Was Muhammad Ali Jinnah a Secularist? [pspguy123 vs. Poet]

[removeduser_052420]

I have challenged Poet to a debate over whether Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, was a secularist or not.

I claim that he was indeed a secularist, and wanted Pakistan to be a secular nation, with the following quotes as evidence.

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 ]




8 : ” The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..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.” [ Jinnah, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]


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 ]

It is good to notice that Jinnah’s Secularism is obviously evident from his use of the term “EVERYBODY”. Even if he did not use the term “Secular” as overtly and frequently as one would have wished him to, his message is most patently one of “SECULARISM”.

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. So in essence, Western Secular states are paradoxically the most "Islamic", as they embody Islamic Principles the best.

I would also like to point out that even personally, the Quaid-e-Azam was a very secular man, as he ate pork and drank wine on a regular basis. He dressed in the finest garments in tradition with the Western Lawyers of his time, and spent most of his time in the UK until the beginning of the Pakistan movement.

And finally, I would like to say that the assertion that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be ruled by Islam would be like saying that George Washington would have wanted the USA to be guided by the Episcopalian Church. AKA completely ludicrous and unfounded.

[Poet]

First of all I would like to say thanks to pspguy123 for starting this debate. Secondly I want to say as it is a debate and both of us are going to try to prove something, burden of proof basically lies on pspguy123 as he claims totally against conception of the majority of Pakistani nation that our leader was a secularist. It is good that without asking he gave some arguments and evidences in favor of his opinion and he has started the debate.

First of all let us have a look at definition of word 'secularist' ;

Source

Noun1.secularist - an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion should be excluded from government and education

So basically a secularist is a person who advocates secularism, someone who believes that religion has nothing to do with affairs of state and government and education. Now let us see definition of secularism;

Source

secularism [ˈsɛkjʊləˌrɪzəm]n 1. (Philosophy) Philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs
3. the state of being secular

So I conclude on definitions by saying, that a secularist is a man who believes that religion should have no place in ethics, education, civil affairs, and affairs of state and Government.

Now to prove that Jinnah was a secularist, my friend has provided some quotes of Jinnah and he also say that because Jinnah was used to wear modern english dresses and eat pork and drink wine he was a secularist. In his pm he also said that Jinnah married his daughter with a non-muslim so he was a secularist.

Although he didn't give any evidence or source from any book or website that Jinnah ate pork or drunk wine, these things have nothing to do with secularism, as one can be a sinner and a ideological Muslim at same time. I do not offer prayers and I commit many other sins but I want Islam to be my state religion and Ideology so above mentioned things, if proved, can prove Jinnah a sinner Muslim but not a secularist as definition of secularist doesn't include any such things. Moreover on the contrary, he resisted his daughter's decision of marrying a non-Muslim and he himself married Ratti his wife, after she embraced Islam, plus when her daughter married a non-Muslim, Jinnah never let her see his face till his death.

So all above gossip cannot prove him a secularist but on the contrary, converting a girl to Islam before marrying her, and his annoyance with his daughter on marrying a non-Muslim, shows that he was not a secularist but a Muslim who believes that Islam applies to private life of Muslims as well as their public affairs.

Only valuable evidence provided by pspguy123 are the quotes of Jinnah and I would like to counter them first and then in my second post I would give his quotes clearly in favor of Islamic ideology of Pakistan.

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]

This quote could have two meanings;

1: That a state should be secular and religion should not be applied as law on citizens.
2: That religion is a matter between God and man and nobody should be allowed to dictate other about religion.

I think the second one is the true definition. Till then in 1935, Muslims didn't even demand for a separate state, so how can you say that Jinnah said that about state affairs? It was about personal life and it is true that only an Islamic state following principles of welfare and social security like early 4 Caliphates, can ask a Muslim citizen to act upon his religion. Plus both Iqbal and Jinnah, passed through different revolutions in their inside. As Iqbal once wrote 'tarana-e-hindi' based on Indian nationalism but then he went to Europe and when he came back he has seen the world and he was a new man and he wrote 'tarana-e-milli' which showed that now Iqbal believed on Muslim nationalism. Likewise there was a time when Jinnah was call 'ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity' but then from behavior of Hindus with Muslims he realized that we are a separate nation and he changed his track.

But tell me even if we agree with your definition, if two quotes of Jinnah are against each other, which one can be taken as his last and final opinion? The last one, right?

