Was Jinnah secular?

[CLIPPER4LIFE]

Yes he was secular, and his idol was ataturk (secular). If only Jinnah lived for a couple of years more post independence, than Pakistan would have been at a better path than being taken over by these corrupt politicians.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

IMO, Jinnah is being given way too much importance. You guys should think what will be good for you now instead of trying to establish what Jinnah would have thought 60 years back. I for one am not in support of unnecessary hero worship.

Shame on every single muslim in Pakistan who could not understand this point of view which a non muslim understood "hero worship" and extra importance to a leader.
This nation is divided into two ideologies. One is the secular Jinnah and the other islamic Jinnah.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Yes he was secular, and his idol was ataturk (secular). If only Jinnah lived for a couple of years more post independence, than Pakistan would have been at a better path than being taken over by these corrupt politicians.

In order for Pakistan to be a developed nation it would have to utilize a lot of world resource which is a No NO for New World Order elites. Unfortunately Pakistan is in their bottom of the pyramid and thus Pakistan would never become anything like a modern nation.

 

[Mujeeb47]

Old Topic. Was Jinnah secular ? Was Jinnah religious ? Etc etc etc. Now leave these topics yaar. 70 years have passed and our minds are still there.
Well! My opinion is that Jinnah wants liberal Islam. He was not extremist but a true Muslim.

 

[desioptimist]

Old Topic. Was Jinnah secular ? Was Jinnah religious ? Etc etc etc. Now leave these topics yaar. 70 years have passed and our minds are still there.
Well! My opinion is that Jinnah wants liberal Islam. He was not extremist but a true Muslim.

Well, even I dont know why it is important for Jinnah to be secular, the question should be whether pakistan is secular.
Also, you dont have to be religious, have a beard and all to be communal. It is possible for a religious person to be secular(secular does not mean atheist, it means you respect people of other religion, and consider them equal) and a non religious person to be communal(if you have strong sense of belonging to a community, and you think your community is better/different from others).

Jinnah may not be religious, but it will be difficult to say he is secular, in light of what he did and the way he did it. However, as most people point out, he wanted pakistan to be a secular modern democracy.

 

[Mutee]

Hello people he gave us a place to live we should thank him instead of judging him and passing remarks just say thank you Mohammad Ali Jinnah for what you did for us and thats it!!!!

 

[Leader]

JINNAH was the Champion of Minority rights !! please DONOT LABEL MY LEADER according to your mindless labelling habits !! get life losers !!

 

[muse]

T-Faz

Some of our Pakistani posters are having a bit of a problem understand "secular" which since the days of the Jihad against the Soviets, has come to be defined as "ladeeniyat" or Irreligiousness/Godlessness, a very Saudi (read Wahabi) worldview - in fact you will notice that Saudi Arabia actually sent a cleric/scholar to craft the ideology and these laws imposed by Zia -- Where as "Secular" was generally understood as "Ilmaniyat". that is to say a view informed by knowledge, not just one particular kind of knowledge.

I think we should understand that if one has been indoctrinated for over 30 years, they tend to imagine that their understanding is the totality - if we can get more and more people to properly understand that "secular" does not mean as tha Saudi would have it mean, then I think we can get our own Pakistanis back to their own heritage and the historic development of Islamic thought, which obviously is very different from the radicalism of an ideology that is ascendant only through force of arms.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Jinnah was secular but his assertion that Muslims will not be able to live peacefully and with prosperity in a Hindu dominated country was ill-founded.

If Hindus could live under Muslim rule for hundreds of years, why could Muslims not live in a democracy which Gandhi and Congress had promised Jinnah.

Not to mention that his successors in Pakistan nullified all his efforts to build a peaceful, secular country.

In essence, today's India is somewhat (not entirely) similar to what he wanted Pakistan to be.

 

[F86 Saber]

Jinnah was secular but his assertion that Muslims will not be able to live peacefully and with prosperity in a Hindu dominated country was ill-founded.

