Open Challenge to SAFMA to prove Quaid-e-Azam secular!

[Mughal1]

hey//do u have a link to that speech? i would like to read it myself..

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html

 

[desicad]

Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

August 11, 1947

---

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen!
I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honour you have conferred upon me - the greatest honour that is possible to confer - by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.
Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.
The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.
Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These blackmarketeers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.
The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.
I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India's constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.
I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

http://www.insaf.pk/Media/InsafBlog...tituent-Assembly-of-Pakistan-August-1947.aspx

Thanks for posting this Unicorn..:)..so people say the bolded part means he was secular? I dont suppose you could explain how that promotes secularism becaue I dont see it..(cry)

The bold letter part in the above speech is the basis of a secular state.
Now jinnah made couple of other speeches which rendered the sanctity of the above speech worthless and that is the reason for the confusion and current debate in pakistan.

 

[Unicorn]

Thanks for posting this Unicorn..:)..so people say the bolded part means he was secular? I dont suppose you could explain how that promotes secularism becaue I dont see it..(cry)

Bro, you have to read all my comments. I don't know weather he was secular or not. I have stated, in my reply to this post, that " he had made many other speeches that have a tilt towards non-secularism" I further mentioned that " this speech is completely secular" Keep in mind that this speech is made to the lawmakers. You show me anything in this speech that refers to Islam or Koran. I have further stated that the argument " weather he wanted secular country or Islamic" is very difficult to settle.

But you are free to express as to what kind of state you would like but don't say Mr. Jinnah wanted it no matter which way you go, secular or Islamic" I will find you a speech by Mr. Jinnah to the contrary.

The highlighted part is unambiguous to me just as his tilt towards non-secularism in other speeches.

 

[Unicorn]

The bold letter part in the above speech is the basis of a secular state.
Now jinnah made couple of other speeches which rendered the sanctity of the above speech worthless and that is the reason for the current debate in pakistan.

Thank you bro you have brought the essence of what I said to the surface.

 

[Humi]

Bro, you have to read all my comments. I don't know weather he was secular or not. I have stated, in my reply to this post, that " he had made many other speeches that have a tilt towards non-secularism" I further mentioned that " this speech is completely secular" Keep in mind that this speech is made to the lawmakers. You show me anything in this speech that refers to Islam or Koran. I have further stated that the argument " weather he wanted secular country or Islamic" is very difficult to settle.

The highlighted part is unambiguous to me just as his tilt towards non-secularism in other speeches.

there are speeches available where he mentions islamic system..ya, he didnt mention islam here, but what he said does not necessarily mean he wanted secularism...lemme expand on that in my reply to mughal1 post..

 

[Mughal1]

Mr. Mughal, I just want a short answer to this thats all.Had the congress accepted those points we would not be discussing this matter today.

Dear Unicorn, had mughal rule continued, had british raj not come to india, had british not left india etc etc etc. Wake up Unicorn, you are over stretching things son. You must accept that pakistan is here as a reality and it is up to people of pakistan to go from here wherever they wish to go. My hope is that they choose islamic rule of law and get on with making pakistan a great country with all its citizens regardless of their religious beliefs because to them their religions are personals so islam does not affect them in any negative sense. If anything quran states very clearly that their places of worship must be protected. Protecting a peoples' place of worship is guaranty of protection of a people as a community. This is what hindu community did not avail muslims. They wanted to take muslims as one person one vote in order to undermine their strength as a community. If muslims were told same by islam today you would be a muslim because your individuality would not have protected you. So community strength of any community must not be broken because that will destroy the individuals in those communities. This shows islam is not enemy of even the kaafirs. It is only enemy of those kaafirs who are enemies of humanity itself.

regards and all the best.

 

[Humi]

The bold letter part in the above speech is the basis of a secular state.
Now jinnah made couple of other speeches which rendered the sanctity of the above speech worthless and that is the reason for the current debate in pakistan.

