He could not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create mischief and propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat.
Truth about Jinnah's 11 August speech
az.ay
Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
Quad-e-Azams 11th September Address
A member of National Assembly named M. P. Bhandara submitted a bill regarding the
Quad-e-Azams 11th September address, that it should be made a part of the resolution.
When Mr. Speaker asked for members opinion, the majority supported the bill. Hence,
Mr. Speaker has passed on the bill to the Decision Committee. Some time ago a
European intellectual mentioned: Pakistan is still in search of her identification. This, of
course, is wrong but, somehow, is right as well. If we look at the Pakistan Movement,
analyze the statements made by the leaders of All India Muslim League, and then
consider the fact that the Qarardad-e-Maqasid was approved by the very National
Assembly, all this and many other evidences can easily lead us to the conclusion that the
European intellectuals statement is absolutely wrong. In fact, Pakistan perhaps has the
most clear and undoubted identification among all the countries who got freedom at the
beginning of 20th century. However, if we analyze the character and behavior of the
members of current Muslim League, then it can be said that Pakistan is a lost nation and
is still wondering for her identification.
The question is that what was so special about Quad-e-Azams 11th September address,
which was appreciated that much in our Secular Circles, and which our West-Impressed
Or should we say west-frightened leaders have strongly supported in order to receive
appreciation from their Foreign Lords? Quad-e-Azam during this 11th September speech
at National Assembly just assured complete protection for the non-Muslims in the Islamic
republic of Pakistan and guaranteed them that Muslims and non-Muslims will be treated
equally (which is exactly the same he stated during a tea party in 28th March, 1944 in
Flatters Hotel Lahore). Lets suppose that Quad-e-Azam in his 11th September address
did point towards the Secular System, but then the question will be, whether, we consider
him someone who can never err. At times, due to mental stress or some other reasons, a
human being can utter such words which might not represent his true ideas, and perhaps
this was the very reason that a few months, during his address to Karachi Bar Association
on 25th January, 1948, he clarified this matter with the following statement:
I could not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create mischief
and propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of
Shariat.
After such a profound and clear negation, if our leaders are still singing the anthem of
11th September Address, then their matter can only be forwarded to Allah (SWT). There
are no more than 100 statements issued by Quad-e-Azam from 1940 to 1947, in which he
clearly mentioned that Islamic System would be implemented in Pakistan. These
statements are present on record and are integral part of the Pakistan Movement. Further
more, Quad-e-Azam, lived just 13 months after Pakistan got her freedom from the British
Rule, and during this small period there exist 40 more statements made by him, from
which, it is clear without doubt, that he wanted to make Pakistan an Islamic Republic
State. Those people are still alive who have witnessed Quad-e-Azam saying Pakistans
Constitution had already been developed 1400 years ago.
It is not possible for us to present here even a summary of nearly 150 such sermons of
Quad-e-Azam, where he mentioned his concerns about establishing an Islamic State in
Pakistan. However, we would like to give here one of his quotes, which will be enough to
prove that our leaders whether they are in government or in opposition, are civilian or
military, can say whatever they want, but practically it is evident that they give
Western Orders priority over Allahs Orders.
Quad-e-Azam on 11th January, 1938 stated while waving the flag of Muslim League:
"We say this is the flag of Islam. They think we are introducing religion into politics- a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains every thing that matters to a man from morning to night."
After all this, if someone still claims that Quad-e-Azams ideas were secular then it is
clear dishonesty, ignorance and hypocrisy. We have no hurt feelings towards Mr. M. P.
