An ironical paradox that has plagued Pakistan’s six-decade old history is our failure to agree what kind of a state our founding father Mohammad Ali Jinnah had in his mind when he made the famous two-nation theory the fuel that powered the historic struggle for Pakistan.
A great deal of confusion has been created by the liberal and the secular interpreters of the Quaid’s impassioned speech on the 11th of August, 1947. These interpreters have vehemently argued that a modern and western style liberal democracy, and not Islam had been in the Quaid’s mind when he talked of equal citizenship rights for all, including the minorities such as Christians and Hindus. They have been saying that the Quaid had no intention of involving Islam in the system by which the state of Pakistan would run.
Based on this interpretation, the preachers and the practitioners of traditional orthodoxy (the likes of Maulana Fazlur Rehman) who had opposed the Quaid’s struggle for Pakistan, have continued to argue that the founder of Pakistan had nothing to do with Islam.
Nothing can be farther from truth. In his speech on the 11th of August 1947 the Quaid had hardly said any thing that had not been said in the Charter of Madina, and that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had not advocated in his last sermon.
“There is equality by birth between you all. If anybody is superior to the others, it is not on the basis of colour, creed, bloodline, nobility or legacy, but on the basis of his deeds and practices.”
It was this concept of the brotherhood of Islam that was the quintessence of the Quaid’s two-nation theory. There were two nations in India—Those who were Muslims formed one nation. And those who were non-Muslims (whatever their faith or religion) was the other nation.
There was no confusion in the mind of the Quaid on this point. He believed fiercely in the Nationhood of Islam, as is evident from a number of his speeches.
The point of difference arises when the matter of interpretation comes up.
What essentially is meant by Islam, and an Islamic state?
Beards in abundance?
A dress code of the dead centuries?
Forced enforcement of certain outdated practices, erroneously linked with Islam as its fundamental features?
Of course not.
Islam is all about submission to the Will of Allah plus a lifelong commitment to fight for social justice.
In this respect I feel like reproducing two paragraphs from a column by Carla Power.
“Reams have been written on the differences between Islamic and Western societies, but for sheer pithiness, it’s hard to beat a quip by my former colleague, a Pakistani scholar of Islamic studies. I had strolled into his office one day to find him on the floor, at prayer. I left, shutting his door, mortified. Later he cheerfully batted my apologies away.”
“That’s the big difference between us, “he shrugged.” You Westerners make love in public and pray in private. We Muslims do exactly the reverse.”
“At the nub of debates over Muslim integration in Europe lies the question: What’s decent to do in public? Display your sexuality or your faith? The French have no problem with bare breasts on billboards and TV, but big problems with hijab-covered heads in public schools and government offices.”
Having read the above observations by Carla Power, where, do you think lies the problem? In Islam? Or in the desire of the liberals to do in public what Islam asks you to do in private?
18-03-2014
- Latest
- Trending