If I understand properly, I think people who say that this part of his speech represents secularism say that because he said a person seizes to be a muslim or a hindu or a christian and becomes a citizen in a political sense...Under Islamic law, no matter what religion you are, same law applies to everyone..so i think what he meant was that the law doesnt judge you as a christian or hindu, it judges you as a citizen of state. During the time of prophet Muhammad (PBUH), non-muslims who used to live in media as well were subject to the same islamic rules that muslims were..they seized being jews or christians and became subject to the islamic laws set up...If the word "political" means he wanted democracy, that is non-sense as well...Islam is a system of social, economic and political set of rules..there are rules about how many witnesses are needed, what the punishment for a certain crime is, how you can take your leader to court for mistreating you etc....and in the modern language, you would call all those laws a political system as well..

 

[Unicorn]

there are speeches available where he mentions islamic system..ya, he didnt mention islam here, but what he said does not necessarily mean he wanted secularism...lemme expand on that in my reply to mughal1 post..

When I say " I am going to seize being a Hindu in Political sense. It means that Hinduism will not play any part of my political life, if any. But I can be as much as a Hindu I want in my personal life. Just to be clear I have seized to be a Hindu in every sense:lol:

 

[desicad]

If I understand properly, I think people who say that this part of his speech represents secularism say that because he said a person seizes to be a muslim or a hindu or a christian and becomes a citizen in a political sense...Under Islamic law, no matter what religion you are, same law applies to everyone..so i think what he meant was that the law doesnt judge you as a christian or hindu, it judges you as a citizen of state. During the time of prophet Muhammad (PBUH), non-muslims who used to live in media as well were subject to the same islamic rules that muslims were..they seized being jews or christians and became subject to the islamic laws set up...If the word "political" means he wanted democracy, that is non-sense as well...Islam is a system of social, economic and political set of rules..there are rules about how many witnesses are needed, what the punishment for a certain crime is, how you can take your leader to court for mistreating you etc....and in the modern language, you would call all those laws a political system as well..

Totally wrong again......under islamic system minorities are not treated equal even in political sense....a non muslim cannot hold the highest office and other key positions in the state.......

 

[Humi]

When I say " I am going to seize being a Hindu in Political sense. It means that Hinduism will not play any part of my political life, if any. But I can be as much as a Hindu I want in my personal life. Just to be clear I have seized to be a Hindu in every sense:lol:

oh i c..i dont suppose there is a video record of it...i have seen a video of where he says something like our state should be based on islamic socials only and no other ism but i havent seen this one..

 

[Humi]

Totally wrong again......under islamic system minorities are not treated equal even in political sense....a non muslim cannot hold the highest office and other key positions in the state.......

lemme ask u this..if hinduism had a certain sets of rules by which u had to live by, would the majority of people be comfortable if a non-hindu person held the key positions?
Jews dont belive in Jesus Christ..if Christians had a set of laws precribed by Jesus Christ, how many christians would welcome a Jew to hold key positions?
First of all, you would have to be be an expert with years of studying to implement the islamic law..a non-muslim cant just come up and rule...
this does not mean non-muslims are mistreated by law...find me some example from the time of prophet, where he mistreated the laws just because the accused was of a different religion..
and by your logic then, in America people arent treated equally as well either as most of the presidents are related distinctly to each other...by that logic, in india not every citizen is equal as well because the Gandhi family has had a huge influence in ruling india as well!

 

[Mughal1]

When I say " I am going to seize being a Hindu in Political sense. It means that Hinduism will not play any part of my political life, if any. But I can be as much as a Hindu I want in my personal life. Just to be clear I have seized to be a Hindu in every sense:lol:

Dear Unicorn, it is not possible to leave one's fundamental convictions aside no matter wherever one is. People do have personal beliefs but their effects are not necessarily personal at all. This is why we try to live with each other on common grounds otherwise if we had no common grounds we will be totally lost and isolated completely from each other. So interpreting this speech in that context would be senseless. All one can say is that this speech is telling muslim majority no mullaism whereby you try to convert people to islam by force, keep that kind of islam to yourselves because state will not tolerate it.

