Was Jinnah secular or not?

[Pakistani E]

This is not true brother. Neither Allama Iqbal nor Quaid e Azam were Liberal Muslims, they were Modernists. In this category they also fit in with Maulana Maududi, Dr. Israr Ahmad, Sayyid Qutb, Khomeini, King Faisal, and other such leaders.

Please understand that I am not using the word liberal in the connotation that it has acquired in current Pakistani discourse. I am quite flabbergasted that a well read person such as yourself believes that Jinnah fits in with the profile of these other leaders. Maudidi was a vehement critic of Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement. If they truly came from the same mould, Maudidi would not have accused Jinnah of creating a secular or a non religious state.

Many people do not understand this nuance. All the leaders I quoted above were outside the traditional ulema which controlled discourse in the Muslim community, and also who had utterly failed to meet the challenges of the modern era. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan also came out with his reforms to undo what he saw as the stagnation of Islam at the hands of the traditional ulema.


Allama Iqbal for example makes no secret of his aims in his shayri to revive the high spirit of Islam and to call out the religious charlatan. His book in English is called "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam."

Dr. Israr Ahmad, prominient student of Maududi, Iqbal, and supporter of Quaid e Azam, stated in one lecture, "There is no moulvi in Islam. Every person is required to learn his religion and educate himself."

I don't want to get in a philosophical debate, my contention is that comparing Jinnah's thoughts who was opposed to establishing a theocratic state, and equating them to Maudidi is simply wrong. Jinnah and Maudidi were polar opposites, with Maudidi being a traditionalist and a supporter of orthodoxy.

Please ponder on these: “What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable elements of Maulvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Maulvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other; but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Maulvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social also political.” Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah said on 5 February 1938 at the Aligarh Muslim University Union.(Jamiluddin Ahmed (Ed.) Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah; Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore; Vol 1, p. 43).

This is what Jinnah said in Central Legislative Assembly on 7 February 1935 “religion should not be allowed to come into politics … Religion is merely a matter between man and God … but … is this a question of religion purely?… No, Sir, this is a question of minorities and it is a political issue.” (ibid.; p.6). On 1 February 1943 he repeated at the Ismaili College at Jogeshwari in Bombay “religion is strictly a matter between God and man” (ibid.; p. 469).


Further on, Jinnah goes on to say, "to the theme at the Aligarh Muslim University Union on 2 November 1941 when he replied to the Congress leader K.M. Munshi’s warning that Pakistan would be “a religious State pledged to rule according to the teachings of that religion”. Far from agreeing with him Jinnah angrily refuted him. “Is it not an incitement to the Sikhs and Hindus? Telling them that it would be a religious State, excluding them from all power, is entirely untrue. He seems to suggest that non-Muslims in Pakistan will be treated as untouchables. Let me tell Mr. Munshi that untouchability is only known to his religion and his philosophy and not ours. Islam stands for justice, equality, fairplay, toleration and even generosity to non-Muslims who may be under our protection. They are like brothers to us and would be the citizens of the State.” (ibid; p. 314)."

And then, we have this:

“In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.”

(Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III)


Please explain why Maudidi is disparaging Jinnah and Pakistan Movement, if they were all cut from the same cloth, and wanted to establish the same sort of government as each other. Did Maudidi misunderstand Jinnah's motives? There is a clear contradiction there of some sort. What is it?

EDIT: I want to clarify further that I believe Jinnah and this other group of "Liberal Muslims" as being democratic in essence, and wanting to establish a democratic state for Muslims of the subcontinent. The main gripe that some of the Ulama had against him was his insistence on this mattter, whilst they believed in a theocratic state where the Ulama had the final say in all political and religious matters, something akin to the Mullah rule in Iran. Maudidi was of the latter group, hence his opposition.

 

[padamchen]

But the idea of equality is not possible when someone is born as the "chosen one".

All people are given the message of God when they are ready (evolved enough) for it.

The message comes to them at their time of greatest need.

And it comes to them from one of their own.

All the Prophets of the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims have been DIRECTLY influenced by Zoroastrian theology and thought and polity in their own times.

Their messages a tribal codified copy of the original tenets of Zoroastrianism.

For the Jews.

For the Christians.

For the Arabs.

Zoroastrianism in itself in a continuum of ancient Aryan theology and religion.

The final sublimation and codification into its monothiestic form.

It did not suddenly birth in a Godless vacuum.

The core nichod of my post ...

Everyone is the chosen one.

At different times of the human continuum.

We were there first.

But what Christianity and Islam did was foist the direct message of God to A people, by mortal men, on to people it was NOT meant for. And who had already received it thousands of years earlier.

This was not the will of God.

It was military imperialism of power hungry races of men.

Which is why the fire rages.

And devours.

And will not stop.

And only get more rampant.

Till there is either only ashes and ruin.

Or the fire is rooted back to its God ordained soil.

@Cliftonite @Rusty @El Sidd

Please understand that I am not using the word liberal in the connotation that it has acquired in current Pakistani discourse. I am quite flabbergasted that a well read person such as yourself believes that Jinnah fits in with the profile of these other leaders. Maudidi was a vehement critic of Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement. If they truly came from the same mould, Maudidi would not have accused Jinnah of creating a secular or a non religious state.



I don't want to get in a philosophical debate, my contention is that comparing Jinnah's thoughts who was opposed to establishing a theocratic state, and equating them to Maudidi is simply wrong. Jinnah and Maudidi were polar opposites, with Maudidi being a traditionalist and a supporter of orthodoxy.

