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.
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 vision of Pakistan where people of all religions and nationalities live in harmony with equal rights and protections under the law.
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's a video discussion on this and other current subjects:
Jinnah’s birthday, Bangladesh Independence, Abdul Qadir Molla hanging, Aam Aadmi Party success India from WBT TV on Vimeo.
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?
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
Happy and prosperous 2014 to all in America, South Asia, Middle East and elsewhere. My special prayers are for Pakistan to become peaceful, stable and prosperous starting in 2014. Amen!
The second excerpt is not from the 11 August speech.
The excerpt that secularists rely on btw is:
In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims not in a religious sense but in a political sense as citizens of the state.
Here are even clearer pronouncements:
On 21st May, 1947, Jinnah described clearly what kind of state he envisaged in Pakistan:
The basis of the central administration of Pakistan and that of the units to be set up will be decided no doubt, by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time… The minorities in Pakistan will be the citizens of Pakistan and enjoy all the rights, privileges and obligations of citizenship without any distinction of caste creed or sect. They will be treated justly and fairly. The Government will run the administration and control the legislative measures by its Parliament, and the collective conscience of the Parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them. Over and above that there will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life. p.845, Zaidi, Z.H. (ed) (1993) Jinnah Papers: Prelude to Pakistan, Vol. I Part I. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project
In an interview with Duncan Hooper he said:
Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’p. 61, Jinnah Speeches and Statements 1947-1948, Oxford 1997
In his address to the people of the United States of America, Jinnah said:
In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan. p. 125 Ibid
Speaking to Parsi gathering in Karachi in February 1948, he said:
I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.
On 22nd March 1948, meeting with Hindu Legislators in an effort to stem their exodus to India, he said
We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis. p.102-103 Ibid
You have offered more extensive quotes from the Quaid’s speeches to buttress your secular view. There are a lot more quotes that Islamists can find to argue that the Quaid’s vision was the opposite of what you believe.
Instead of engaging in the battle of the quotes that leads nowhere, what I have done is chosen one representative quote each used by two sides and compared with key clauses of Misaq-e-Madina to make sense of the Quaid’e vision. And my conclusion is that the Quaid sought a state like the state of Medina with a pluralistic constitution that offered equal protection to all citizens of Pakistan regardless of their faith, tribe or ethnicity or other attributes.
Please also view the video linked to the post.
^^RH: "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.."
This is a silly thing to say. Only 1/3 of India's Muslims live in Pakistan. 2/3 of India's Muslims do not live in Pakistan.
If Pakistan was indeed created to provide "better opportunities to grow and prosper" for India's Muslims, then it has completely failed. Here is why:
Although the creation of Pakistan may have benefited those of India's Muslim who now live in Pakistan (1/3), it has done considerable harm to those who do not live in Pakistan (2/3).
In other words, while the creation of Pakistan helped a minority of Muslims, it harmed the majority of Muslims. Simple logic tells you that, on the whole, the result is a negative one.
Please try to think about others once in a while, instead of always focusing on yourself.
HWJ: "Although the creation of Pakistan may have benefited those of India's Muslim who now live in Pakistan (1/3), it has done considerable harm to those who do not live in Pakistan (2/3)."
So why is India's "secular democracy" harming India Muslims? Because they are Muslims? And what guarantee is there that the Muslims in Pakistan would do any better than Indian Muslims if there were united India?
Indian journalist Aaker Patel recently wrote that Urban elite of cities now in Pakistan was Hindu, Sikh. Muslims were peasants.
Punjab makes up more than half of Pakistan's population. It is the largest, best educated and most prosperous province in Pakistan today:
Let me share some data that sheds some light on the lives of Muslims in a province where Muslims were a majority in 1940s undivided India.
From "PARTITION OF PUNJAB" by Dr. Kirpal Singh (1988):