Don't use indirect pressuring methods either to try and convert nonmuslims to islam ie by discriminating against them in education or jobs etc etc.

regards and all the best.

 

[Unicorn]

If I understand properly, I think people who say that this part of his speech represents secularism say that because he said a person seizes to be a muslim or a hindu or a christian and becomes a citizen in a political sense...Under Islamic law, no matter what religion you are, same law applies to everyone..so i think what he meant was that the law doesnt judge you as a christian or hindu, it judges you as a citizen of state. During the time of prophet Muhammad (PBUH), non-muslims who used to live in media as well were subject to the same islamic rules that muslims were..they seized being jews or christians and became subject to the islamic laws set up...If the word "political" means he wanted democracy, that is non-sense as well...Islam is a system of social, economic and political set of rules..there are rules about how many witnesses are needed, what the punishment for a certain crime is, how you can take your leader to court for mistreating you etc....and in the modern language, you would call all those laws a political system as well..

You have not understood at all let alone correctly. Let me give you an example. There is a law in Pakistan that a non-Muslim can't be a President and can't hold certain positions. Tell me how you would apply this law equally when I will be denied a position not based on my ability but because of my religion a Muslim will not denied in this case. Show me how you can apply this equally. I don't know weather this law is valid from Islamic point of view. I have seen many laws that discriminate between Muslim men and Muslim women. Here is an example I heard an interview of Mr Israr Ahmed in which he said that he felt that " flight attends should not be Muslim females as per his interpretation of Koran, and he mentioned it to Mr. Zia Ul Haq. Mr Haq agreed" a law was passed an Muslim female flight attendants were sent home and forbidden. How you think all citizens get equal treatment by law in this case. This can never happen in a secular state. Mr. Israr considers this achievement as a feather in his cap, so to speak.

 

[desicad]

lemme ask u this..if hinduism had a certain sets of rules by which u had to live by, would the majority of people be comfortable if a non-hindu person held the key positions?
Jews dont belive in Jesus Christ..if Christians had a set of laws precribed by Jesus Christ, how many christians would welcome a Jew to hold key positions?
First of all, you would have to be be an expert with years of studying to implement the islamic law..a non-muslim cant just come up and rule...
this does not mean non-muslims are mistreated by law...find me some example from the time of prophet, where he mistreated the laws just because the accused was of a different religion..
and by your logic then, in America people arent treated equally as well either as most of the presidents are related distinctly to each other...by that logic, in india not every citizen is equal as well because the Gandhi family has had a huge influence in ruling india as well!

First of all religion is personal thing for me. I don't want the govt. to have anything to do with my beliefs and that is the reason I want my govt. to be secular. Now if a non hindu is chosen to lead in democracy I have absolutely no problem and don't care who is leading the country as long as the person is honest and working for the country. India currently has a PM who is not a Hindu.
Do you even know how many jews hold key positions in majority christian country US?
Now whether most american presidents are related or gandhi family as advantage over others is not the point of discussion here. What we are discussing here is what does the constitution say and what rights are given by the state to all its citizens.

 

[Mughal1]

Totally wrong again......under islamic system minorities are not treated equal even in political sense....a non muslim cannot hold the highest office and other key positions in the state.......

Dear desicard, before you accuse islam for this or that please study islam. Islam does not have any ruling system, it has a management system and that system gives all rights to any minority community to manage all its own affairs. Muslim do not rule any minority rather minorities manage themselves within islamic jurisdiction.

In any secular system people have to fight to get their rights recognized before they could get them. Women had no voting rights, blacks were treated different till they fought for their rights etc etc.

regards and all the best.

