What's new

Jinnah’s August 11 speech wasn’t about a secular Pakistan

Apprentice

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
665
Reaction score
4
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Modernists love to believe that since Jinnah spoke in most secular terms at the very inauguration of the constituent assembly of Pakistan which was going to emerge on the globe three days later — this is what must define Pakistan constitutionally. Conservatives have been of the view that just one speech from Jinnah can’t be used to decide what kind of state he envisioned for Pakistan, as there are numerous occasions before and after that speech where Jinnah invoked religious imagery of Quran and Sharia to define Pakistan.

Jinnah’s brought up, education and personal lifestyle and worldview are witness to the fact that he was a secularist and of course averse to the idea of an Islamic state but a democratic state of Muslims. He was also fully cognizant however that the Muslim masses don’t necessarily visualise the new state of Pakistan in those very terms as he did. For Muslim masses, the new state was going to be a place where Sharia will run supreme although the Sharia meant different things to different sects within their religious folds. Jinnah knew that.

At the time of independence, perhaps Muslim masses had no imagination as to what the status of non-Muslims in the new country will be. At the maximum, the non-Muslim minorities, especially Hindus, were a source of collateral to ensure that the 30 million Muslims left behind in India can enjoy a peaceful life there; à lathe hostage population theory. Though Hindus and Muslims in their respective geographic areas thought this collateral will work, it was already proving useless as months and weeks leading to the partition in August 1947 and those soon after were characterised with communal bloodshed that devoured hundreds of thousands of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs.

The new country of Pakistan and its leadership including Jinnah owed immensely to the Muslims of minority provinces in India such as Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Behar. The Muslims from these provinces knew all too well that their geographic regions will not become the parts of Pakistan, yet they championed the cause of Pakistan. Muslim league was most organised and strongest in minority provinces than it was in Muslims majority provinces such as Punjab.

Most prominent Muslim Leaguers like Mohsinul Mulk, Viqarul Mulk, the Ali brothers, Khaliquz Zaman, Raja of Mahmudabad, Nawab Ismael Khan, Liaquat Ali Khan, were all from UP, except for Jinnah and Aga Khan who were from Bombay.


It would be a bit rich to infer from Jinnah’s August 11 speech if he really meant a secular state for Pakistan. Concern for Muslims in India, nebulousness about the national identity and the absence of consensus over Islam and Sharia must have been the factors behind the inaugural speech

In this context, although pockets of Behar and UP saw bloodshed of Muslim population; worst ones being in Bhagalpur and Garhmukteshwar, yet a great majority Muslims was not ready to migrate to Pakistan as they thought the Muslims of Pakistan will ensure their security by treating the Hindu minority therein with respect and rights. Prominent Muslim League leaders from UP such as Nawab Ismael, Ch Khaliquz Zaman, ZH Lari and others had also decided to stay back despite ongoing communal strife against Muslims. The latter two although eventually migrated to Pakistan.

In early August 1947, the Muslim leaders of northern India met Jinnah in the Imperial Hotel Delhi. There they raised some tough questions which Jinnah was not ready to respond. The questions were in the wake of how mistreatment and killings of Hindus and Sikh populations in Sindh and Punjab has infuriated the Hindu fanatics to throw the Muslim populations in UP and Behar into repeated bloodbaths. They reminded Jinnah of the selfless contribution and the sheet anchor role Muslims of minority provinces had played in getting a separate homeland for the Muslims of north east and north west India. The meeting ended in an unpleasant atmosphere. Jinnah left Delhi for Karachi on August 7, 1947.

One can imagine that when he was preparing for his inaugural speech on August 11, his thoughts could not have been oblivious of the communal riots and the concerns of the Muslims left behind in India. It was imperative for him to calm down the religious frenzy on the street and among the Muslim leaders and legislators. He would also have wanted to send out a message to Indian government that minorities in Pakistan will enjoy all freedoms, where religion won’t be the business of the state, so that he can claim the same for Muslims left behind in India.

It would therefore be a bit rich to infer from Jinnah’s August 11 speech if he really meant a secular state for Pakistan. Concern for Muslims in India, nebulousness about the national identity and the absence of consensus over Islam and Sharia must have been the factors behind the inaugural speech.

The writer is a sociologist with interest in history and politics. He can be reached at zulfirao@yahoo.com

Published in Daily Times, December 7th 2018.

https://dailytimes.com.pk/330729/jinnahs-august-11-speech-wasnt-about-a-secular-pakistan/
 
. .
Poor article. Grammatically disjointed for starters and very hard to comprehend. The point being made is pure subjective speculation, as though the author can read the mind of Jinnah and others. The opposite can just as easily be claimed as this is simply a "thought experiment". Moreover, the author has spuriously implied that atrocities against Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab caused atrocities against Muslims in UP and elsewhere - a nonsensical and spurious allegation.
 