On 14th February 1948 in Sibi Darbar,
"It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct
set for us by our great lawgiver, The Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that "Our decisions in the affairs of state shall be guided by discussions and consultations."

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 ]

This doesn't prove him secularist. Untouchables were deprived human beings and in his sympathy and empathy he said so. Plus he knew that by education, political awareness and economically, Muslims are much strong than those poor untouchables, so it was true to say that one should care more for them. Plus in beginning he gave the reason for this care, 'in the name of humanity'. Do you expect a leader of a Christian nation, to care much for Muslims? No, because then he would not be a leader, but as a 'human' yes he can do so.

"He who harms a non-Muslims harms me, and he who harms me harms Allah".

No secularist said so, but our dear Prophet (pbuh). What Quaid said was according to golden principals of Islam not according to secularism.

3 : “….I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.” [Jinnah, Press Conference, 14 November 1946]

Please give the complete quote. TWC Islamophobes give a quranic verse as evidence, "And kill them where ever you find them", but they do not give complete verse, before this Allah says, he doesn't like aggression and extreme. So please give the complete quote.

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]

When Prophet (pbuh) took control of Medina he was now not only the leader of Muslims, but head of a state including Jews, idol-worshipers, and Muslims, so he needed to assure non-Muslims that they would have right to religion and other rights. Same is the situation here. Jinnah was now head of the state, what he said meant that state religion Islam and Islamic ideology would have no effects on non-Muslims and it was justice, not secularism. It was rather Islam as in Quran Allah says that there is no coercion in religion. Means no one can be forced to be Muslim or forced to live like a Muslim. Problem is that some of the values of secularism are those which were given in fact by Islam 1400 years ago. For example equality in all casts, creeds and religions. So it was in fact according to Islam, what he said, not according to secularism. But this doesn't mean that he wanted a state with out Islamic ideologies and Islam as state religion.

This alone is enough to prove that what he needed and wanted in basis of new state of Muslims and their non-Muslim brothers. Tell me do you think that majority of Muslims was stupid that they gave sacrifice of nearly 1000000 to 1600000 lives and 50000 women were raped, to get a secular state. Leader becomes leader with followers, if you prove that majority of Indian muslims were secular, I would give up.

On 14th February 1948 in Sibi Darbar,
"It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct
set for us by our great lawgiver, The Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that "Our decisions in the affairs of state shall be guided by discussions and consultations."

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]

Again this is not secularism but Islamic ideology of equality among all. who said this;

No Arab is superior on any non-Arab and no white is superior on any black, only pious man is superior (for Allah not for people)

No secularist said this but Prophet of Islam (pbuh) 1400 years ago. It's sad that you are giving secularism, credit of what goes to Islam in fact.

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]

This assures that not only Muslims would enjoy fruits of prosperity and liberty in Pakistan but Pakistani minorities too would enjoy these fruits, like wise not only Muslims would fight for liberty and prosperity but Hindus and other minorities also. This assures that before state, all citizens would be "equal". It is again Islamic principal of equality he is talking about. What do you expect an Islamic state on basis of Islamic principals should do? Definitely such a state would entertain all citizens equally.

7 : ” But make no mistake : Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.” [ Jinnah, Message to the people of Australia, 19 February 1948 ]

Theocracy means a state which would necessarily be run by Mullahs, definitely Islam doesn't require only Mullahs to run a state and only them to make constitution and laws. These are two different things. Theocracy and Islamic state.

Source

theocracy [θɪˈɒkrəsɪ] n pl -cies1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by a deity or by a priesthood
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a community or political unit under such governmenttheocrat n
theocratic , theocratical adj
theocratically adv

I think you understand the difference of a state which is "only" run by Mullahs and a state which "can" be run by Mullahs, if they are elected. Pakistan is Islamic republic of Pakistan.

8 : ” The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..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.” [ Jinnah, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]

Each and every word in the quote is from the inner Muslim of Jinnah. It clearly defines that according to "Islam and it's idealism" he thinks that justice, equality and fair play should be with everyone. This is what Islam requires. In fact secularism is not just and fair to everyone. As in France a woman can lay naked on beach and he is allowed to do so but a Muslim woman can not have hijab, so where is equality and fair play in secularism. Term "Islam and it''s idealism" is enough to destroy your own card house bro! What he said in this quote after that term, is defined and secured by that term, not secularism.