1. Landholdings 65% non-Muslims the remaining by Muslims
2. Electrical Connections: Muslims 74,790 and non-Muslims 81,525
3. Tax paid for urban immobile property:
Rs. 924, 358 by non-Muslims &
Rs. 396,189 by Muslims
4. Sales Tax :
Rs. 519, 203 by non-Muslims &
Rs. 66,323 by Muslims
5. Out of the 97 banking branches only 7 were run by Muslims.
6. Of the Rs. 100 crore bank deposits only 1 crore belonged to Muslims
7. Out of 215 factories in Lahore 167 were owned by non-Muslims
8. Total investments Rs. 6.05 crores Rs. 4.88 crores by non-Muslims
9. OUT OF 16 COLLEGES ONLY 3 WERE RUN BY MUSLIMS
10. Out of the 40 High Schools only 13 were run by Muslims
11. Candidates appearing for University examinations only 28.51% were Muslims.
12. Several Public libraries and hospitals established in Lahore were by non-Muslims
13. Of the 5332 shops in Greater Lahore 3501 were owned by non-Muslims
14. Of the 80 Insurance offices, only 2 were owned by Muslims
15. Of the 12 Arts & Science colleges in Lahore only 1 was run by Muslims
16. Of the 15 professional colleges, excluding 3 run by the Govt, all were run by non-Muslims
17. Of the 12 hospitals NOT EVEN ONE WAS RUN BY MUSLIMS.
18. Rationing enumeration: Muslims (53.9%), Hindus (34%), Sikhs (10%) & others (2%).
Muslims in undivided Punjab had very low standards of living relative to Hindus and Sikhs, they were poor and backward, and there was no Muslim professional or business class as there is now.
Although I haven't seen any data on it yet, I bet similar or worse situation prevailed in Bengal and Sindh as well. And I can bet development never touched the lives of the Muslim provinces of NWFP and Baluchistan either.
You are right! ISLAMIC IS ESSENTIALLY SECULAR & DEMOCRATIC
While on the subject, Maulana Azad's predictions would be of interest to review. I am not proposing to lament. I propose to move on and prove that Pakistan can be as secular as its big neighbor, as democratic as the west and as Islamic as any other Islamic nation - all at the same time.
Granted! Maulana Azad's prophecies and apprehensions (subject to authenticity of this document) proved to be exact and true. The lesson to be learned is the fact that creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion and communal divide proved to be a catastrophe of immense proportions. Attempting to sustain Pakistan's existence on the basis of religion has been and will be equally consequential and bear its price tag in terms of disservice to Islam.
Nahin khuch Sabbeh wa Zunnar ke phande mein Geerai
Wafadari mein Shaikh wa Brahman ki Aazmaish hai - Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib
Statistically the divide on the issue of Pakistan’s creation continues to be the same now as it was before the creation of Pakistan. Those on the other side of Maulana Azad's argument will perhaps find solace in a book " The Fall and rise of Islamic State" by a Harvard professor Noah Feldman wherein the professor argues that the Sharia Law system promises an equal enforcement of the rule of law which subsequently protects people under autocratic governments.
Regardless, the need for every Pakistani, anyone with a soft corner for Pakistan, thinkers, writers, journalists and Pakistani Society as a whole is to focus on Pakistan as a nation- Pakistani First and then whatever else one wants to be.
Bravo! You have hit the nail right on the head by analyzing Quaid's two speeches and convincingly arguing that these two speeches are conciliatory rather than contradictory. More importantly you have brought to light a point of view that is beaconing in terms of accepting that Misaq of Madina - Islam's First Constitution for governance was secular as well as democratic. If all Pakistanis can appreciate this we will have no complex ideological and philosophical and sectarian differences that has plagued the nation to a point that we are killing each other simply on the basis of religious sects or provincialism.
Your knowledge of the sub-continent, its history and complex ramifications is commendable. I urge you to write more and more projecting the fact that Pakistan can be truly Islamic by being secular and democratic. The INDUS team will be very happy to have such an article published on INDUS web site. www.induspk.org
With reference to the Indian democracy or its treatment of minorities I prefer not to compare. Let us focus on Pakistan and revive its national fervor that once existed. Let us worry about eliminating perceived ideological differences, perceived or concocted by exploiting Islam for short term and selfish political gains. Let us have a nation that we were 30, 40 or even 60 years ago. One nation bound by brotherhood.
Hope to hear more from you on the subject of spurring national solidarity and projecting Islam as essentially secular and democratic.
Here's an announcement of Jewish professor speaking on how Muslims have helped Jews for centuries before the occupation of Palestine:
David J. Wasserstein, a professor of Jewish History at Vanderbilt University, will lecture on “How Islam Saved the Jews” at 7 p.m. on Thursday, April 24, at the University of Alabama in Birmingham.
The free, public lecture will take place at UAB’s Volker Hall, Lecture Room A, 1670 University Blvd. The event is co-sponsored by the UAB Department of History and the Birmingham Islamic Society.
"It's a chance for Jews and Muslims who are now often at odds politically to reflect on our glorious historical past and for a moment forget about our political differences, and work on future peace," said Ashfaq Taufique, president of the Birmingham Islamic Society.
Wasserstein will discuss how the spread of Islam after Muslims conquered Mecca in 630 A.D. led to a thriving Muslim culture that also allowed a thriving Jewish subculture, until about 1300 A.D.
"Within a century of the death of Mohammad, in 632, Muslim armies had conquered almost the whole of the world where Jews lived, from Spain eastward across North Africa and the Middle East as far as the eastern frontier of Iran and beyond," Wasserstein wrote in The Jewish Chronicle. "Almost all the Jews in the world were now ruled by Islam. This new situation transformed Jewish existence. Their fortunes changed in legal, demographic, social, religious, political, geographical, economic, linguistic and cultural terms - all for the better."
If not for the Muslim conquests, Jewish culture might have died out, Wasserstein believes.
"The political unity brought by the new Islamic world-empire did not last, but it created a vast Islamic world civilization, similar to the older Christian civilization that it replaced," Wasserstein wrote in The Jewish Chronicle. "Within this huge area, Jews lived and enjoyed broadly similar status and rights everywhere. They could move around, maintain contacts, and develop their identity as Jews. A great new expansion of trade from the ninth century onwards brought the Spanish Jews - like the Muslims - into touch with the Jews and the Muslims even of India."
Wasserstein has written several books, including “The Rise and Fall of the Party-Kings, Politics and Society in Islamic Spain, 1002-1086” and “The Caliphate in the West; An Islamic Political Institution in the Iberian Peninsula” and he co-authored “The Legend of the Septuagint, From Classical Antiquity to Today.”...
Maududi was the most vociferous opponent of Mr. Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement. I reproduce here some of his referenced works here from his “Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III) First Edition published from Delhi. Jamaat-e-Islami claims that the whole Two Nation Theory project was derived from Maududi’s writings which is completely untrue. Maududi described the idea of Muslim Nationalism as unlikely as a “chaste prostitute”. Here he wrote:
” Who are the Muslims you are claiming to be a separate nation? Here, the crowd called Muslims is full of all sorts of rabble. There are as many types of characters in this as in any (other) heathen people”. (Vol. III, P.166)
“If you survey this so-called Muslim society, you will come across multifarious types of Muslims, of countless categories. This is a zoo with a collection of crows, kites, vultures, partridges and thousands of other types of birds. Every one of them is a ‘sparrow’. (Ibid. P.31)
One of Jamaat-e-Islami’s latter day claims has been that Mr. Jinnah wanted an Islamic state. Ironically this is what Jamaat-e-Islami’s philosopher in chief Maulana Maududi was writing back then:
“Pity! From League’s Quaid-e-Azam down to the lower cadres, there is not a single person who has an Islamic outlook and thinking and whose perspective on matters is Islamic“. (Ibid. P.37)
“To pronounce these people fit for leading Muslims for the simple reason that they are experts of Western type politics and masters of Western organizational arts, and are deeply in love with their people, is a manifestation of an unislamic viewpoint and reflects ignorance of Islam”. (Ibid. P.70)
“Even with a microscopic study of their practical life, and their thinking, ideology, political behaviour and style of leadership, one can find not a trace of Islamic character.”
Jamaat-e-Islami now claims claims that the Muslim League won the elections because it promised Pakistan as an Islamic state. Here is what Maulana Maududi said then:
“In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it has it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.” (Ibid. P.130-32)
One of the main arguments in favor of separate federations in India put up by Muslim League was that parliamentary democracy would not work in United India given the permanent minority that Muslims were with their own majority zones. Thus Pakistan – as a separate federation- had to be a democratic state. Jinnah’s vision, as Gandhi concluded after his abortive meetings with Jinnah in 1944, was of a perfect democracy in Pakistan. This vision was rejected by Maulana Maududi and his party. The fact that Jinnah used electoral methods and strengths of numbers for his politics also upset Maulana Maududi quite a bit. He wrote:
“For these reasons, the great numbers (of Muslims) that we find. (listed) in the census records has become worthless for purposes of Islam. Anything done on the strength of these numbers will result in acute frustration.” (Ibid. P.56)
Had these great numbers supported Maududi he would have gladly accepted their strength. In 1947, he moved to Pakistan and brought here with him his cancerous Jamaat-e-Islami too. He remained however a committed opponent of the Pakistani national causes including the Kashmir struggle calling it unIslamic. Today the Jamaat-e-Islami castigates anyone and everyone who wants a peaceful settlement in Kashmir. I suppose Maududi could not call the Kashmir struggle a Jihad because then Ahmadis were involved in fighting there under their Al-Furqan brigade.
