T-Faz
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,962
- Reaction score
- 1
be satisfied and have my words, inshaAllah i will not run away instead i will bust the lies spread by the tiny secular/liberal section of our society.
The August 11 speech is very clear, Jinnah simply said that once non-muslims become the citizen of Pakistan thereby accepting the ideology (Islam) for which it was created (due course of time), the state will not be concerned with their religion and as i explained earlier, this is 100% compatible with Islamic system and for this we have examples from the rule of Caliph Umar Ra'.
Bust the lies, its these liberals and seculars who created this country, not Islamists like the countless Maulana's or religious 'scholars' of India.
Also I am amazed at your interpretation of the August 11th speech, the primary focus in the latter part of the speech was that there shouldn't be any distinctions be made between groups in Pakistan. He clearly mentions the situation in England where religious groups caused great problems based on their differences and this is why religion must remains a private matter.
Similarly he never called Islam the ideology in this speech of his and if he did want to implement Islamic laws, why did he hire a Hindu as our very first law minister.
Our secular/liberal section is just trying to put their own words in the mouth of Mr Jinnah. Please bring the statement of Jinnah where he said that Islam has no role to play in politics.
He clearly says that religion will not play a role in state, what more do you want him to say, Islam is a religion isn't it.
I also gave you references whereby he clearly mentions that he will not have an Islamic state but rather a modern state.
I was looking for the statements of Jinnah with references instead of articles by Raza Rumi types where they say "Jinnah is said to have"- either Jinnah said or not said, let me give you an example what it means to be a statement:
This particular conversation between Iskander Mirza and Jinnah is well known, I also gave you a reference from the Express Tribune, why don't you bring a reference for your quote too.
By quoting Raza Rumi, you are only strengthening my argument that lack of understanding of Islamic principles/laws/governance is the trait of seculars/liberals. They fail to understand the spirit of August 11 speech and misinterpreting it.
Islamic principles/laws/governance, so you are some scholar cum historian who understand these Islam and want to implement an Islamic state, wait we already got an Islamic state when Bhutto and later Zia made this country an Islamic republic.
Your confused statements and information is indication enough of why you fail to grasp the meaning of this August 11th speech, not only did Jinnah make it clear that religion will not play a role in this state, he also stated that no distinction should be made within groups and we should all be known as Pakistani's.
That is a nationalist speech, not an Islamist one, he called the people to be known as Pakistani's and not Muslims.
Raza Rumi quotes:
another example of lack of understanding- this man "Raza Rumi" doesn't know that theocracy or theocratic state is not compatible with Islamic System, so Mr Jinnah rightly said 'no to theocracy. Raza Rumi types are wasting their energies in trying to prove that theocracy & Islamic system are one and the same thing.
So now try bringing statements of Jinnah instead of articles from Paktea-raza rumi-tribune where Jinnah is said to have something.
Are you even capable of understanding the concept of an Islamic state, an Islamic state is a theocracy whereby the entire Ummah is under the rule of a Khalifa. Odd isn't it, you want Pakistan to be an Islamic state when we neither have the entire Ummah in this particular nation/state and the way it was achieved, it is directly against the old belief on how an Islamic state ought to be established.
I have the courtesy to give yo links while you are blowing hot air with your erroneous statements. This 'Islamic system' you speak of, what exactly are the core tenants of it and why did the Islamic clergy of India oppose it so bitterly, Maulana Maududi even wrote about how Pakistani against the central tenets of Islam.
Why can't you bring me a singular source whereby this so called Islamic state was the end result for Pakistan.
Jinnah on one hand used to fight against the inclusion of Islamic laws and you are telling me that he wanted an Islamic state.
412c
Even the Indian constitution takes after his speech because of its core secular message. The following is from an assembly debate in India after the partition.
Therefore it is up to to us to create a secular State. It would no be wrong for me to quote Mr. Jinnah in this connection, whatever, he might have said before Partition. He said: My idea is to have a secular State here.
Somebody asked : Religious or secular ?
He said: Hindus and Muslim are alike to me. They must have equal opportunities. I am trying to make a common nation for both of us. Why should our Muslim friends who owe allegiance to Mr. Jinnah and whom they revere as I do, think differently in this matter ? I am not prepared to call a single individual a minority. I do not like the word minority at all. Therefore I am saying that I am opposed to this amendment.
All individuals are at par. We cannot recognised religion as far as the State is concerned. I wonder if my friends who have suggested separate electorate for minorities would appreciate theremarks of a great leader of India. It is Mr. Jinnah who in his address to the Pakistan Assembly says:–
We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and ,equal citizens of one State. We would keep that in front
of us as our ideal and in course of time you will find that in the political sense the Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will
cease to be Muslims because religion in the personal faith of each individual. That is what the Governor-General of one of the parts of India says, Sir, he was known here to be the worst communalist, as it were,-but even he, when he takes, over the charge of a State, even he, when he takes up the reins of a communal State and the administration of a big country composed of Hindus and Muslims, he ways so. It is very well known that his State is a Muhammadan State and they are proud of its being Muhammadan and they proudly call it Pakistan; even in that State he says, religious will not be taken notice of by the State.
Every individual will be an individual and Hindus will lose their Hinduship as far as their political rights and privileges are
concerned. I submit Sir, that even they are believers of oneness of their people. Why should we introduce this separatist tendency into our politics ? Sir, at another place the same very great leader says you are free to go to your temples and places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to one religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State. I submit Sir. Constitution making is the business of the State Muhammadans as such have nothing to do with it They are here because they are citizens of India. We are one nation which stands for justice. We will legislate in a manner that will be a guarantee against all injustice. and we shall not recognise any sections. Sir, this amendment is not in keeping with the high principles we last adopted and which we have passed as resolutions in the past.”
Constituent Assembly Debate On 27 August, 1947