PKPolitics Discuss

Quaid-e-Azam negated theocracy. He never was in favour of Mullait. That gets proved from the facts that mullas were against him. Zaid Hamid is a Juggler of playing with words.

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

What I found interesting was the content Zaid Hamid presented from Quaid-e-Azam's speeches which he quotes later on in this program.

Qauid-e-Azam negated Secularism (though he lived a secular life.)
OK
Quaid-e-Azam negated Theocracy (as most of the Religious Puindits opposed his philosophy.)
OK

Then what is the Third Alternative left for Pakistan?
How one could Name that Third Choice?
How that Option could make Pakistan a peaceful and worth living place for the future generations?

I guess you failed to understand the question.
If no Secularism and No Theocracy what Else?
What could be a possible moderate Way Out?
This is the proposition.

Very Good.

Then why the most celebrated, established 'authentic' champions of Quran-o-Hadees, not only opposed the Qauid-e-Azam but also attempted to kill him?

One Section of 'authentic' holders of Quran-o-Hadees declared him Infidel.

(The debate is heading towards Zero Point, as usual)

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

Go through all the correspondence between Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal before partition. Read about the events that took place, activities both engaged in.

The Correspondence between Iqbal and Jinnah, published by Ashraf Book Depot, entitled as 'Iqbal's Letters To Jinnah' is available at the book stores.
This communication was conducted where Qauid-i-Azam decided to quit the Indian Politics after being frustrated due to collapse of Round Table Conferences (1930-33).

He started his legal practice at the Privy Council, London

It was after the 1937 elections, where Congress Ministries in Provinces created a favorable situation for the Muslim League's popularity.
Allama Iqbal, successfully convinced Mr. Jinnah to return and lead the Muslim League as there was no other prominent leader at the horizon.
Allama Iqbal, a scholar of Quran-o-Hadees, rejected all of the existing Religious Leaders for being incapable to accomplish the job.

@raheb
A logical statement. Very much appreciated. Pakistan was created according to a two nation theory. Quaid-e-Azam was not in favour of theocratic control of state affairs although he struggled for an Islamic nation state. He openly said that all religions are free in Pakistan and practice as per their beliefs is very much a secular thought.

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

Mirza sb. aren't you confusing the issue ?

I have posted this video as crystal clear evidence which gives references to what Quaid-e-Azam thought and said about 'secularism' BEFORE! partition.

What reason is left for moving on with an illusion after that ? What reason is left for moving on with wanting and defending 'secularism' after that ?

Isn't this 'intentionally' distorting the issue, once we have established that the man!, the leader! who was the foremost in the struggle negated 'secularism' himself, in his own words, during many speeches across the subcontinent ?

@hariskhan
This is a forum, and open to expression that may come from all quarters. One should be observant of statements by others before commenting and a bit of tolerant too.

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

Mirza sb. Janab, by tolerant, do you mean accept the words of those who confuse the issue even after crystal clear distinction has been established in what is right and that which is wrong ?

I want to remind you of the Hadees of Hazrat Umar (RA, RAA), where he (RA, RAA) beheaded someone when he came to Hazrat Umar (RA, RAA) after that person already got justice from Muhammad (SAW).

Janab, aren't you telling me to abandon the way of Muhammad (SAW) and Umar (RA, RAA) by telling me to be further tolerant ?

I will respect the fact that people have a right to have their opinion. I am concerned for the time when that personal opinion affects us as a nation, as a collective, when confusion is spread on the issue of 'Islamic State' vs. 'Secular state'.

@harishkhan-honestly i won,t view videos.i was just commenting on zaid bcoz i view lot of his rubbish in youtube.i don,t belive his baloony logics

Qauid-e-Azam also supported Islamic Socialism.
Read this:
Islamic Socialism
"You are only voicing my sentiments and the sentiments of millions of Musalmans when you say that Pakistan should be based on sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasizes equality and brother-hood of man. Similarly you are voicing my thoughts in asking and aspiring for equal opportunities for all. Brother-hood, equality and fraternity of man – these are the basic points of our religion, culture and civilization. We fought for Pakistan because there was a danger of denial of these human rights in this sub-continent."
(Addressing to public reception, Chittagong, March 26, 1948).

@hariskhan
I appreciate your concern and admire your patriotic emotions in the light of Pakistan as an Islamic State.
Quaid never used the term Secular Pakistan. He struggled for a separate homeland where Muslims of the subcontinent lived as a majority and without fear of Hindu dominance.
On the other hand he was not forgetting the minorities of those times (East and West Pakistan both) when added up run up to a figure between 20-30% is considerable, when some had opted not to migrate. This was the reason when he said you are free to practice you beliefs and religions as Pakistanis, in Pakistan.

Sadly Pakistan has failed to make a mark as an Islamic State. As per consitution YES but implimenting Islamic laws NO.

This debate about whether Pakistan should be an Islamic or a Secular state, because Qaid-e-Azam said so, regardless what he said and what he meant, will continue to go on, without ever reaching a resolution, until we can agree on what definition to go by. No wonder, if the ruling liberals/secular fascists proclaim that we are neither an Islamic nor a secular state. They may actually even be closer to the truth than they think.

