,000 soldiers. They’re working day and night on their agenda.
Ann
June 15, 2012
Strange that 65 years after its formation, Pakistan still doesn’t know whether it should be a secular country or a muslim country or an Islamic country!!! Jinnah was a lost man when he created Pakistan and now Pakistan is a lost country.
Muhammad Abdullah
June 15, 2012
The point is
A person like Jinnah, who had fear of none and who was indeed the best person to speak
about law and people at that time, strangely he never used the word SECULAR in his
speeches(none in your quotes).
That actually raises many questions about Iqbal and Jinnah’s intentions about
Pakistan, as what they actually wanted Pakistan to be. Also it is easily available in references
that Jinnah was not happy with the Pseudo democratic governments of that time (in your
reference about untouchables he continued to talk about that [1934]).again he was not in
the favour of a theocratic state (which is essentially not an Islamic idea at all). . He talked
about peace and freedom for all. If you think for yourself in that time with Jinnah and Iqbal,
you could imagine, that they were thinking something really big. After bitter end of Ottoman
empire Muslims across world were overall in bad shape. Jinnah and Iqbal were thinking of
something progressive that would not only benefit the locals but could also be the activity
Hub for the Muslims. Its a long issue….
If i could make a wish …… It would be : If Jinnah would have got a chance to decide some
sort of constitution . . . the things could have been lot better n different
——————–Thanks____________________
Bin Ismail
June 17, 2012
@ Muhammad Abdullah
“…..strangely he never used the word SECULAR in his speeches…..”
Please keep the perspective of the 40s in view, when we talk about the use of the term “Secularism”. The Soviet Union was then rapidly emerging as a formidable force with global ambitions. The Soviet system was calling the world towards a “Godless” – even “anti-God” – society and political system. The term “Secularism”, in those days could conveniently have been misunderstood and mistaken for a pro-Soviet or pro-Marxist viewpoint. Regardless of whether Jinnah did or did not use the term “Secular”, if we confine the term “Secularism” to a mere separation of State and Religion, Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan does indeed emerge as a secular one.
“…..If i could make a wish…It would be : If Jinnah would have got a chance to decide some sort of constitution . . . the things could have been lot better n different…..”
In my opinion, Jinnah had very elaborately laid out before the first batch of Pakistan’s law-makers, his great vision of the Constitution of Pakistan, in his historic 11th August 1947 address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Unfortunately, none of the three constitutions of Pakistan has lived up to the profoundly wise ideals laid out by Jinnah in his 11th August address.
Muhammad Abdullah
June 17, 2012
“if we confine the term “Secularism” to a mere separation” of State and Religion, Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan does indeed emerge as a secular one.
So its ur deductions. Unfortunately its ur deductions…….and unfortunately secularism is not just a mere seperation of state and religion……
The term “Secularism”, in those days could conveniently have been misunderstood
Again you are saying them to be misunderstanding the concepts . . . Hah great man ! ! !
Bin Ismail
June 17, 2012
@ Muhammad Abdullah
I beg to differ. “Secularism”, for all practical purposes is nothing but a complete separation of State and Religion. The correct expression for complete “religionlessness”, if I may coin this term for the purpose of elucidation, would be “Atheism”, not “Secularism”. The kind of state Jinnah envisioned was by all standards, one that separated Religion from State in all respects. It is this separation of State and Religion, that he speaks of, when he says:
“…we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due 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 the individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State…“ [August 11, 1947]
Regards
Muhammad Abdullah
June 18, 2012
I certainly got your point
But there are certain other arguments also . . .
Besides August 11, 1947
maheen abbas(dentist)
December 14, 2012
awe inspiring, enlightening, divine and ethereal, are the words that come to my mind when i read this artcle , i wish to share this as much as i can i wish , that pakistan can be only what QUAID dreamed of! thanks to the writer for this beacon of light in this barbaric dark jungle. its a good change if only we can bring it.
Maheen Abbas
December 14, 2012
i wonder if pakistan can ever be the pakistan, that quaideazam dreamed of and not jammat e islami”S favourite “maula quaid” and not even army idolized “dictator quaid” and not even ppp”s fav “feudal lord Quaid”