Bhandara, as he is a non-Muslim, and due to his lack of knowledge about Islam, he might
be worried about what will happen with him in an Islamic state, but we ask our Muslim
Parliament Members, who voted in agreement of such a bill, that what happened to their
honor and pride? Why did they ignore nearly 150 statements of Quad-e-Azam, and are
now, continuing to repeat our enemies agenda. Please wake-up, and dont sacrifice
your hereafter for a few days leadership. Sometimes you shed your Afghan Brothers
blood along-with America, and some times you praise Ashoka and Dahir to make
your Hindu Friends happy. O Leaders! We too consider you as our brothers and are
doing our best to show you the right path, but we are in fact, worried about that Home
land that we got from Allah (SWT) by promising that we will establish HIS Din-ul-Haq
over it to make this country a role model for humanity. If you cant learn from the past, at
least, try to understand the present situation. That giant whose one phone call forced
you to make your friends foes, is now trapped in Dagla and Faraat, and is facing
strong resistance from the ones living in mountains and caves, you too make an effort to
become a concrete wall against it in the name of Allah (SWT). We advise you to stop
indulging the Nation in confusions such as the one regarding 11th September Address,
and start your journey on the path set forth for you by the Founder of Pakistan:
Pakistan ka matlab kya? La Ila Ha Illallah! Source
A member of National Assembly named M. P. Bhandara submitted a bill regarding the
Quad-e-Azams 11th September address, that it should be made a part of the resolution.
When Mr. Speaker asked for members opinion, the majority supported the bill. Hence,
Mr. Speaker has passed on the bill to the Decision Committee. Some time ago a
European intellectual mentioned: Pakistan is still in search of her identification. This, of
course, is wrong but, somehow, is right as well. If we look at the Pakistan Movement,
analyze the statements made by the leaders of All India Muslim League, and then
consider the fact that the Qarardad-e-Maqasid was approved by the very National
Assembly, all this and many other evidences can easily lead us to the conclusion that the
European intellectuals statement is absolutely wrong. In fact, Pakistan perhaps has the
most clear and undoubted identification among all the countries who got freedom at the
beginning of 20th century. However, if we analyze the character and behavior of the
members of current Muslim League, then it can be said that Pakistan is a lost nation and
is still wondering for her identification.
The question is that what was so special about Quad-e-Azams 11th September address,
which was appreciated that much in our Secular Circles, and which our West-Impressed
Or should we say west-frightened leaders have strongly supported in order to receive
appreciation from their Foreign Lords? Quad-e-Azam during this 11th September speech
at National Assembly just assured complete protection for the non-Muslims in the Islamic
republic of Pakistan and guaranteed them that Muslims and non-Muslims will be treated
equally (which is exactly the same he stated during a tea party in 28th March, 1944 in
Flatters Hotel Lahore). Lets suppose that Quad-e-Azam in his 11th September address
did point towards the Secular System, but then the question will be, whether, we consider
him someone who can never err. At times, due to mental stress or some other reasons, a
human being can utter such words which might not represent his true ideas, and perhaps
this was the very reason that a few months, during his address to Karachi Bar Association
on 25th January, 1948, he clarified this matter with the following statement:
I could not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create mischief
and propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of
Shariat.
After such a profound and clear negation, if our leaders are still singing the anthem of
11th September Address, then their matter can only be forwarded to Allah (SWT). There
are no more than 100 statements issued by Quad-e-Azam from 1940 to 1947, in which he
clearly mentioned that Islamic System would be implemented in Pakistan. These
statements are present on record and are integral part of the Pakistan Movement. Further
more, Quad-e-Azam, lived just 13 months after Pakistan got her freedom from the British
Rule, and during this small period there exist 40 more statements made by him, from
which, it is clear without doubt, that he wanted to make Pakistan an Islamic Republic
State. Those people are still alive who have witnessed Quad-e-Azam saying Pakistans
Constitution had already been developed 1400 years ago.
It is not possible for us to present here even a summary of nearly 150 such sermons of
Quad-e-Azam, where he mentioned his concerns about establishing an Islamic State in
Pakistan. However, we would like to give here one of his quotes, which will be enough to
prove that our leaders whether they are in government or in opposition, are civilian or
military, can say whatever they want, but practically it is evident that they give
Western Orders priority over Allahs Orders.
Quad-e-Azam on 11th January, 1938 stated while waving the flag of Muslim League:
"We say this is the flag of Islam. They think we are introducing religion into politics- a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains every thing that matters to a man from morning to night."
After all this, if someone still claims that Quad-e-Azams ideas were secular then it is
clear dishonesty, ignorance and hypocrisy. We have no hurt feelings towards Mr. M. P.