 

[Humi]

You have not understood at all let alone correctly. Let me give you an example. There is a law in Pakistan that a non-Muslim can't be a President and can't hold certain positions. Tell me how you would apply this law equally when I will be denied a position not based on my ability but because of my religion a Muslim will not denied in this case. Show me how you can apply this equally. I don't know weather this law is valid from Islamic point of view. I have seen many laws that discriminate between Muslim men and Muslim women. Here is an example I heard an interview of Mr Israr Ahmed in which he said that he felt that " flight attends should not be Muslim females as per his interpretation of Koran, and he mentioned it to Mr. Zia Ul Haq. Mr Haq agreed" a law was passed an Muslim female flight attendants were sent home and forbidden. How you think all citizens get equal treatment by law in this case. This can never happen in a secular state. Mr. Israr considers this achievement as a feather in his cap, so to speak.

oh ok..thanks for the explanation...see my reply to desicad on the part of a non-muslim not being able to rule..
so you are saying islamic is a sexist religion? lemme tell you something..I was brought up here in Canada since I was a kid...I wasnt religous, didn't read Quran or its interpretations and took what the media said about Islam as the truth...Even I used to think Islam does discriminate against women for many years...until I understood one thing...what is the purpose of law? Is it not to protect its citizens? Lemme ask you, in today's world, who gets more harassed sexually: men or women? Who is most likely to get stared at and groped when you come up to a customer: a waiter or a waitress? Take America, for exmaple, people get punished there for sexual harassment, but this is a serious problem there...Islam looks at the root of the problem..it doesnt stop women from working, but it tells them to be careful so you dont put urself in a position where the chance of you getting mistreated because of your gender is much higher..

 

[desicad]

Dear desicard, before you accuse islam for this are that please study islam. Islam does not have any ruling system, it has a management system and that system gives all rights to any minority community to manage all its own affairs. Muslim do not rule any minority rather minorities manage themselves within islamic jurisdiction.

regards and all the best.

Why you get my id wrong every time? :P

 

[Humi]

First of all religion is personal thing for me. I don't want the govt. to have anything to do with my beliefs and that is the reason I want my govt. to be secular. Now if a non hindu is chosen to lead in democracy I have absolutely no problem and don't care who is leading the country as long as the person is honest and working for the country. India currently has a PM who is not a Hindu.
Do you even know how many jews hold key positions in majority christian country US?
Now whether most american presidents are related or gandhi family as advantage over others is not the point of discussion here. What we are discussing here is what does the constitution say and what rights are given by the state to all its citizens.

I dont have a problem if a non-muslim is leading a democracy is either...
and you didnt get my point..i wasnt talking about democracy in a christian country..i was talking about a religious christian system..i.e. if the church wasn't separate from the state..
I dont want to discuss that either..I just gave you an example of how that point could relate to other countries as well..

 

[desicad]

Dear Unicorn, it is not possible to leave one's fundamental convictions aside no matter wherever one is. People do have personal beliefs but their effects are not necessarily personal at all. This is why we try to live with each other on common grounds otherwise if we had no common grounds we will be totally lost and isolated completely from each other. So interpreting this speech in that context would be senseless. All one can say is that this speech is telling muslim majority no mullaism whereby you try to convert people to islam by force, keep that kind of islam to yourselves because state will not tolerate it.

Don't use indirect pressuring methods either to try and convert nonmuslims to islam ie by discriminating against them in education or jobs etc etc.

regards and all the best.

Sorry to say that you have made the mockery of the above speech by jinnah with your explanation.
Having said that I am not saying that he was secular because there are other speeches as I mentioned earlier which totally contradicts this speech.

 

[desicad]

I dont have a problem if a non-muslim is leading a democracy is either...
and you didnt get my point..i wasnt talking about democracy in a christian country..i was talking about a religious christian system..i.e. if the church wasn't separate from the state..
I dont want to discuss that either..I just gave you an example of how that point could relate to other countries as well..

Well that is the point that the westerners understood before everyone else that state should be separated from religion, this only can ensure equality among all its people and that is only way for the nation to prosper. Look where they are now......