.
So the entire basis is that he was lying, and deceiving, just to ensure rights of Muslims who stayed back... really?
pretty much, because these were Quaid e Azam's own words

The hostage theory was not absent from Jinnah’s mind. He told Norman Cliff of the News Chronicle of London (12 April 1946) that Muslims in India were “fortunate that there would be a corresponding minority of 25,000,000 Hindus in Pakistan.” After the partition, Weldon James of Collier’s Weekly reported (25 August 1947) that Jinnah said “The minorities are in effect hostages to the requirement of mutual cooperation and good neighbourliness between the Governments of Pakistan and the Indian Union.”

Note the second statement was made 2 weeks after the 11 August speech

(lets not even get started on his actual conduct with Hindu and Sikh minorities in Pakistan)
 
.
The funniest part of this is that most people who oppose "secular" don't even know what it means.

Here are some amazing mosques in "EVIL GODLESS, SECULAR CANADA"
Baitun-Nur-Mosque.jpg

Baitun Nur Mosque - Calgary

Baitul-Islam-Mosque.jpg


Baitul Islam Mosque - near Toronto

Ottawa-Muslim-Association.jpg


Ottawa Muslim Association

Here is Halal meat being sold in Evil Secular Walmart (in Canada)
img_0300.jpg




Here is evil secular libtard Toronto airport having a multi faith room where you can pray
https://www.torontopearson.com/en/w...rport-services/prayer-room-t1-before-arrivals

I could go on for days, but people here are more interesting in forcing their nonsense beliefs onto others then to think clearly and logically.


A question for Pakistanis
If secularism is so evil, then why are so many of you guys trying to move to secular Canada?

https://www.cicnews.com/2020/06/exp...ed-permanent-residence-0614879.html#gs.bc5clq

"
Most people who received an invitation were already in Canada. Of all foreign countries India was the most common place to be issued ITAs, then the United States., Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan."
 
.
So the entire basis is that he was lying, and deceiving, just to ensure rights of Muslims who stayed back... really?

He had to carve out Pakistan by hook or by crook. He was a politician facing liars and deceivers of the highest order. You are acting surprised as if its a bad thing.
 
.
The funniest part of this is that most people who oppose "secular" don't even know what it means.

Here are some amazing mosques in "EVIL GODLESS, SECULAR CANADA"
Baitun-Nur-Mosque.jpg

Baitun Nur Mosque - Calgary

Baitul-Islam-Mosque.jpg


Baitul Islam Mosque - near Toronto

Ottawa-Muslim-Association.jpg


Ottawa Muslim Association

Here is Halal meat being sold in Evil Secular Walmart (in Canada)
img_0300.jpg




Here is evil secular libtard Toronto airport having a multi faith room where you can pray
https://www.torontopearson.com/en/w...rport-services/prayer-room-t1-before-arrivals

I could go on for days, but people here are more interesting in forcing their nonsense beliefs onto others then to think clearly and logically.


A question for Pakistanis
If secularism is so evil, then why are so many of you guys trying to move to secular Canada?

https://www.cicnews.com/2020/06/exp...ed-permanent-residence-0614879.html#gs.bc5clq

"
Most people who received an invitation were already in Canada. Of all foreign countries India was the most common place to be issued ITAs, then the United States., Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan."

Muslims who move to the West go there for economic reasons. The question of ideology is irrelevant for them. The case of Pakistan and countries where Muslims have power is different. Non-Muslim religions do not necessarily (apart from maybe Christianity) hold secularism as equivalent to disbelief. Islam does. The very word Islam means complete submission to God. And a Muslim means one who submits to God. Unlike in other religions, in Islam there is a concept of sovereignty of God. Secularism contradicts that idea and the idea of Islam by its very definition.
 
.
Muslims who move to the West go there for economic reasons. The question of ideology is irrelevant for them. The case of Pakistan and countries where Muslims have power is different. Non-Muslim religions do not necessarily (apart from maybe Christianity) hold secularism as equivalent to disbelief. Islam does. The very word Islam means complete submission to God. And a Muslim means one who submits to God. Unlike in other religions, in Islam there is a concept of sovereignty of God. Secularism contradicts that idea and the idea of Islam by its very definition.

You are right, they go there for economic reasons, but what is stopping them from going back?
I would say a large numbers of Pakistanis can easily move back to Pakistan and live like Kings!
Look at those mansions some overseas Pakistanis have built.
Yet many overseas Pakistani choose to live in this
12houses0610d.jpg

over this
cd62ac63a302476f5f6376041b9511e1.jpg

Even though the Pakistani home probably costs less.

So again, why do Pakistanis go to the evil secular west when they could have more material wealth in Pakistan?