Bhandara, as he is a non-Muslim, and due to his lack of knowledge about Islam, he might
be worried about what will happen with him in an Islamic state, but we ask our Muslim
Parliament Members, who voted in agreement of such a bill, that what happened to their
honor and pride? Why did they ignore nearly 150 statements of Quad-e-Azam, and are
now, continuing to repeat our enemies agenda. Please wake-up, and dont sacrifice
your hereafter for a few days leadership. Sometimes you shed your Afghan Brothers
blood along-with America, and some times you praise Ashoka and Dahir to make
your Hindu Friends happy. O Leaders! We too consider you as our brothers and are
doing our best to show you the right path, but we are in fact, worried about that Home
land that we got from Allah (SWT) by promising that we will establish HIS Din-ul-Haq
over it to make this country a role model for humanity. If you cant learn from the past, at
least, try to understand the present situation. That giant whose one phone call forced
you to make your friends foes, is now trapped in Dagla and Faraat, and is facing
strong resistance from the ones living in mountains and caves, you too make an effort to
become a concrete wall against it in the name of Allah (SWT). We advise you to stop
indulging the Nation in confusions such as the one regarding 11th September Address,
and start your journey on the path set forth for you by the Founder of Pakistan:
Pakistan ka matlab kya? La Ila Ha Illallah! Source
angryoldman
Minister (2k+ posts)
Qaid-e-azam wanted islamic pakistan.coz no secular person can deny israel's identity.he did't only deny also criticise in harsh words.
"it is illegitiment child of west"
Pakistan was the great job which was done by Qaid with the will of Allah.
"it is illegitiment child of west"
Pakistan was the great job which was done by Qaid with the will of Allah.
Wadaich
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
:mash: Truth Speaks so loudly... :jazak:
Optimistical
Voter (50+ posts)
People with their own agenda (aka all the marvies out there) are blind to this truth.
O Quaid, we also do not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create mischief
and propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of
Shariat.
Qaid e Azam aik sincere ore sacha insaan tha ye kaisey mumkin he k jalsoon me Pakistan ka matlab kia LA ILAHA ILLALah k narey lagtey hoon ore qaid e AZAM secular state bna rahey hoon...............
ye soch to aajkal k 3rd class zardari type k siasat daan ki ho saktee he ,..............sachey ore kharee qaid ki nhi.
ye soch to aajkal k 3rd class zardari type k siasat daan ki ho saktee he ,..............sachey ore kharee qaid ki nhi.
9
Janab aap shaid Mir Jaffer or Mir Sadiq ka sath bhi Shaheed lagatay hain or Allama Bunnay phirthay hain . . . .
Janab aap shaid Mir Jaffer or Mir Sadiq ka sath bhi Shaheed lagatay hain or Allama Bunnay phirthay hain . . . .
Musalman
Councller (250+ posts)
Nahi janab main nahi lagata... magar aik musalman ko Anjahani kehna aik bohat bimar aur intiha pasand zehan ki nishani hai..... BTW what made you attribute such a stupid approach with me?
Dear,
Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq were also both muslims . . . . And still Iqbal declared them as Nanang e Adam, Nanang e Deen, Nanang e Watan . . . . Therefore, Is Iqbal also a product of a Bimar and intiha pasand Zahen as per your stupid approach . . . .
This Bast*** Taseer was a known MI6 agent, Rejected Tauheen e Risalat and was a supporter of successive regimes who bought misery to the people . . . . Now what do you want that I should give him the status of a Prophet after his death . . . .
M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
[h=1]The Jinnah Debate[/h] September 7th, 2011 | Add a Comment
By Yasser Latif Hamdani (Courtesy Daily Times)
Ayesha Jalal, probably the finest historian that this country has produced in 64 years, said in a recent interview that the Jinnah discourse as Ahmad Ali Khalid put it in his article ‘The Jinnah discourse’ (Daily Times, August 24, 2011) makes her hopeful that Pakistan will at some point hark back to the original vision that Quaid-e-Azam gave this country. As Mr Khalid put it in his well argued piece, the reason why the impulse for secularism in Pakistan survives in Pakistan is the deep structure that Jinnah, like any founding father, forms for this country.
In a country torn apart by ethnic and religious strife, Jinnah is only important marker for a nebulous inclusive Pakistani identity. This is not something unique to us. In the US you still find the legacy of founding fathers deeply and bitterly contested even though the last of them died some 180 years ago. In India, a country far more advanced democratically, the recent debate on Anna Hazare and his attempts to clothe himself in Gandhi’s image is also the same thing. Therefore, every time one reads an article by a self-professed liberal taking all the pains to discredit Jinnah as a legitimate marker in Pakistanis’ attempt to create a more humane and inclusive society, they are only shooting themselves in the foot. Their argument is based on out of context snippets borrowed rather liberally from the ideologues that the Jamaat-e-Islami (which had bitterly opposed the creation of Pakistan) have cobbled together to make a case for an Islamic state that is distinct from anything Jinnah had in mind.
I addressed this argument in some detail in a paper titled ‘Was Jinnah secular?’ available online on the blogzine Pakteahouse.net as well as my article ‘The importance of Jinnah’ (Daily Times, August 15, 2011). Needless to say — in my view — it is a completely morally and factually bankrupt argument. Jinnah did not ever say Pakistan was to be based on Islamic texts. On the contrary, Jinnah repeatedly said that Pakistan’s future government would be based on the general will of the people who would be completely sovereign regardless of religion, caste or creed. Jinnah’s Eid message in 1945, when Pakistan was by no means a certainty (only a year later Jinnah agreed to a federated three-tiered united India), cannot trump what he said and did as the father of the nation and its first governor general.
Jinnah’s references to Islam — few and far between and far too few for someone who was trying to unite a minority community defined by religion — were an attempt to endorse through religion the idea of modernity and democracy for his people in a language they understood. His references to religion were far fewer than say those of the great Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who repeatedly said that Islam was a rational religion and throughout the Turkish War of Independence used Islamic slogans, opened Turkish Grand National Assembly’s meetings with eloquent Arabic prayers for the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and declared that Islam was the national religion of the Turks.
Indeed one of the first things that Ataturk did — after the declaration of the Republic in 1924 — was to introduce Islam as a state religion, something that he overturned in 1928 after addressing the Turkish parliament in a mammoth six-day address. In comparison Jinnah vetoed several attempts to introduce a state religion for Pakistan.
At the height of the Pakistan Movement, in Delhi session of the Muslim League, Jinnah called the attempt by a certain section in the Muslim League to commit through resolution the future government of Pakistan to an Islamic governance based on Quran, Sunnah, hadith and the edicts of the rightly guided caliphs nothing less than censure for any Leaguer. He reaffirmed that Pakistan’s people will be sovereign in Pakistan. Unlike Shahid Ilyas’s claim (‘Basing secularism on Jinnah’, Daily Times, August 23, 2011), Jinnah did not give God the premier place in society.
Most of Jinnah’s political life, which spanned over four decades, was dedicated to the service of the people of India, Hindus and Muslims alike, and their progress. His contributions as a legislator were always progressive. He helped pass the Child Marriages Restraint Act 1929 for which he was bitterly attacked by the religious class amongst Muslims. Much of his efforts during the 1910s and 1920s were directed towards the Indianisation of the army and greater indigenous control over economic policy. He spent a considerable amount of time attempting to get the British government to recognise universal education as a basic human right. He was a long time supporter of the bill to allow inter-communal marriage, which was — without renunciation of their respective faiths — banned in British India. At another time, he warned against the misuse of the proposed 295-A (the forerunner of blasphemy law) to quell dissent. His advocacy for human rights and civil liberties — again entirely on non-communal basis — was noted and appreciated by all.
It was for these reasons and more that Jinnah alone in a galaxy of political stars of the time was called the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity. His political career — beyond just words — was in practice completely secular. No biographer of Jinnah, be it in India or the west, has ever concluded otherwise.
Pakistan’s idea itself was not what has been transmitted to us — the dream of a pan-Islamic poet galvanised by a Quaid. Instead it was — as Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who understood the demand for Pakistan better than anyone else, wrote in an editorial published on March 23, 1949 in Pakistan Times — an attempt to end vertical division by introducing horizontal division amongst two major peoples of the subcontinent so that they could achieve a degree of harmony and collaborate with each other as equal stakeholders in this great subcontinent.
This has not come to pass and Jinnah’s politics is not and should not be beyond criticism but that criticism should not be based on ideological snippets cobbled together as a consequence of the state’s right wing bias post-General Zia. The irony is that instead of coming up with a well reasoned critique of Jinnah’s politics, self-professed liberals merely parrot the rhetorical revision Jinnah has been subjected to by the Nazaria-i-Pakistan (ideology of Pakistan) crowd.
More importantly, any attempt to enlist Islamist rhetoric to prove — always unconvincingly — that Jinnah was not secular or did not want secular Pakistan ignoring everything Jinnah did from the moment he entered active politics in 1906, is itself counterproductive, if indeed the stated goal of a rational secular state is really what these writers are sincerely wedded to.
If someone mentions Jinnah as an inspiration for a secular state, it should not discourage from seeking their inspiration elsewhere. What motivation is there then for these writers to attack anyone speaking of Jinnah is only something they can answer for as Shakespeare made Mark Antony say: “What private griefs they have, alas, I know not.”
http://networkedblogs.com/mGiKJ
By Yasser Latif Hamdani (Courtesy Daily Times)
Ayesha Jalal, probably the finest historian that this country has produced in 64 years, said in a recent interview that the Jinnah discourse as Ahmad Ali Khalid put it in his article ‘The Jinnah discourse’ (Daily Times, August 24, 2011) makes her hopeful that Pakistan will at some point hark back to the original vision that Quaid-e-Azam gave this country. As Mr Khalid put it in his well argued piece, the reason why the impulse for secularism in Pakistan survives in Pakistan is the deep structure that Jinnah, like any founding father, forms for this country.
In a country torn apart by ethnic and religious strife, Jinnah is only important marker for a nebulous inclusive Pakistani identity. This is not something unique to us. In the US you still find the legacy of founding fathers deeply and bitterly contested even though the last of them died some 180 years ago. In India, a country far more advanced democratically, the recent debate on Anna Hazare and his attempts to clothe himself in Gandhi’s image is also the same thing. Therefore, every time one reads an article by a self-professed liberal taking all the pains to discredit Jinnah as a legitimate marker in Pakistanis’ attempt to create a more humane and inclusive society, they are only shooting themselves in the foot. Their argument is based on out of context snippets borrowed rather liberally from the ideologues that the Jamaat-e-Islami (which had bitterly opposed the creation of Pakistan) have cobbled together to make a case for an Islamic state that is distinct from anything Jinnah had in mind.
I addressed this argument in some detail in a paper titled ‘Was Jinnah secular?’ available online on the blogzine Pakteahouse.net as well as my article ‘The importance of Jinnah’ (Daily Times, August 15, 2011). Needless to say — in my view — it is a completely morally and factually bankrupt argument. Jinnah did not ever say Pakistan was to be based on Islamic texts. On the contrary, Jinnah repeatedly said that Pakistan’s future government would be based on the general will of the people who would be completely sovereign regardless of religion, caste or creed. Jinnah’s Eid message in 1945, when Pakistan was by no means a certainty (only a year later Jinnah agreed to a federated three-tiered united India), cannot trump what he said and did as the father of the nation and its first governor general.
Jinnah’s references to Islam — few and far between and far too few for someone who was trying to unite a minority community defined by religion — were an attempt to endorse through religion the idea of modernity and democracy for his people in a language they understood. His references to religion were far fewer than say those of the great Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who repeatedly said that Islam was a rational religion and throughout the Turkish War of Independence used Islamic slogans, opened Turkish Grand National Assembly’s meetings with eloquent Arabic prayers for the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and declared that Islam was the national religion of the Turks.
Indeed one of the first things that Ataturk did — after the declaration of the Republic in 1924 — was to introduce Islam as a state religion, something that he overturned in 1928 after addressing the Turkish parliament in a mammoth six-day address. In comparison Jinnah vetoed several attempts to introduce a state religion for Pakistan.
At the height of the Pakistan Movement, in Delhi session of the Muslim League, Jinnah called the attempt by a certain section in the Muslim League to commit through resolution the future government of Pakistan to an Islamic governance based on Quran, Sunnah, hadith and the edicts of the rightly guided caliphs nothing less than censure for any Leaguer. He reaffirmed that Pakistan’s people will be sovereign in Pakistan. Unlike Shahid Ilyas’s claim (‘Basing secularism on Jinnah’, Daily Times, August 23, 2011), Jinnah did not give God the premier place in society.
Most of Jinnah’s political life, which spanned over four decades, was dedicated to the service of the people of India, Hindus and Muslims alike, and their progress. His contributions as a legislator were always progressive. He helped pass the Child Marriages Restraint Act 1929 for which he was bitterly attacked by the religious class amongst Muslims. Much of his efforts during the 1910s and 1920s were directed towards the Indianisation of the army and greater indigenous control over economic policy. He spent a considerable amount of time attempting to get the British government to recognise universal education as a basic human right. He was a long time supporter of the bill to allow inter-communal marriage, which was — without renunciation of their respective faiths — banned in British India. At another time, he warned against the misuse of the proposed 295-A (the forerunner of blasphemy law) to quell dissent. His advocacy for human rights and civil liberties — again entirely on non-communal basis — was noted and appreciated by all.
It was for these reasons and more that Jinnah alone in a galaxy of political stars of the time was called the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity. His political career — beyond just words — was in practice completely secular. No biographer of Jinnah, be it in India or the west, has ever concluded otherwise.
Pakistan’s idea itself was not what has been transmitted to us — the dream of a pan-Islamic poet galvanised by a Quaid. Instead it was — as Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who understood the demand for Pakistan better than anyone else, wrote in an editorial published on March 23, 1949 in Pakistan Times — an attempt to end vertical division by introducing horizontal division amongst two major peoples of the subcontinent so that they could achieve a degree of harmony and collaborate with each other as equal stakeholders in this great subcontinent.
This has not come to pass and Jinnah’s politics is not and should not be beyond criticism but that criticism should not be based on ideological snippets cobbled together as a consequence of the state’s right wing bias post-General Zia. The irony is that instead of coming up with a well reasoned critique of Jinnah’s politics, self-professed liberals merely parrot the rhetorical revision Jinnah has been subjected to by the Nazaria-i-Pakistan (ideology of Pakistan) crowd.
More importantly, any attempt to enlist Islamist rhetoric to prove — always unconvincingly — that Jinnah was not secular or did not want secular Pakistan ignoring everything Jinnah did from the moment he entered active politics in 1906, is itself counterproductive, if indeed the stated goal of a rational secular state is really what these writers are sincerely wedded to.
If someone mentions Jinnah as an inspiration for a secular state, it should not discourage from seeking their inspiration elsewhere. What motivation is there then for these writers to attack anyone speaking of Jinnah is only something they can answer for as Shakespeare made Mark Antony say: “What private griefs they have, alas, I know not.”
http://networkedblogs.com/mGiKJ
How can a country still be confused about its own identity after 64 yrs of existence is still beyond me???? Coming to Jinnah, if he really wanted to create a secular state, what was the point in creating Pakistan anyways, he could`ve very well stayed with India, which was supposed to be secular. What was the point of so much blood shed, chaos and massive migrations? Im sure so many muslims did`nt migrate to Pakistan to be in an India like political system, in the same way as hindus after having had their motherland divided didnt anticipate ending up with another 160 million muslims among them along with a anti hindu pseudo secular political system in their own country. Jinnah was neither secular nor a democrat, otherwise why wud he opt to become governor general, rather than Prime Minister. His political vision can prolly be best compared to Post-revolution Iran. Which is believe is the future of Pakistan, a religious theocratic state with limited demoratic set up. As someone who has read Koran in detail, NO GOOD DEVOUT MUSLIM CAN EVER BE SECULAR, Islam and Secularism are mutually exclusive concepts. Same goes for western style democracy as well. I hope this kinda Iran like,Islamic revolution happens in Pakistan soon, would be much easier for us Hindu Nationalists to attain our own objectives in India as well.