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 ]

Again you are destroying your own card house. Who told you that we need secularism to be just and fair with non-Muslims? Who told you that in an Islamic ideological state a non-Muslim is less in rights and value than Muslims? Man even in this quote he talks about Shariah laws? Would a secularist talk about Shariah laws? Again "shariat laws" and "Islamic principals" urged Jinnah to say so. His vision of Justice, fair play and impartiality, is defined and saved under "Islamic principles" not some satanic theory as Secularism.

Now another important thing. Islam and it's ideology came 1400 years ago, in all of his quotes he link himself, his ideas of equality, fair play and justice, and his ideas about state, with Islam and Islamic idealism. If he was a secularist, why he didn't use word "secularism" even once in his quotes as Secularism as a term has been coined in 19th century?

Secularism

Another question, why Muslims, passionate religious Muslims of India, chose a secular man to lead them to their destiny of an Islamic ideological state? How a secular man can be a leader of "Muslim League", not Congress or some new secular party? Why a passionate Muslim and poet of Islam, Iqbal, who was the biggest advocate of Pan-Islamism and Muslim nationalism, chose Jinnah to lead the nation?

What makes a man a leader? Followers. His followers, till freedom, were not non-Muslims, but 99.9% they were Muslims. Now I am giving some of his quotes of his last years in my favor;

“No doubt, there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like. It is based upon highest principles of honour, integrity, fair play and justice for all.” (Jinnah, 5th March 1948)

“Pakistan not only means freedom and independce but the Muslim Ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure and which, we hope other will share with us”
Message to Frontier Muslim Students Federation
June 18, 1945

“We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind”
Speech at the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi
July 1, 1948

“We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.”
Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi
October 11, 1947

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.

On 14th February 1948 in Sibi Darbar,
"It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct
set for us by our great lawgiver, The Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that "Our decisions in the affairs of state shall be guided by discussions and consultations."

In an interview reported in the Press on 25th January 1948 Mr. Jinnah said that,

"he could not understand a section of people who deliberately wanted to create
mischief and made propaganda that the Constitution of Pakistan would not be
made on the basis of Shariat…"

In all quotes given by me and my dear friend, did anybody read word "secularism"? If no than what is the most common word? "Islam". He was a Muslim ideologist.

[removeduser_052420]

So all above gossip cannot prove him a secularist but on the contrary, converting a girl to Islam before marrying her, and his annoyance with his daughter on marrying a non-Muslim, shows that he was not a secularist but a Muslim who believes that Islam applies to private life of Muslims as well as their public affairs.

...

Not really. There are many non-religous people who would not want their kids to marry people from other religions. Has nothing to do with being a religious muslim.

This quote could have two meanings;

1: That a state should be secular and religion should not be applied as law on citizens.
2: That religion is a matter between God and man and nobody should be allowed to dictate other about religion.

I think the second one is the true definition. Till then in 1935, Muslims didn't even demand for a separate state, so how can you say that Jinnah said that about state affairs? It was about personal life and it is true that only an Islamic state following principles of welfare and social security like early 4 Caliphates, can ask a Muslim citizen to act upon his religion. Plus both Iqbal and Jinnah, passed through different revolutions in their inside. As Iqbal once wrote 'tarana-e-hindi' based on Indian nationalism but then he went to Europe and when he came back he has seen the world and he was a new man and he wrote 'tarana-e-milli' which showed that now Iqbal believed on Muslim nationalism. Likewise there was a time when Jinnah was call 'ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity' but then from behavior of Hindus with Muslims he realized that we are a separate nation and he changed his track.

But tell me even if we agree with your definition, if two quotes of Jinnah are against each other, which one can be taken as his last and final opinion? The last one, right?

Okay, but that still doesn't prove that Jinnah wanted a state that incorporated Islamic law. And you have to show me the quote, since you're schooling (influenced by the likes of Zia and all the other asshat Islamists, I assume) probably taught you to look at the quotes from some Islamic perspective.

This doesn't prove him secularist. Untouchables were deprived human beings and in his sympathy and empathy he said so. Plus he knew that by education, political awareness and economically, Muslims are much strong than those poor untouchables, so it was true to say that one should care more for them.

True, this doesn't prove him a secularist, but this shows that he cared more about the status of Muslims and untouchables as minorities, than the fact that Muslims were well...Muslims.