I will say it again.
You do not know what secularism means.
If Islam and secularism are opposites then how come there are thousands of mosques in the west?
Please answer this and try not to avoid the question.
 
.
You are right, they go there for economic reasons, but what is stopping them from going back?
I would say a large numbers of Pakistanis can easily move back to Pakistan and live like Kings!
Look at those mansions some overseas Pakistanis have built.
Yet many overseas Pakistani choose to live in this
12houses0610d.jpg

over this
cd62ac63a302476f5f6376041b9511e1.jpg

Even though the Pakistani home probably costs less.

So again, why do Pakistanis go to the evil secular west when they could have more material wealth in Pakistan?

I will say it again.
You do not know what secularism means.
If Islam and secularism are opposites then how come there are thousands of mosques in the west?
Please answer this and try not to avoid the question.

The problem is you are trying to connect unrelated issues. Why did some Muslims during the time of the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wassalam live in Makkah while there was an Islamic state established in Madina?
 
.
The problem is you are trying to connect unrelated issues. Why did some Muslims during the time of the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wassalam live in Makkah while there was an Islamic state established in Madina?
I am 100% not.
The Muslims stayed in Mecca since it is their homeland.

They didn't move to China, settle down, lived among idol worshipers and then complain about Mecca.

Let me make this so clear that even a baby can understand.
Your claim is that Secularism = No more Islam
My counter is, Canada, US, UK, etc are secular and have thousands of mosques, Halal food, etc.

So you need to show how secularism is anti Islam because all the evidence we have says that you are wrong, secularism is NOT anti Islam.
 
.
I am 100% not.
The Muslims stayed in Mecca since it is their homeland.

They didn't move to China, settle down, lived among idol worshipers and then complain about Mecca.

Let me make this so clear that even a baby can understand.
Your claim is that Secularism = No more Islam
My counter is, Canada, US, UK, etc are secular and have thousands of mosques, Halal food, etc.

So you need to show how secularism is anti Islam because all the evidence we have says that you are wrong, secularism is NOT anti Islam.

Do these places have Islamic laws? These places have interest based banking systems, which they have also imposed on Muslim countries. Muslim children are taught Darwinism and other beliefs which contradict Islamic doctrines and lead to atheism. Can Muslims object to their children being taught these things under secular systems? Lots of other issues. Having mosques and halal food does not mean more than what they are.
 
.
Do these places have Islamic laws? These places have interest based banking systems, which they have also imposed on Muslim countries. Muslim children are taught Darwinism and other beliefs which contradict Islamic doctrines and lead to atheism. Can Muslims object to their children being taught these things under secular systems? Lots of other issues. Having mosques and halal food does not mean more than what they are.

You are going on an irrelevant tangent.
The point of the argument is that Secularism is anti Islam.
I have shown that it is not anti Islam, but you have yet to provide any evidence that it is.

Side note, Pakistan also has interest based banking, "Darwinism" is not anti islamic and is also taught in Pakistan, Pakistan has a million belifes that contradict Islam (Batch bazi, focing children to marry outside their will, corruption, etc), if your belief is so weak that you can become an athiest so easily then that is on you and all of society should not be forced to live under dictatorship due to your weakness.
 
.
Muslims who move to the West go there for economic reasons. The question of ideology is irrelevant for them. The case of Pakistan and countries where Muslims have power is different. Non-Muslim religions do not necessarily (apart from maybe Christianity) hold secularism as equivalent to disbelief. Islam does. The very word Islam means complete submission to God. And a Muslim means one who submits to God. Unlike in other religions, in Islam there is a concept of sovereignty of God. Secularism contradicts that idea and the idea of Islam by its very definition.


How conveniently you said “economic reason”. Australia main baith kay you are giving lectures on how to run Pakistan. I say, come back, sacrifice your “economic reasons” and help built the country. Bring your working experience as well, might do some good for the future generation.
 
.
Logon ka mulk sa bahir rehna economy k liye ziada beneficial

Aur wohi log agar wapis akar economy main help karaty to aj yeh halat na hotay. They accept living in foreign lands and work under them. Why? If you despise them so much, come back to your own country and help build here.
 
.
You are going on an irrelevant tangent.
The point of the argument is that Secularism is anti Islam.
I have shown that it is not anti Islam, but you have yet to provide any evidence that it is.

Side note, Pakistan also has interest based banking, "Darwinism" is not anti islamic and is also taught in Pakistan, Pakistan has a million belifes that contradict Islam (Batch bazi, focing children to marry outside their will, corruption, etc), if your belief is so weak that you can become an athiest so easily then that is on you and all of society should not be forced to live under dictatorship due to your weakness.

Actually you haven't shown anything except that secular societies give freedom of religion to Muslims.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom