Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Misaq-e-Madina Inspired Quaid-e-Azam's Vision of Pluralistic Pakistan

An ongoing debate about the true vision of Pakistan's founder flares up every year around Pakistan's Independence Day. This year is no exception. It is centered on one key question: Did the Quaid want an Islamic state or a secular state or a pluralistic democratic one?

Islamic or Secular Pakistan?

Here are a couple of excerpts from Quaid-e-Azam's speeches given at different times which are often cited in this "Islamic vs Secular Pakistan" debate:

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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"

“Who am I to give you a constitution? The prophet of Islam had given us a constitution 1,300 years ago. We have to simply follow and implement it, and based on it we have to establish in our state Islam’s great system of governance.”

The secularists insist that the first excerpt from the Quaid's speech of August 11, 1947 to the constituent assembly should be accepted as his true vision for a secular Pakistan. The Islamists vehemently disagree and cite the second excerpt in which the Quaid talked about the fact that "prophet of Islam had given us a constitution 1,300 years ago" and we must implement it.

Misaq-e-Madina: 

The question is: Do the two speech excerpts conflict or support each other? On the surface, the Quaid's speeches appear to send conflicting messages. However, a deeper examination of Misaq-e-Madina (Charter of Medina), Islam's first constitution approved by Prophet Muhammad (SAW), suggests the Quaid's speeches are consistent with each other and conform to the original Islamic constitution.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Honored by US Supreme Court

Here's the opening line of Misaq-e-Madina:

"This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah."

It clearly says that all citizens of "Yathrib" (ancient name of Madina), regardless of  their tribe or religion, are part of one nation--"Ummah". So the word "Ummah" here does not exclude non-Muslims.

Further into the "Misaq" document, it says: "No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help."

The Mesaq assures equal protection to all citizens of Madina, including non-Muslim tribes which agreed to it. The contents of Misaq-e-Madina, Islam's first constitution approved by Prophet Mohammad 1400 years ago, appear to have inspired Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's vision of  a pluralistic Pakistan where people of all religions and nationalities live in harmony with equal rights and protections under the law.

Two-Nation-Theory:

Some might now ask what was the need for the Two-Nation-Theory given the above vision of the Quaid? The Quaid's search for Pakistan as an independent state for Muslims was inspired to give India's minority Muslims better opportunities to grow and prosper. While it's true that Pakistan has not lived up to the Quaid's expectations, it is also true that, in spite of all their problems, Muslims in Pakistan are still much better off  than their counterparts in India.

An Indian government commission headed by former Indian Chief Justice Rajendar Sachar confirms that Muslims are the new untouchables in caste-ridden and communal India. Indian Muslims suffer heavy discrimination in almost every field from  education and housing to jobs.  Their incarceration rates are also much higher than their Hindu counterparts.

According to Sachar Commission report, Muslims are now worse off than the Dalit caste, or those called untouchables. Some 52% of Muslim men are unemployed, compared with 47% of Dalit men. Among Muslim women, 91% are unemployed, compared with 77% of Dalit women. Almost half of Muslims over the age of 46 ca not read or write. While making up 11% of the population, Muslims account for 40% of India’s prison population. Meanwhile, they hold less than 5% of government jobs.

Those who say that the Two-Nation-Theory died with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 are wrong. They need to be reminded that the Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940, in fact called for two "independent states", not "state", in Muslim majority areas of India in the north east and the north west. The other fact to remember is that Bangladesh did not choose to merge with India after separation from Pakistan.

Here are a couple of video discussions on this and other subjects:

http://vimeo.com/82796819

http://vimeo.com/103030587


Nawaz Sharif Govt Survival Questioned; ISIS Advances in Iraq from WBT TV on Vimeo.


Jinnah’s birthday, Bangladesh Independence, Abdul Qadir Molla hanging, Aam Aadmi Party success India from WBT TV on Vimeo.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Upwardly Mobile Pakistan

Jaswant Lauds Jinnah

Are Muslims Better Off in Jinnah's Pakistan?

Comparing Pakistan and Bangladesh

Is This a 1971 moment in Pakistan's History?

Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail?

Global Firepower

Jinnah's Pakistan Booms Amidst Doom and Gloom

Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah's Vision of Pakistan

India Wins Freedom by Maulana Azad

Ayesha Jalal Taking On Pakistan's Hero

The Poor Neighbor by William Dalrymple

Iqbal and Jinnah



14 comments:

Akber S. said...

The question that will remain unanswered is that if india had remained united with a Muslim population of , today, 35 pc, or 600 million, vs 1000 Hindus, 300 million Sikhs, Christians etc. what would have been the scenario for India?

Riaz Haq said...

Akber: "The question that will remain unanswered is that if india had remained united with a Muslim population of , today, 35 pc, or 600 million, vs 1000 Hindus, 300 million Sikhs, Christians etc. what would have been the scenario for India?"

India would still have the world's largest population of poor, hungry and illiterates as it does now. And the deprivation in what is now Pakistan would be far worse than India.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2010/08/63-years-after-independence-india.html

Roland D. said...

dear riaz,

i was a little surprised at how badly muslims were doing in india. was not aware of the numbers stated in the 2008 article.

however, there is little one in pakistan can do about the mistreatment of minorities in india.

but --- realizing this injustice --- it should be possible for us to do something about the mistreatment of hindus and other minorities in pakistan! assuming, of course, that one does not believe that two wrongs make a right.

we can lead from the front. we can say:'"we are humanists. see how well we treat the less privileged and weaker sections of our society." the others may feel ashamed and change their behaviour.

otherwise, how are we different from the indians, the pot calling the kettle black?

Riaz Haq said...

Roland: "i was a little surprised at how badly muslims were doing in india...we can lead from the front. we can say:'"we are humanists. see how well we treat the less privileged and weaker sections of our society." the others may feel ashamed and change their behaviour."

Indian Christians are not faring better either. Muslims make up 13% of India's population but 28% of Indian prisoners? Similarly, Christians make up 2.8% of India's population but 6% of India's prison population? Meanwhile, the newly elected parliament has just 4% Muslim representation?

I agree with you that Pakistan should set a better example of how it treats its non-Muslim citizens. The thrust of this article I wrote is captured in the quotes from Misaq-e-Madina, signed by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) which are as follows:


"This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah."

"No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help."

Mahesh said...

If Pakistan is doing so well and India is SO poor (which I agree - specifically UP, Bihar, Orissa, Chattisgarh) then, why is Pakistan slipping in HDI?

Few years ago Pakistan was neck in neck with India especially after the Bangladesh dividend (the per capita income levels went up by 25% for "west" Pakistan because of the Bangladesh split off)

In the 2014 report, Pakistan is not just behind India but also behind Bangladesh and Nepal!

Bangladesh is classified now as medium human development country like India whereas Nepal followed by Pakistan are classified as low human development country.

Riaz Haq said...

Mahesh: "If Pakistan is doing so well and India is SO poor (which I agree - specifically UP, Bihar, Orissa, Chattisgarh) then, why is Pakistan slipping in HDI?"

Pakistan is not doing "so well". HDI is just one indicator that does not give the whole picture about the depth of deprivation in South Asia, particularly India which is still home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry, sick and illiterate.

Read more at: http://www.riazhaq.com/2010/08/63-years-after-independence-india.html

Mahesh said...

Haq: "HDI is just one indicator that does not give the whole picture ......."
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income indices used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. It was created by a Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq and Indian economist Amartya Sen in 1990[1] and was published by the United Nations Development Programme.[

By the way and according to your bio you are a "South Asia" watcher. As such it will be nice to blog about news and events where people from both countries have collaborated or done something valuable !

David said...

He also came as Rahmat ul lil Aalameen for Banu Qurayza. Showed so much mercy, that he killed all men and made women sex-slaves

Riaz Haq said...

David: " He also came as Rahmat ul lil Aalameen for Banu Qurayza. Showed so much mercy, that he killed all men and made women sex-slaves"

As signatories to Misaq e Madina agreement, Banu Qurayza were treated under ancient Jewish law (Deuteronomy 20: 10-14)

Deuteronomy 20:10-14King James Version (KJV)

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Riaz Haq said...

Shadi Hamid: Will #Muslims follow western trajectory: Reformation, Enlightenment, Secularism, Liberal Democracy?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/the-meaningless-politics-of-liberal-democracies/486089/

Perhaps his most provocative claim is this: History will not necessarily favor the secular, liberal democracies of the West. Hamid does not believe all countries will inevitably follow a path from revolution to rational Enlightenment and non-theocratic government, nor should they. There are some basic arguments for this: Islam is growing, and in some majority-Muslim nations, huge numbers of citizens believe Islamic law should be upheld by the state. But Hamid also thinks there’s something lacking in Western democracies, that there’s a sense of overarching meaninglessness in political and cultural life in these countries that can help explain why a young Muslim who grew up in the U.K. might feel drawn to martyrdom, for example. This is not a dismissal of democracy, nor does it comprehensively explain the phenomenon of jihadism. Rather, it’s a note of skepticism about the promise of secular democracy—and the wisdom of pushing that model on other cultures and regions.

------

Green: You open the book by asking about this inscrutable yearning for violence that seems to be felt among a small minority of Muslim extremists. What do you make of this yearning?

Hamid: On a basic level, violence offers meaning. And that’s what makes it scary. In the broader sweep of history, mass violence and mass killing is actually the norm. It’s only in recent centuries that states and institutions have tried to persuade people to avoid such practices.

That also reminds us that when institutions and social norms are weakened, those base sentiments can rise up again quite easily. And that’s what I saw.

-----

Green: You also frame violence as a way of grappling with theodicy, or the problem of evil. How does this play out in the Islamic tradition?

Hamid: That is the question many Muslims have been asking not just recently, but for centuries, ever since the fall of the various caliphates and empires: Why is God doing this? Why is God permitting this fall from grace? The Muslim narrative you hear a lot is that when Muslims were good, God rewarded them with success and territory. When Muslims went astray, then perhaps God decided to send them a message to encourage them to return to the straight path.


A question I get a lot is, “Wait, ok, is Islam violent? Does the Quran endorse violence?” I find this to be a very weird question. Of course there is violence in the Quran. Muhammad was a state builder, and to build a state you need to capture territory. The only way to capture territory is to wrest it from the control of others, and that requires violence. This isn’t about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad; state building has historically always been a violent process.

Green: On that point, you observe that the state-building impulses of the Islamic State actually make it much more terrifying than other groups. Why?

Hamid: ISIS has gone well beyond the al-Qaeda model of terrorism and destruction. Of course, ISIS does that, too, but it attempts to build something in the place of what it has destroyed. It has an unusually pronounced interest in governance. And they are not just making things up as they go along. There does seem to be a method to the madness; they are drawing from certain strains of Islamic history and tradition. They are perverting them, I would argue, and distorting them, but it is not as if they are just making it up out of the air.


Ahmad F. said...

Is there any evidence that Mr. Jinnah was aware of the Constitution of Madina? Is it cited in the Pakistan Resolution of the 23rd of March, 1940, or in any of Mr. Jinnah's speeches.

I would have expected Allama Iqbal to be aware of it more so than the secular Mr. Jinnah.

Regardless, the Constitution has been more "honor’d in the breach than the observance."

And not just in Pakistan but in the entire Muslim world.

Also, the word Ummah is used by most Muslims to refer just to the Muslims.

Riaz Haq said...

Ahmad F. : "Is there any evidence that Mr. Jinnah was aware of the Constitution of Madina?"

When asked about his ideas for Pakistan's constitution, Jinnah said: "Who am I to give you the constitution? The Prophet of Islam had given us a constitution 1300 years ago."

What constitution did Prophet Muhammad give us 1300 years ago? It's called Misaq e Madina.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/12/quaid-e-azam-ma-jinnahs-vision-of.html

The strong similarity between Jinnah's pronouncements and the articles of Misaq e Madina suggests to me that he was aware of it, After all, Jinnah was a great lawyer. I'm sure he knew something that the even US Supreme Court recognizes on its chamber walls: Prophet Mohammad is among the "great lawgivers of history".

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/01/14/muhammad-sculpture-inside-supreme-court-a-gesture-of-goodwill/

Riaz Haq said...

No Improvement in Condition of #Muslims in #India Ten years after Sachar Report. #Modi #BJP http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ten-years-after-sachar-report-no-major-change-in-the-condition-of-indias-muslims-4444809/ … via @IndianExpress

On November 30, 2006, the 403-page report of the Sachar Committee, on the social, economic and educational condition of Muslims in India, was tabled in Parliament. The Committee, headed by former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Rajinder Sachar, was set up soon after the UPA 1 government took over, and it submitted its findings in less than 2 years.
The Report highlighted a range of disabilities faced by the community, and made a slew of recommendations to address the situation. It placed Indian Muslims below Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in backwardness. Among the many issues it highlighted were the huge mismatch between the percentage of Muslims in the population and in decision making positions such as the IAS and IPS, and the general poor representation of the community in the police.

An analysis of government data show that most indicators have not seen significant improvement in the years since the Report was submitted. In some cases things seem to have, in fact, deteriorated — in 2005, for example, the share of Muslims among India’s police forces was 7.63%; in 2013, it fell to 6.27%. The government subsequently stopped releasing data on police personnel broken down by religion.
In the years both preceding and following Sachar, Muslims continued to have the lowest average monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) among all communities. The work participation rate for Muslim men increased only slightly to 49.5% in 2011 from 47.5% in 2001; for Muslim women, the increase was even smaller, from 14.1% in 2001 to 14.8% in 2011.

Perhaps the most telling figures are in the IAS and IPS, the country’s top officialdom. The Sachar Committee recorded the percentage of Muslims in the IAS and IPS as 3% and 4% respectively. These numbers were 3.32% and 3.19% respectively on January 1, 2016, Home Ministry data show. The fall in Muslim representation in the IPS was due primarily to a steep fall in the share of Muslim promotee officers in the IPS — from 7.1% in the Sachar Report to merely 3.82% at the beginning of 2016.
As per the Census of 2001, Muslims were 13.43% of India’s population; in 2011, they were 14.2%. The increase of 24.69% in the population of Muslims between the two Censuses was the smallest ever recorded for the community.
The sex ratio among Muslims remained better than that of India overall in both 2001 and 2011, and the percentage of Muslims living in urban centres too remained higher than the national average in both Censuses.

Riaz Haq said...

Treaty of Hudaybiyah, an example Prophet Muhammad's diplomatic skills:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah


Muhammad had a premonition that he entered Mecca and did tawaf around the Ka'bah. His companions in Madinah were delighted when he told them about it. They all revered Mecca and the Ka'bah and they yearned to do tawaf there. In 628, Muhammad and a group of 1,400 Muslims marched peacefully without arms towards Mecca, in an attempt to perform the Umrah (pilgrimage). They were dressed as pilgrims, and brought sacrificial animals, hoping that the Quraish would honour the Arabian custom of allowing pilgrims to enter the city. The Muslims had left Medina in a state of ihram, a premeditated spiritual and physical state which restricted their freedom of action and prohibited fighting. This, along with the paucity of arms carried, indicated that the pilgrimage was always intended to be peaceful.[4]

Muhammad and his followers camped outside of Mecca, and Muhammad met with Meccan emissaries who wished to prevent the pilgrims' entry into Mecca. After negotiations the two parties decided to resolve the matter through diplomacy rather than warfare, and a treaty was drawn up.[5]

After the treaty was signed, most of the pilgrims objected to Muhammad giving in on most points to the Quraysh, use the name of Allah and call himself the Messenger of God. That led to Umar questioning about Muhammad's resolve.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] This has even been recorded in Sahih Muslim.[1

The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was very important in Islam. After the signing of the treaty, the Quraysh of Mecca no longer considered Muhammad to be a rebel or a fugitive from Mecca. They also recognized the Islamic state in Medina by signing the treaty. The treaty also allowed the Muslims who were still in Mecca to practice Islam publicly. Further, as there was no longer a constant struggle between the Muslims and the polytheists, many people saw Islam in a new light, which led to many more people accepting Islam. In addition, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah paved the way for many other tribes to make treaties with the Muslims. The treaty also serves as an example that Islam was not merely spread with the sword, as Muhammad had an army that could have attacked Mecca, but Muhammad chose to make a treaty instead of attacking.[14]

A verse of the Quran was revealed about the treaty, which means, "Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory" (Quran 48:1).