Do you expect a leader of a Christian nation, to care much for Muslims? No, because then he would not be a leader, but as a 'human' yes he can do so.

Yes. George Washington, as well as Thomas Jefferson, both had copies of the Qu'ran, and Thomas Jefferson even knew how to speak Arabic. They both wanted to create a new country founded on the principles of individualism and freedom from state religion, just like Jinnah. Washington and Jefferson cared equally about every religion, even though there were probably a few muslims in the colonies at the time.

No secularist said so, but our dear Prophet (pbuh). What Quaid said was according to golden principals of Islam not according to secularism.

The principles of Islam are justice, equality, freedom. The principles have nothing to do with Shariah law. If they did, then are you proposing that most countries of the West follow Islamic Law then? Because in essence, they do.

Please give the complete quote. TWC Islamophobes give a quranic verse as evidence, "And kill them where ever you find them", but they do not give complete verse, before this Allah says, he doesn't like aggression and extreme. So please give the complete quote.

“The two states … 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 … I am not fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.”

When Prophet (pbuh) took control of Medina he was now not only the leader of Muslims, but head of a state including Jews, idol-worshipers, and Muslims, so he needed to assure non-Muslims that they would have right to religion and other rights. Same is the situation here. Jinnah was now head of the state, what he said meant that state religion Islam and Islamic ideology would have no effects on non-Muslims and it was justice, not secularism. It was rather Islam as in Quran Allah says that there is no coercion in religion. Means no one can be forced to be Muslim or forced to live like a Muslim. Problem is that some of the values of secularism are those which were given in fact by Islam 1400 years ago. For example equality in all casts, creeds and religions. So it was in fact according to Islam, what he said, not according to secularism. But this doesn't mean that he wanted a state with out Islamic ideologies and Islam as state religion.

Yes, Jinnah was the head of a muslim majority state, but the quote itself claims that the state will not interfere in the business of the citizens. Tell me, under shariah law, non-muslims pay a special tax, do they not? There you go, an example of state interfering. Under Shariah Law, if i was to burn or desecrate the Qu'ran, I would be prosecuted, would I not? Another example of the state interfering on the basis of religion.

And you are right, he did want a state with "Islamic" ideals. The Ideals of Justice, Equality, and Freedom. Not shariah law.

Tell me do you think that majority of Muslims was stupid that they gave sacrifice of nearly 1000000 to 1600000 lives and 50000 women were raped, to get a secular state. Leader becomes leader with followers, if you prove that majority of Indian muslims were secular, I would give up.

Yes. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state, where the minorities of India could be free from Hindu domination and intimidation, and be the masters of they're own lives. And back then Muslims in the subcontinent were some of the most secular of them all, look at pictures of the 1940's and 50's, how many burkhas do you see? How many Beards? People didn't even wear shalwar kameez until Zia-Ul Haq's BS began. Religion only started being used by the Muslim league, as the mullahs did not support the creation of Pakistan. Islam has always been a tool for the upper class of Pakistan, to keep regular Pakistanis like you on a leash, and obedient.

Again this is not secularism but Islamic ideology of equality among all. who said this;

No secularist said this but Prophet of Islam (pbuh) 1400 years ago. It's sad that you are giving secularism, credit of what goes to Islam in fact.

What the hell are you talking about, Islamic Ideology? In both Judaism and Christianity, the concept of Equality is stressed upon. Does that mean Pakistan should follow Jewish Law? Christian Law? They all follow the same ideas, after all. Now on the other hand, If jinnah explicitly stated that non-muslims in Pakistan would be made to pay tax, then yes I would agree with you.

This assures that not only Muslims would enjoy fruits of prosperity and liberty in Pakistan but Pakistani minorities too would enjoy these fruits, like wise not only Muslims would fight for liberty and prosperity but Hindus and other minorities also. This assures that before state, all citizens would be "equal". It is again Islamic principal of equality he is talking about. What do you expect an Islamic state on basis of Islamic principals should do? Definitely such a state would entertain all citizens equally.

Yes, you are right in this regard. But tell me, if all were equal citizens, then why is it that non-muslims would have to pay tax? Why is a hindu or a christian not allowed to be President of Pakistan? Why were things such as the Hudood laws passed by an "islamic" leader such as Zia Ul-Haq? I mean, after all, all Pakistanis, are Equal, right?

Looks like some Pakistanis are more equal than others, I suppose.

Theocracy means a state which would necessarily be run by Mullahs, definitely Islam doesn't require only Mullahs to run a state and only them to make constitution and laws. These are two different things. Theocracy and Islamic state.

Source

I think you understand the difference of a state which is "only" run by Mullahs and a state which "can" be run by Mullahs, if they are elected. Pakistan is Islamic republic of Pakistan.

You are wrong on two accounts here. First of all, the only thing that a theocracy requires is that Islam be included in the Goverment. Now let's say that if the state religion was Islam, but everything else was secular, then yes, it is not a theocracy. But there are several laws in the Pakistani government which discriminate against non-muslims, such as the blasphemy ordinances. Thus making pointing to a Theocracy.

Take for example, Israel. Israel does not discriminate (technically ) against non-jews, right? Yet they still have their laws based on Jewish law, making them a theocracy. Now even though they are a theocracy, titles such as the "Jewish Supreme Leader" and such are not necessary for them to be considered one.

And on your last point, I don't know what kind of bigoted information you learn over there, but the term "Islamic" was never put into the official name of Pakistan until after Jinnah died. Another instance of religiously motivated idiots ing up Pakistan in order to further their goals, I suppose.

Each and every word in the quote is from the inner Muslim of Jinnah. It clearly defines that according to "Islam and it's idealism" he thinks that justice, equality and fair play should be with everyone. This is what Islam requires.

Yes, you are right. Which then shows that Shariah Law is not necessary for a state to follow Islamic Ideals.

In fact secularism is not just and fair to everyone. As in France a woman can lay naked on beach and he is allowed to do so but a Muslim woman can not have hijab, so where is equality and fair play in secularism.

That is ONE country in the West. Aside from a few notable exceptions such as France or Switzerland, the West is far more tolerant and fair than any Muslim nation in the world. The USA is the best example of Secularism, where each person can do whatever they want, even if that means Burkha/hijab/all that other nonsense, as long as they don't hurt anyone else with their beliefs. Which explains why there is a Nazi party of the USA, yet no Nazi party of Germany!

And you do know that in the secular USA, there is a portrait of Muhammad in the Supreme Court building? You know why? Because even as a secular nation, the founders of America acknowledged the fact that Muhammad was the first person to give women their rights in the world, and was the first to set the standard for gender equality! Whereas in Pakistan, the sheep of Pakistan, the common people like you, have been continously misled all these years, and through editing of Jinnah's quotes and the man he actually was, you are led to believe that Jinnah was some sort of Islamic Saint when it was time for Pakistan to be founded!

Term "Islam and it''s idealism" is enough to destroy your own card house bro! What he said in this quote after that term, is defined and secured by that term, not secularism.

Notice how Jinnah once again uses the term IDEALISM. He is NOT referring to Shariah Law, he is referring to the universal ideals set out by Muhammad himself, before Islam even grew to be what is is now.

Again you are destroying your own card house. Who told you that we need secularism to be just and fair with non-Muslims? Who told you that in an Islamic ideological state a non-Muslim is less in rights and value than Muslims? Man even in this quote he talks about Shariah laws? Would a secularist talk about Shariah laws? Again "shariat laws" and "Islamic principals" urged Jinnah to say so. His vision of Justice, fair play and impartiality, is defined and saved under "Islamic principles" not some satanic theory as Secularism.

Oh please, he only included these words to downplay the opposition from Islamists such as yourself! He knew that there was danger of Pakistan's original cause of creation to be hijacked in the cause of Islam, which is exactly why he called it out right here. And again, here he refers to Islamic principles, and how the laws of Pakitan wouldn't infringe upon the rights of ANYBODY.

And yes, you are right about your second point. In a true "Islamic state", minorities are protected. But guess what? That time was 1400 years ago! The standards for rights and civlity have changed, and Muslims, as they have become more inclusive and jacked up on their visions of past grandeur, have consistently infringed upon the rights of others, and become more tolerant in the process. In today's time, and especially when it comes to Pakistan, Secularism is the only thing that can recover our nation from the sad state that it is in.

And tell me, during Zia's time, Pakistan was Islamicised, was it not? Yet all the laws that infringe upon the rights of minorities and women were passed during that time!