It was late Z.A Bhutto who meted enough courage and came up with Islamic Socialism. He was fiercely opposed by QOUMI ITTIHAD, when all religious parties joined ranks and confronted him. General Zia exploited this opportunity to the maximum possible extent. Bhutto was convicted and hanged is however another story.

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

Mirza sb. Janab, why would religious parties unite to confront Z.A. Bhutto if he was implementing Islam's social structure in Pakistan ?

That is unbecomming of a group of people who gave 21 points of the 32 Ulamaa in the making of 1973 constitution of Pakistan that Z.A. Bhutto sb. brought forward through consensus.

The wish and desire of majority in Pakistan has always been an Islamic State. Bhutto initiated an experiment in this regard through his Islamic Socialism, as a start and that was not a bad idea at all that could be later proved when Zia ul Haq came on hard and tuff implementing Sharia. Flogging in public was part of this along with Hadood Ordinance, a matter of much controversy.
All this was not welcomed and NGOs led public, in mass protests demanded to call off such punishments, as too harsh. The Russian assault on Afghanistan and regime change in Iran changed the whole scenario where Mujahideen were recruited for the Afghan Jihad and parallel Sipas to counter the Shia influence in Pakistan.
Since that time we have and are facing political turmoil. Implementing Sharia has been a dream till date.

Here one may ponder a hurried trial and than hanging was really a conspiracy to pave way for a gereral as Bhutto may have given the two super powers real tough times refusing to be part of the so called cold war.

I think he would not have agreed to get his army and civilians involved to such an extent the consequences we are facing now. Only an army general would have served them, and served them he did indeed!

This precedent of presenting Jinnah as a spiritual religious leader was set during Zia time.

Zia's team used to take things out of context to give a certain outlook to audience. So for zia's 'islamize' drive he transformed the image of Jinnah as a spiritual religious leader who wanted to implement Sharia.

I myself grew up with this image as it was embedded in our educational system and medi (print/electronic).

But in todays world of internet much of research and facts are available free of cost to understand what really happened.

Jinnah was not for implementing Shariat in Pakistan, he was the ruler of Pakistan for 13 months and he implemented and ruled by British India Govt Act of 1935. Till today most of our rules/laws/codes are coming from 1935 Act passed in British Parliament with little amendments.

Jinnah clearly said that you are free to believe in any religion but that has nothing to do with business of the state. What else is secular?

Secular doesn't mean an atheist or christian or jew, it means a person who believes that religion is a private matter, not to be linked with public affairs. So a practicing and beliving Muslim but keeping it private while following secular code for ruling/public is Secular person.

I see people confusing Communism with Islam. It is sad to see such a mixing where both ideologies have conflict at very core.

If a rat has four legs and a lion has four legs or if rat has tail and lion has tail or if rat has teeth and lion has teeth does that mean lion and rat are same?

That is what people are confusing here, they are holding on the bits and pieces while missing bigger picture.

Sheikh sb,

These are some of topics that are taboo in our society because as soon as one talk about it the weight of logic/evidence evaporates in thin air because of high emotions that block mind.

Iqbal was of course against 'mullah' and he stated clear reasoning on why. Being rigid, close minded, rejecting modern thinking, methods and processes.

He rejected the western democratic model by saying:
جمہوریت اک طرز حکومت ہے کہ جس میں

بندوں کو گنا کرتے ہیں ، تولا نہیں کرتے

He also rejected capitalists:
غارت گری جہاں میں ہے اقوام کی معاش

His lectures suggest that he wanted to use European advancements in theory, method, experiment and organization while staying in the domain of Islam.

Dear Haris Khan,

What does it mean by "If Jinnah wanted a secular state", during discussion on the constitution of india there was representation from Muslim League which was invited by British Prime Minister during 1930-32 -known as round table conference.

Was Muslim asking for shariat or they agreed on 1935 constitution but only wanted autonomy for provinces?

Hindus wanted central control because of their majority while Muslims wanted provincial autonomy which later turned in partition.

You will find Muslim League and Congress unity on 1935 Act, Islamic system was never presented from Muslim side.

Muslim League only wanted to secure Muslim minority rights and say in the provinces where they had majority.

Imagine a province with muslim majority, already having Muslim majority MPAs with Muslim Chief Minister and a new party comes in and convinces MPAs (by making agreement with CM that he will retain powere) to contest election on their ticket and then after election passes a resolution in parliament on partition.

Today when a person talks about passing a resolution in assembly people laugh at it, why? Because resolution means nothing for the circle of powers unless they really desire and plan to do it.

Pakistan came in to existence by passing resolution in the assemblies of muslim majority provinces, while Muslim majority Princely state were given to India because the prince was hindu and in case of Hindu Majority princely state where prince was Muslim the state was given to Hindu? (referring to kashmir & hyderabad)

Major water heads located in Muslim majority area were given to india, why? to give water control to india? Who was drawing all these lines? British?

Our ML leaders lobbying in British 'courts' for Muslim rights never understood that British was never sincere with Muslims.

Let us move forward and implement these ideas right now in Pakistan.

I am in full agreement with these speeches, let us convert speech into action.

Haris khan please provide references for all the claims you have made otherwise I will be forced to consider you a liar.

Actually problems lies in the clash, the clash between one way of life vs other way of life.

Secularism gives one way of life where as Islam gives another way of life.

Secularist says count the numbers and decide based on count, Islam says follow the order given in the book irrespective of numbers.