Please ponder on these: “What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable elements of Maulvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Maulvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other; but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Maulvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social also political.” Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah said on 5 February 1938 at the Aligarh Muslim University Union.(Jamiluddin Ahmed (Ed.) Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah; Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore; Vol 1, p. 43).

This is what Jinnah said in Central Legislative Assembly on 7 February 1935 “religion should not be allowed to come into politics … Religion is merely a matter between man and God … but … is this a question of religion purely?… No, Sir, this is a question of minorities and it is a political issue.” (ibid.; p.6). On 1 February 1943 he repeated at the Ismaili College at Jogeshwari in Bombay “religion is strictly a matter between God and man” (ibid.; p. 469).


Further on, Jinnah goes on to say, "to the theme at the Aligarh Muslim University Union on 2 November 1941 when he replied to the Congress leader K.M. Munshi’s warning that Pakistan would be “a religious State pledged to rule according to the teachings of that religion”. Far from agreeing with him Jinnah angrily refuted him. “Is it not an incitement to the Sikhs and Hindus? Telling them that it would be a religious State, excluding them from all power, is entirely untrue. He seems to suggest that non-Muslims in Pakistan will be treated as untouchables. Let me tell Mr. Munshi that untouchability is only known to his religion and his philosophy and not ours. Islam stands for justice, equality, fairplay, toleration and even generosity to non-Muslims who may be under our protection. They are like brothers to us and would be the citizens of the State.” (ibid; p. 314)."

And then, we have this:

“In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.”

(Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III)


Please explain why Maudidi is disparaging Jinnah and Pakistan Movement, if they were all cut from the same cloth, and wanted to establish the same sort of government as each other. Did Maudidi misunderstand Jinnah's motives? There is a clear contradiction there of some sort. What is it?

Nice post.

But we do know historically that Jinnah changed greatly (hardened) in the years following these quotes.

Leading up to 1947.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Secularism is a big reach, let's first aim for the low hanging fruit of a decent functioning political system.

 

[T-123456]

Was Jinnah secular or not?

I say he was secular.

@El Sidd @Rusty @T-123456 @shah_123

Does it really matter now?

 

[MayaBazar]

If you truly believe jinnah was secular, I advise you to be careful living in India. The "secular" folk (and the Islamic extremists they nurture) in India will flay you for such treachery to their own "secular" cause.

I was born, schooled, worked and retired in India. There is a real world outside internet. I can confidently say that the real India is very secular by practice.

 

[El Sidd]

All people are given the message of God when they are ready (evolved enough) for it.

The message comes to them at their time of greatest need.

And it comes to them from one of their own.

All the Prophets of the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims have been DIRECTLY influenced by Zoroastrian theology and thought and polity in their own times.

Their messages a tribal codified copy of the original tenets of Zoroastrianism.

For the Jews.

For the Christians.

For the Arabs.

Zoroastrianism in itself in a continuum of ancient Aryan theology and religion.

The final sublimation and codification into its monothiestic form.

It did not suddenly birth in a Godless vacuum.

The core nichod of my post ...

Everyone is the chosen one.

At different times of the human continuum.

We were there first.

But what Christianity and Islam did was foist the direct message of God to A people, by mortal men, on to people it was NOT meant for. And who had already received it thousands of years earlier.

This was not the will of God.

It was military imperialism of power hungry races of men.

Which is why the fire rages.

And devours.

And will not stop.

And only get more rampant.

Till there is either only ashes and ruin.

Or the fire is rooted back to its God ordained soil.

@Cliftonite @Rusty @El Sidd



Nice post.

But we do know historically that Jinnah changed greatly (hardened) in the years following these quotes.

Leading up to 1947.

Maras in the Masai believe all cattle in the world are their divine right.

So?

 

[padamchen]

Maras in the Masai believe all cattle in the world are their divine right.

So?

Like every human was born a Muslim.

 

[Naofumi]

is*

 

[El Sidd]

Like every human was born a Muslim.

But they are not born with the divine right to levy tax on others nor claim a land or a cattle as their divine right now do they.

 

[VCheng]

The question simply is as @VCheng puts it.

Objective Resolution.

Whatever Jinnah's vision for Pakistan, he did not have time to realize it, sadly. And the Objective Resolution does define the vision for the nation quite clearly, agreeing with it or not is besides the point.

 

[El Sidd]

Whatever Jinnah's vision for Pakistan, he did not have time to realize it, sadly. And the Objective Resolution does define the vision for the nation quite clearly, agreeing with it or not is besides the point.

Its not choice now is it to follow the constitution but an obligation once within its area of influence

 

[VCheng]

Its not choice now is it to follow the constitution but an obligation once within its area of influence

As @AgNoStiC MuSliM declared elsewhere, it is up to the legislators and the courts to decide upon the obligations created by the constitutional framework including the OR. That is good enough for me.

 

[El Sidd]

As @AgNoStiC MuSliM declared elsewhere, it is up to the legislators and the courts to decide upon the obligations created by the constitutional framework including the OR. That is good enough for me.

Well wherever you been the state has no business with it but when you are in Pakistan, you should know to whom belongs sovereignty over the entire universe

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Jinnah was Jinnah - only one of it's own kind...

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I was born, schooled, worked and retired in India. There is a real world outside internet. I can confidently say that the real India is very secular by practice.

And yet India declares jinnah as some Islamist maniac who dismembered a secular nation to please Islamist designs... Nope. Hindustan is Hindustan, a unique phenomenon, secular when advertising itself but religiously against jinnah and his madrassa state whenever discussing Pakistan over a dinner table. I've been party to these discussions so I'm aware of the dichotomy of personalities India suffers with.