Oh, and how is Secularism "Satanic"? Islam, as a religion, is the most secular religion there is! there is absolutely no compulsion of religion in Islam, there are no priests to connect you to God. You are allowed to make your own desicions, and Islam even requires you to treat Jews and Christians the same as you would Muslims! So does that mean that Islam is a satanic religion?

Now another important thing. Islam and it's ideology came 1400 years ago, in all of his quotes he link himself, his ideas of equality, fair play and justice, and his ideas about state, with Islam and Islamic idealism. If he was a secularist, why he didn't use word "secularism" even once in his quotes as Secularism as a term has been coined in 19th century?

He never once said "secularism", because he did not expect his vision for a nation to be hijacked as it was. Jinnah predicted after his death for Pakistan to quickly modernize, and be a secular, liberal, multi-religious, and multi-cultural nation. But the reality is much different today, unfortunately.

From top to bottom it is a corrupt cesspool of criminals robbing the poor, keeping them illiterate to protect their feudal structure, While modifying the history books to try and convince Pakistanis that their history began with Muhammad bin Qasim, and that they are destined to be an example of the perfect Shariah State. What a load of

Another question, why Muslims, passionate religious Muslims of India, chose a secular man to lead them to their destiny of an Islamic ideological state? How a secular man can be a leader of "Muslim League", not Congress or some new secular party? Why a passionate Muslim and poet of Islam, Iqbal, who was the biggest advocate of Pan-Islamism and Muslim nationalism, chose Jinnah to lead the nation?

Simple. The religious leaders of India were against the Pakistan movement. You know why? Because they knew Jinnah's aim was to create an Secular state, why would they risk losing their powers over India's illiterate muslims to a secular, western, shiia like Jinnah?

And it's very despicable, these very same Islamists today claim that Pakistan was destined to be created due to some information they twisted out of the Qu'ran, thereby dedecuting that Pakistan would never have needed Jinnah as a leader.

How ing despicable, not only do Islamists pervert Jinnah's message, they slander his very name

What makes a man a leader? Followers. His followers, till freedom, were not non-Muslims, but 99.9% they were Muslims. Now I am giving some of his quotes of his last years in my favor;

In all quotes given by me and my dear friend, did anybody read word "secularism"? If no than what is the most common word? "Islam". He was a Muslim ideologist.

Not in a single one of your quotes, did he say that Pakistan would be ruled by priests on a divine mission, either! And notice how he never once mentions Shariah law, yet constantly mentions "Islamic Ideals", and "Islamic Social Justice". These Islamic ideals are ones of Justice, Equality, and Freeplay, not ones of Shariah law, and the mullahs.

He constantly and repeatedly mentions the message of Muhammad himself, one of equality, and of secularism, where the state does not force religion upon anybody.

Although i'd like to say that you're last quote seems a bit off, mind posting the source?

And even if the propaganda fed to you and your countrymen over the years has completely destroyed your ability to understand logic and reasoning, when your descendants are sufficiently educated and acquire an understanding of social issues and solutions to problems, they will become secular. Dinosaurs who oppose secularism in Pakistan will eventually die out, we just need to give it time.

[Poet]

Man! look at my sig, we are here for a civil debate and calling me Islamist again and again is definitely not civil. And I am sick and tired of this angry young man attitude of yours, this may help to attract some chicks at your school but definitely in a debate, it is negative. First I want to make some things clear. We are not discussing idiots like Zia-ul-Haq, or Islamists or your desired future for Pakistan here. Even Pakistan is not a part of debate but yes Jinnah's dreams about this can be discussed to prove or disprove him a Secularist.

You didn't answer one question of mine and I want you to answer that. Did you ever see that I used word secularism to advocate what I advocate on this forums? no, because I believe in Pan-Islamism and Islamic ideology is mostly what I talk about. You are a Secualrist, did you ever use words "Islamic idealism" or "Islamic ideology" or "Islam" when you are advocating what you advocate? no, you always clearly use word secularism to show what you are and what you believe. My question is still there, if Jinnah was a secularist, why he didn't use that word even once in his addresses to nation or else, especially when in his time, secularism was a well established and famous ideology? On the contrary he always used words "Islam", "Islamic ideals", "Islamic principles" etc.