If Hindus could live under Muslim rule for hundreds of years, why could Muslims not live in a democracy which Gandhi and Congress had promised Jinnah.

Not to mention that his successors in Pakistan nullified all his efforts to build a peaceful, secular country.

In essence, today's India is somewhat (not entirely) similar to what he wanted Pakistan to be.

First of all, i would request my Pakistani friends to not refer to the father of our nation as "Jinnah", for us he is "Quaid-e-Azam".

CaptainJackSparrow, Please do not attempt to stir this debate, why Quaid-i-Azam, who was the biggest supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity turned to the "Two nations theory" is a very sensitive and lengthy debate.

And finally, why is it always Secularism vs Extremism? Why is it always the two poles? Why can't we agree on a middle route which is liberalism? What our people do not understand is that liberalism is not secularism.

 

[muse]

why is it always Secularism vs Extremism? Why is it always the two poles? Why can't we agree on a middle route which is liberalism? What our people do not understand is that liberalism is not secularism.

Indeed there is much we do not understand, would you be kind enough to elaborate on what is "Liberalism", Why it's the middle way and how it's not "Secularism" -- I think many will learn.

 

[T-Faz]

What has led Javed Iqbal come out claiming that Jinnah was secular? Is he accepting the fact that the very Hudood Ordinance he supported during 70s was wrong?

Oh, he was 'in' at the time these laws were being implemented and his father Iqbal was being presented as an Islamic hero to Pakistan.

Anyone who opposed these laws was pushed aside or made to run away so Javed went along with the farce for his own sake.

But now, he is slowly opening up facts because I believe he feels its the right thing to do.

 

[T-Faz]

As for Pakistanis, I have a question. If tomorrow it was proved that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state and that he gave a pretence of secularism to make the idea more palatable for the British and west, will you give up your fight for a secular country? If it is proved that Jinnah wanted shariat in Pakistan, are you fine with the idea? I advice my fellows here to think beyond sticking your destiny on some single person's perceived beliefs or proven ideas and strive for what you think is better for your country. That would be a first step in solving your identity crisis.

You fail to understand the point of the argument, its not about a single person's perceived beliefs or proven ideas but the path this nation should be on.

If this nation was not meant to be secular then the Parsis, Christians, Hindu's, Ahmadi's, Aga Khani's and other such groups would have moved to India.

It was made clear the religion would be a personal matter in this nation-state and to achieve this we have to use Jinnah's ideals as a stepping stone to achieve the state we thing we ought to have.

 

[T-Faz]

Jinnah was secular but his assertion that Muslims will not be able to live peacefully and with prosperity in a Hindu dominated country was ill-founded.

If Hindus could live under Muslim rule for hundreds of years, why could Muslims not live in a democracy which Gandhi and Congress had promised Jinnah.

Not to mention that his successors in Pakistan nullified all his efforts to build a peaceful, secular country.

In essence, today's India is somewhat (not entirely) similar to what he wanted Pakistan to be.

The reason for the split was that the distinction between minority (Muslims) and majority (Hindus) in India had become far too great for the nation to achieve any equality and this was evident when before the partition, the Congress and the Muslim League only quarreled over all matter rather than resolving them mutually.

Read this:

Then came Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s now famous address to his constituent assembly when he invoked the majority-minority factor. A division of India had to take place, he asserted, because one community was in the majority and the other in the minority. So, all was not well. Then why, did the new break-away country start off with majorities and minorities? Said Jinnah, “in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities … ”.
He then urged his legislators to “change your past” so that every person regardless of caste, creed or colour is “first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligation …”. He assured them that in the course of time the “angularities of the majority and minority communities… will vanish.” They did not, they multiplied to such an extent that they now prevail over all else in a highly deadly fashion.

The stripe on the flag – The Express Tribune

 

[BATMAN]

I see some people start some propaganda threads acting as ignorant and than craft it on their agenda and keep complimenting each other.

Have fun with making fool out of naive audience.

Muse.. all your definations and posts start with Saudi Arabia and end with same...
Where as there are more worst places on earth.