Jinnah ka Pakistan

Who knew the Euthyphro argument could have such far reaching applications!


Salman Arshad said…
This was harsh.

Jinnah is really only the tinka of the doobta liberal.
Komal said…
I love it! What program did you use to make these?
Dur e Aziz Amna said…
I love how I finally understood one of your obscure philosophical references. Yale summer reading ftw.
Uzair said…
*thumbs up*
Ahish said…
Good use of Euthyphro argument.
stumblingmystic said…
This needed to be said. No matter how harsh it is, it's true.
Awais Aftab said…

I have nothing against Jinnah, and I am all in favor of a liberal Pakistan, but the case for secularism needs to be on a more stable foundation than hero-worship.
Awais Aftab said…

Thank you! I used Macromedia Fireworks. Not as difficult or as extensive as Adobe Photoshop, but its user friendly.
Awais Aftab said…
@ Dure

Soon you'll outrun me ;)
Awais Aftab said…
@Uzair, @Ahish, @stumblingmystic

Thank you! :)
Komal said…
"... but the case for secularism needs to be on a more stable foundation than hero-worship."

Articulate and pithy as always.
SHaHeEn said…
Quaid-e-Azam said in his presidential address in 1940:

“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders… The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects of life and our life are different.”

In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on
November 21, 1945, he said:

“We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.”

In a message to NWFP Muslim Students Federation in April 1943, he said:

“You have asked me to give a message. What message can I give you? We have got the great message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”

In an Eid message to the nation in 1945, he said:

“Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. Everyone except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code; it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all, to those of each individual; from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet (S) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Holy Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines and rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society in every department of life, collectively and individually.”
Awais Aftab said…
SHaHeEn's comments reveal that the case for 'Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan' is not as rock solid as many liberals like to think.
stumblingmystic said…
Well, if you read Ayesha Jalal, Jinnah was just a clever politician using Islam as a bargaining chip during negotiations with the British -- that's all. He was barely a practicing Muslim himself, and I doubt he could have quoted from the Qur'an or the Shariah jurisprudence to support any purpose.

But yes, Shaheen's quotes illustrate the pointlessness of using Jinnah to argue for secular liberalism in Pakistan. Secular liberalism stands on its own merits, with or without Jinnah.
I'm the one doing the "erm" :S
Anonymous said…
I was just going to say, `hey, that sounds like the Euthyphro argument...` when you mentioned it yourself at the bottom, lol.

How true waisay. There is something intrinsically wrong in arguing for secularism merely because Jinnah wanted it. I suspect many liberal resort to this because many of the opposition refer liberally and constantly to the partition and reasons behind it - in frustration we try to counter by `but even Jinnah didn`t want an Islamic State`. Again, like you said, we shouldn`t.
Anonymous said…
Hi there!

Jinnah was no different from any other politician. While he was campaigning he said what people wanted to hear and hid his real opinions. The Imperialist collaborator explicitly promised the people an Islamic state (See Jinnah's letter to the Pir Manki Sharif), but once he got a hold on power, he felt safe enough to divulge his real intentions.
Or perhaps this duplicity has its roots in his Ismailism/Shi'ism.