Anujan wrote:In short, is Jinnah "secular". I would think so. In his personal behavior and habits he showed no religiosity at all. Was he a hypocrite who exploited religious sentiments for power grab? Absolutely. Does that mean be was somehow "pro minority" not at all. Was he pro oligarchy? Totally. Essentially an oligarch who appeased religion for power grab and ended f'ing up the whole region. Hence the contradiction in all his speeches and actions and Pakistanis to this day wonder "What did the Quaid want?" -- whatever helped him with power grab.
Was "Allama" Iqbal secular? If personal habits and indulgences are the yardstick, then a case could be made that 1Ball was also secular. He indulged in liaisons and even orgies at times. Loved his wine, women and song. But all was woven into his "mystic" Sufi-gari. The "bold" and tempestuous assertion of one's "will" at the cost of another's is central to Iqbal's Islamism, which tries to marry a misunderstanding of Nietzsche's Ubermensch with Bhartrihari's ethics. The Superman must be bold and willful and contemptuous of those people who worship weakness (of which Gandhi must have been a symbol to their superficial minds). He must have a will to power. Thus, many very fashionable poets and writers who are Islamic icons in the subcontinent were not very halaal in their personal habits. That includes Ghalib and many others. In the Islamic mindset, the poets and the faqihs are sometimes at loggerheads, but the two streams join in certain individuals. In this romanticization, Jinnah, Iqbal, etc were such individuals. There are some high profile Companions of the Prophet who were also like that - not following any rules. BUT...they absolved themselves from rules by either making the ultimate sacrifice in jihad, or by being ace fighters or consultants and playing a decisive role in inflicting defeat on the kaafir. Clearly, Jinnah and Iqbal did this for many, or so they believe.
Jinnah may not have been overtly religious, but there was definitely some sense of superiority vis a vis Hindus. That in itself is enough to be Islamic. I have noticed a trans-generational evolution among Indians who convert to Islam or Christianity:
1. First generation convert is usually on fire, very motivated to preach, and very humbly grateful for being saved from his previous Hindu identity. Still retains a sense of community with Hindu jaatwallahs. But critical of their philosophies, etc.
2. Second generation convert has hand-me-down conviction and pride in separate identity. Fanatic about ritual observance and community duty. Very allergic to philosophies or practices of Hindus or others. Climbs the social ladder aggressively. Considers himself part of a trans-national chosen group at the cutting edge of God's plan for humankind.
3. Third generation - higher educated than #1 or #2. Has contempt for the "superstitious" part of his family's faith. BUT...retains a sense of superiority over Hindoos...considers his family's choice to convert correct, and a step in the right evolutionary direction. Considers himself a finished product of sorts. Considers himself capable of cherrypicking the good from everywhere, including from some parts of Hinduism.
Jinnah and Iqbal were like #3.