Without defending the concept of a Muslim state I must say that an Islamic state and a Muslim state are not synonymous. I guess there is a difference between a Muslim majority state and a Muslim state. If there any such difference at all, both a Muslim majority state (and for that matter a Hindu majority state, etc.) and a Muslim state can be constitutionally secular---at least I don't see any problem. What was the constitutional nature of the state of Pakistan until the country adopted it's first constitution declaring Pakistan an Islamic Republic and curtailing the rights of the non-Muslims? As I understand (admittedly with my limited knowledge of history), Muslim League was created to protect the rights of Muslims in the subcontinent which it clearly betrayed in some respects. It took about half a century for the party to realize that their dream land needed to be an Islamic Republic. I believe palace conspiracy was the main culprit here.
It is immaterial whether Muslim League had an Islamic state or not in their manifesto. The party was called 'Muslim League' and it wanted a 'Muslim State'. That could not be called secular or religion-neutral (or religious-clan-neutral), if one defines "secularism" as the state policy of treating people equally irrespective of their religious beliefs/affiliations.People who give Muslim League/Jinnah a 'secular' label are wrong. Among them are the pseudo-secular Muslims who pretend to be nice/gentle/good/civilized, but have religious discrimination and hatred in their mind. Among them are also Muslims and non-Muslims who are just plain foolish. The Muslims and non-Muslims that I called "just plain foolish" have at least one problematic compartment in their brain, if one prefers to put it this way.SuBain
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Jinnah, the secular democrat?Creation of an Islamic republic wasn't in the manifesto of Muslim League in 1906. Even when it started campaigning for a separate Muslim state, the idea of an Islamic state was not in the vision. I may be wrong. The idea of an Islamic state surfaced after the death of Jinnah.
Sent from my iPhoneOn May 9, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:If Jinnah were secular, excesses of Gandhi would not have been a reason for him to join the Muslim fanatics. If he were secular, and believed that Congress was too Hinduish, he would have started a better secular party, he could not have sought a separate country for the Muslims.In 1947, Muslims were not a small minority in the subcontinent, and were not about to be overwhelmed by the Hindus. Jinnah surely had enough intelligence to know that.Anyway, I have wasted more time lately talking about Jinnah than he deserved.Sukhamaya Bain==================================From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Jinnah, the secular democrat?
Jinnah left Congress long before Patel came into it or became a national figure. He left in 1925 due to what he considered excesses of Gandhi......................................Foolish comments by QR deleted from here.
....................................-----Original Message----- From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wed, May 8, 2013 12:08 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Jinnah, the secular democrat?If "secularism", is defined as "irreligiosity", Jinnah was definitely more secular than Gandhi. However, if "secularism" is defined as the state policy of treating people equally irrespective of their religious beliefs, Gandhi was secular, and Jinnah was not. As I also said in the post below, "He (Jinnah) was not a serious believer in Islam; he was fanatic about his Muslim clan." Of course, one might say that his Muslim-clannish fanaticism was only for him to be a supreme leader, as opposed to for loving the Muslims.Well, too pitiable that in his sick bed 'he confessed that his worst mistake in life was to achieve Pakistan'; but the reality is that his actions have caused/helped prolonging religious hatred in the subcontinent. .............As Dr. Das has also noted, Jinnah's politics had no grassroots. In other words, Jinnah was no angel for democracy.Sukhamaya Bain============================================== From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Jinnah, the secular democrat?
"If he was not a Muslim fanatic bigot,...". Jinnah relished pork sandwich and never even bowed towards Mecca. He was a British agent as observed Wali Khan. When Mr. Khan went for treatment in England, he had the opportunity to study the declassified British information about Jinnah and his role in the partition of Pakistan. About five years before he was made the President of All India Muslim League, he actively retired from Indian Politics, and left India for England to practice law there. Then he was hand picked by the Winston Churchill to pursue his heinous politics. Sure, he was more secular than Gandhi. His politics had no grassroots. In sickbed during his last days, he confessed that his worst mistake in life was to achieve Pakistan.On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:May be Dr. Jiten Roy should read the following article by Faiz Ahmed Faiz:He should also read the book, India Wins Freedom, by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.Jinnah insisted that Congress was a Hindu party, even when Maulana Azad was the President of that party. He also insisted that Muslim League was the legitimate representative of all the Muslims of India, even when that party did not have parliamentary majority in three principal Muslim-majority provinces, Punjab, N.W.F. and Bengal. If he was not a Muslim fanatic bigot, who was? I would insist that his talk of a secular Pakistan in 1948 was probably due to his over-consumption of alcohol on that day. He was not a serious believer in Islam; he was fanatic about his Muslim clan.I am surprised by Dr. Roy's question, "What could have been the national language of Pakistan, other than Urdu?" Why could you not think of Bangla as a more appropriate choice?Obviously, Urdu was the language of the Muslim aristocrats. Bangla was the language of an overwhelming majority population of Pakistan. In