Secondly, I am sad to notice that your knowledge about him is little to no. Do you know that Jinnah fought for Muslim Shariah laws to be applied in legislative assembly of India? Do you know that it was his struggle which made sure that Muslims would have their own laws on waqf, and property and marital life? Those all were shariah laws. You say he is a secularist and wasted all of your post in showing your anger against me, where is the proof that he is secularist and anti-Shariah man? Answer my questions and these quotes first and this time please, "Have a civil debate".

In an interview reported in the Press on 25th January 1948 Mr. Jinnah said that,

"he could not understand a section of people who deliberately wanted to create
mischief and made propaganda that the Constitution of Pakistan would not be
made on the basis of Shariat…"

” 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 ]

[removeduser_052420]

I answered every one of your questions, so don't give me that BS. And I can call you an Islamist, you know why? Because you are one. You can call me a Secularist, you know why? Because I am one.

Jinnah was a secularist, why he didn't use that word even once in his addresses to nation or else, especially when in his time, secularism was a well established and famous ideology?

Because then that would have pushed him closer to India's Congress party. Why risk using an uneeded word that could possibly diminish your support? Again, he advocated Muslim values, not Religious law.

In an interview reported in the Press on 25th January 1948 Mr. Jinnah said that,

"he could not understand a section of people who deliberately wanted to create
mischief and made propaganda that the Constitution of Pakistan would not be
made on the basis of Shariat…"

Source?

” 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 ]

Notice how he equates Islamic Ideals to equality, justice, and fairplay. Again, not to religious law.
Shariat law, in essence, support those three ideals.

Secondly, I am sad to notice that your knowledge about him is little to no. Do you know that Jinnah fought for Muslim Shariah laws to be applied in legislative assembly of India? Do you know that it was his struggle which made sure that Muslims would have their own laws on waqf, and property and marital life? Those all were shariah laws.

Your point? Muslim have those rights in India, just like Hindus and Sikhs have them in Pakistan.

[Poet]

I answered every one of your questions, so don't give me that BS. And I can call you an Islamist, you know why? Because you are one. You can call me a Secularist, you know why? Because I am one.

I am damning the moment when I decided to have a "debate" with this school boy. I mean is this the language and attitude used in debates? His posts are full of careful insult and smilies, how much debates do I remember in which members used these smilies mercilessly like he uses. Plus calling me an Islamist. No I would call you a liberal extremist my friend! if you would call me Islamist.

Because then that would have pushed him closer to India's Congress party. Why risk using an uneeded word that could possibly diminish your support? Again, he advocated Muslim values, not Religious law.

This is what mullahs and liberals of Pakistan do, proving Jinnah a hypocrite, by saying he didn't mean what he said. Quaid-e-Azam was not a hypocrite and if he was a secularist he should have used that word, as far as I know him. He was a
straight forward person, not a hypocrite like congress Muslims or so-called "ulema-e-deen". And you are wrong buddy, he advocated shariah laws in his whole life, even in the quote given in your post. He advocated shariah laws in legislative assembly (or what they used to call it) in India. In fact he was the first Muslim, in British rule, who fought before British, on their forum, for Shariah Laws.

Source?

Source for that quote? Whenever I read that quote, I read it like I presented before you, I just know one thing that he said so in an interview with a Western (British or American) journalist after making of Pakistan.

” 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 ]

Notice how he equates Islamic Ideals to equality, justice, and fairplay. Again, not to religious law.
Shariat law, in essence, support those three ideals.

No my dear shariah laws mean shariah laws, when ever he needed to talk about "islamic ideals" he used the word "islamic ideology" or "Islamic principles" or "Islamic ideals" these are the words which were most commonly used by our leader, so why he didn't use those words but said "Sahriah laws", this means he specifically wanted to say that Shariah laws are still as much applicable as much they were 1300 years ago. His past track record of defending shariah laws on british forums also prove my point.

Secondly, I am sad to notice that your knowledge about him is little to no. Do you know that Jinnah fought for Muslim Shariah laws to be applied in legislative assembly of India? Do you know that it was his struggle which made sure that Muslims would have their own laws on waqf, and property and marital life? Those all were shariah laws.


Your point? Muslim have those rights in India, just like Hindus and Sikhs have them in Pakistan.

My point is that a secularist cannot fight for shariah laws to be enforced on and for Muslims on British forum.

And this is the way a Secularist talks about Shariah Laws;

OH!, i have an idea! these "foreign elements" could just be Islamists who are killing people to instill fear and pave the way for Shariah Law :O

Not in this way;

” 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 ]