Remembering Dr Shakeel Auj: The man who wasn't afraid
HAYA FATIMA IQBAL
The loss of a rebel
Dr Shakil Auj was a man who enjoyed and encouraged difference of opinion. Every Eidul Azha, he used to carry out the qurbaani ritual together with Mufti Muneebur Rehman, who currently heads the Ruet-i-Hilal Committee.
The two were friends, but at the same time, had differing viewpoints on various subjects when it came to religion. Dr Auj would bring up so many points of disagreement in a single conversation that Mufti Munib once joked with his eldest son, saying, “Tum apnay abbu jaisay na banna!” (“Please don’t become like your father!”).
Dr Auj’s eldest son Hassan recounts that his abbu’s life revolved around asking questions about everything. He said his father had the tenacity to stick to his own argument if he had researched upon it and believed in it no matter how contentious it may be. He was someone who wouldn’t give in just because other experts held a different opinion. It was on the basis of his research that he came up with conclusions that would put off many clerics and religious scholars.
“My father was of the opinion that Muslim women can marry men who are not Muslims. He was of the opinion that Islamic war (jihad) is strictly supposed to be defensive in nature; it can never be offensive in character. He used to say that natural disasters are basically acts of nature, not results of the wrath of God. He used to say that Ramazan is about the self-restraint of an individual and it doesn’t befit the spirit of the month to close down shops and eateries by force during daytime,” recalls Hassan, while talking about what made his father different from so many others in Pakistan who have studied and researched upon Islam.
In his earlier years, Dr Auj was appointed as a ‘khateeb’ at several mosques. His family says he was dismissed from service at most of these mosques and was even banned from entering one when he didn’t tow that mosque’s hardline stance. “Haath pakar ke mimbar se le jaaye gaye thay abbu (They took abbu’s hand and removed him from the pulpit)”, Hassan says with a smile.
Hassan particularly recalls a time when a group of students approached his father and a girl among them asked, “Sir hum dance kar liya karain? (Sir, is it okay if we dance)?” To which he replied, “Haan kar liya karo, khushi ke mauqay pe tou sab dance kartay hain (Yes, one's allowed to dance. Everybody dances when they are happy).”
Shadi Hamid: Will #Muslims follow western trajectory: Reformation, Enlightenment, Secularism, Liberal Democracy?
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.
Muhammad Sculpture Inside Supreme Court a Gesture of Goodwill
Perched above the press seating area inside the U.S. Supreme Court chamber is a marble image of Prophet Muhammad.
Sculpted in a frieze, the Muhammad statue carries a sword and the Quran and stands in the company of more than a dozen other “great lawgivers of history.” They range from Moses to Confucius to Napoleon to John Marshall, some of whom appear in an accompanying frieze along the south side of the room.
In a week in which the right to mock – or even depict the Prophet Muhammad – became the focus of world-wide debate, the Supreme Court sculpture of the prophet of Islam has drawn little notice. That wasn’t always the case. Back in the 1990s, a controversy erupted that culminated with calls by some Islamic leaders to sandblast the statue’s face off the chamber wall.
Islam strongly discourages depictions of Muhammad. And in 1997, some Muslim leaders called on the Supreme Court to remove the image inside the chamber.
According to a Washington Post article at the time, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim groups wrote to the court urging that the statue’s face be sandblasted. Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist refused, issuing a letter that said it would be “unlawful to remove or in any way injure an architectural feature in the Supreme Court building.”
The “controversy was generally laid to rest, in part through a fatwa” authored by Sheikh Taha Jaber al-Alwani, an influential Islamic scholar, according to a 2009 article in Hamline University’s Journal of Law and Religion.
The Islamic legal opinion written by Mr. al-Alwani concludes:
What I have seen in the Supreme Courtroom deserves nothing but appreciation and gratitude from American Muslims. This is a positive gesture toward Islam made by the architect and other architectural decision-makers of the highest Court in America. God willing, it will help ameliorate some of the unfortunate misinformation that has surrounded Islam and Muslims in this country.
In a culture whose literary heritage is replete with disdainful images of the Prophet Muhammad . . . it is comforting to note that those in the highest Court in the United States were able to surmount these prejudices, and display his image among those of the greatest lawgivers in human history. Isn’t that effort a noble gesture that deserves from us, who believe in him as the Prophet and Messenger, every encouragement, esteem, and gratitude instead of disapproval, condemnation, and outrage?
An information sheet published by the Supreme Court’s curator office said the 80-year-old statue is “a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad.”
Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Law Blog on Wednesday that he now considers the matter closed.
While his group’s demands weren’t met back then, he said he gives the late chief justice credit for agreeing to correct a Supreme Court brochure that had misidentified Muhammad as the “founder of Islam” rather than a prophet.
“We appreciate the Supreme Court’s effort to acknowledge the contribution of Prophet Muhammad in law-giving in history,” Mr. Awad said. “To us, it’s behind us.”
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.
Global Center for Combating Extremism in #Riyadh uses new ways. #moderation #terrorism #Trump http://ara.tv/2rhre via @AlArabiya_Eng
- The center is established as a result of the international cooperation in facing the extreme ideology leading to terrorism, the world’s first common enemy.
- It was founded by a number of countries who chose Riyadh as its headquarters in confronting extreme ideologies by monitoring and analyzing it, to confront and prevent it, cooperate with the governments and organizations to prevail and promote a culture of moderation.
- The center was established on three basic pillars: confronting extremism by the latest intellectual, media and numerical methods and means
- The center has developed innovative techniques that can monitor, process and analyze extremists’ speeches with high accuracy, all phases of data processing and analysis are done in no more than six seconds once the data or comments are posted on the Internet, allowing unprecedented levels of facing extremist activities in the digital world.
- The Center works to refute the hate and extremist speech and promote concepts of moderation, accepting the other, and the production of media content that confront the content of the radical thoughts in order to defy it, and reveal its promotional propaganda.
- The center includes a number of international experts specialized and prominent in confronting extremist speech on all the traditional media means and electronic world.
- The center operates in the extremists’ most widely used languages and dialects. Advanced analytical models are being developed to locate digital media platforms, highlight extremist focal point, and secret sources of polarization and acquiring activities.
- The importance of establishing the center lies in that it is the first time that the world countries seriously come together to face the threat of extremism, which poses a threat to the communities and endanger them, therefore it is the center’s duty to fight together to win and to be able to protect people from its danger.
- The selection of the (12) representatives of the Board of Directors from states and organizations; reflects the independence of the center's work, which is characterized by a governance system that applies international management best practices of major international organizations, which allows neutrality, flexibility, efficiency and transparency to fulfill the Center's functions and achieve its objectives.
“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.”
― Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan
In retrospect,there is 1 evidence of the genius of Jinnah, which is providentially proven by the Hindoo Nazis.
Jinnah - is the only sentient who sensed the evil of the Hindoo and the Indian vermin and placed it on documentary
record.This is inspite of the fact that he was surrounded by Hindoo liberals and philosophers,and so called liberals.
He saw through the mist for 100 years into the future.
He saw that Nehru and Gandhi would die and be killed soon and the nation of the Hindoos,would be overrun by the
Hindoo Nazis,as it was, in 2014.The Dialectics of History !
It is a simple fact of history.The largest extermination in Human history was that of the Buddhists and Buddhism - by the Hindoos
and the philosophy of the Hindoo Pope - Adi Shankara.And Jinnah read history.
The dubious "Indian Muslims" who are basically the lower caste Hindoos who converted,are numb nuts and dumb shits - who believed
the secular nation theory and the bunk of the Ganga-Jamuna-Saraswati Culture ! There are 200 million of these dumb shits !
Even the Prophet of Islam did not sense the evil of the Hindoo vermin - although there were several Hindoo vermin in Mecca,
then.The Prophet is supposed to have statements on the cool winds of Hind and the Prophet-hood of Krishna - which are dubious
Hadeeths.The Hindoo vermin say that Ramadan is Rama-adan and the "Indian Muslims" say that Rama is a Imam !
Ghazwa-E-Hind is a prophecy of eventuality - not a statemet of evil !dindooohindoo
Do these "Indian Muslims" deserve doom ? After 80 years of cinderella and Harry Potter tales the dubious "Indian Muslims"
still do not get it !
And Jinnah saw it in 1930-47 ! The man from London ! There was another genius from London - called - Churchill - who said
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
There is something about London - the air,weather,wine and women !
And Jinnah's example is w/o any peer in human history - where a warrior,king or saint has made
a nation by extricating itself from evil and sensing evil and then being proven right in a span of of 8o years.
Jinnah - the genius - the man's trajectory from wine,pork,cigars,pipes and women to the Qaid !
The 1 flaw in Jinnah - discrimination ! Never eat from the hands of a Kaffir ! He was poisoned by a Hindoo - just like the Prophet was poisoned by a Jew-ess ! dindooohindoo
This is E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N !
Post a Comment