Every transaction, either between two individuals or between two states, always has two aspects: one purely legal and political and the other ideological. The spheres of law and politics are well-known. If an individual or a nation wants to avoid the path of confrontation, collision and bloodshed, it is imperative for them to settle their disputes by remaining within these spheres.

As for the ideological dimension of issues, there are infinite possibilities for settlement with persuasion, preaching and canvassing, dialogue and mutual understanding – provided no party suffers from the notion of its own being powerful and dominant and refrains from trying to impose its terms or views on the other. Confrontation in ideological context takes place only when the doors are shut for freedom of opinion and mutual understanding, or when logic and persuasion are replaced by the force of sword.

In this context, for the last few months in particular the US president, the secretary of state, the British prime minister and even the secretary-general of the United Nations, among others, are all deliberating on the objectives of the creation of Pakistan. Along with the ministers and diplomats, intellectuals, writers and journalists have joined the effort. Having annihilated Afghanistan, President Bush is looking for something new, like the “axis of evil”.

Margaret Thatcher has also come up with her own ‘vision’. In her special essay that has been published in the British press on Feb. 12, 2002, she compared ‘Islamic extremism’ with ‘Communist threat’ at the start of the cold war. Leader after leader, everyone considers it his/her duty to lecture on the rationale of Pakistan, especially on the vision of Iqbal and Jinnah. Then, all the lecturing and instructions end up in suggesting that there is only one way to progress for Pakistan – the way of viable, progressive, modern, secular and irreligious Pakistan.

In the forefront of this effort is American leadership of all levels. Quite brazenly, it is bent upon imposing its own concepts and views on other nations and peoples in the name of global campaign for democracy and human rights. This is how America is trying to bring other nations under its world-wide political and economic domination. Muslim countries are a particular target and, according to the practice of striking at the weak point, Pakistan is at the receiving end of ‘special attention’.

There is nothing new in it, however, as the attitude of these powers has always been hostile to others. At the time of the creation of Pakistan, Britain showed its ‘dishonesty’ in the formula of the division of the subcontinent and created problems like Kashmir issue and unjust distribution of water. The United Nations played a grossly unjust role in the case of Kashmir. America, on the one hand, patronized dictatorships while repeating the mantra of democracy, on the other, it sucked Pakistan economy with its parasitic and ‘visibly invisible’ agenda and ensnared it in debts to the extent that it needs more debts only to continue its life.

Then, the Muslim world, Islamic movements and Pakistan in particular became a special focus of attention in the wake of the events of Sept. 11. On the one hand, the noose is being tightened politically, economically and militarily; on the other, such ideological debates have been kindled that pertain to Muslims’ concept of religion (Deen), state and Muslim nationhood, i.e. the concepts that are concerned with our ideological existence.

The background to the hair-splitting and recurring analysis of General Musharraf’s interview to the weekly Newsweek and the Quaid’s speech of Aug. 11, 1947 in the English press and television is that lesson that the US intellectuals an diplomats have been repeating for the last few months.

It would amount to doing great injustice to the Quaid-i-Azam if some sentences of his Aug. 11, 1947 speech are twisted to serve as a basis for the establishment of a secular state and for ending the role of religion in the sphere of our collective life. Quaid-i-Azam, entire leadership of the Muslim League and, above all, the whole Muslim community of the subcontinent had vividly expressed their destination and goal. These were the objectives for which the struggle was waged and invaluable sacrifices were offered. How can those who talk about secular values refute that Allama Iqbal has based the argument of his famous address of 1930 on the unity of religion and state, of the spiritual and the mundane. Iqbal says that Islam is a religion that has its own collective system of life without which it is incomplete and the Muslims remain deprived of its blessings.

In his letter to the Quaid-i-Azam on May 28, 1937, Allama Iqbal maintained that the enforcement of Shariah and the development of the country were impossible without the establishment of one or more independent Islamic states. He said that he believed that this presented the only way for solving the Muslims’ economic problems and enabling them to serve the country (India before partition). In other words, he held that the establishment of an independent Muslim state and enforcement of Shariah were imperative for economic development and peaceful existence.

The Quaid-i-Azam, too, expressly said that Pakistan means, along with independence, protection of Islamic ideology that has been bequeathed to us as a valuable gift and treasure. He hoped for cooperation of all for this end.

It is noteworthy that the Quaid highlighted not only the importance of Islamic ideology he also underscored the need of its protection and progress. This is what the Quaid-i-Azam stood for. But those who are pressing for secular values and structure see it as “Anti-Jinnah vision”!

The leaders of the Pakistan movement passed the Objectives Resolution on March 12, 1949 whole-heartedly and with complete unity of heart and mind. This Resolution provides the basis for Pakistan’s Constitution, governance, and collective policy making. The whole nation is behind it.

In his address at the Karachi Bar Association on Jan. 25, 1948, the Quaid-i-Azam had said that Islam was not merely an amalgam of rites and rituals and spiritual doctrines, it was rather a code of life for the Muslims according to which they discipline their daily life in all spheres of thought and action including politics and economy. He had clearly said that according to the Islamic concept of government, Allah is at the source of guidance and obedience is for Him alone. Qur’anic commandments and principles provide the means to achieving this obedience. In Islam, there is no concept of obedience to any king, parliament, or some other institution. Qur’anic teachings determine the extent of our independence in political and social spheres. In other words, Islamic government is the government of Qur’anic teachings and values.

Contradictions in the argument of those who present the Quaid’s or Iqbal’s views in such a way as to suit their own secular ends are exposed because of their self-contradictory nature. On the one hand, they talk about democracy, but on the other call for dictatorial action for negating the will and aspirations of the entire nation on the basis of some extract from the Quaid’s speeches.

What Jinnah and Iqbal stood and strove for was the establishment of an Islamic society and state in the light of Quran and Sunnat of the Prophet (pbuh), which could meet the demands of social justice and where Islamic law is enforced in its entirety. As for theocracy, there is no such concept of Islam where some people have exclusive hold over some affairs and serve as the sole means to knowing Allah’s will and attaining his pleasure. Those who try to advance their argument by creating confusion over theocracy and quote disparate statements of Iqbal or Jinnah should know what Iqbal has said in his ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’ and in its sixth address in particular. He holds that there is no concept of theocracy in Islam.

The Quaid-i-Azam, too, had said that he was against theocracy because Islam has no such concept where some people are ‘custodians’ of religion. In the words of Maulana Maududi, “we are against theocracy because it has nothing to do with Islam”.

The degenerated thinking of the so-called liberal people can be gauged from the fact that on the one hand they distance themselves from theocracy but, on the other, they say that whoever has come to power, no matter how, has in a way been honored by God and therefore has a right to rule!

Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. Its progress, in all fields, is possible only when it is kept on its right track – just and true to its genesis and rationale. Those who are pressing for the introduction of secularism and renunciation of the role of Islam and religion are prescribing an elusive course, which is destructive for the country and does not solve any of the problems facing the nation. Those who are twisting Iqbal’s and Jinnah’s statements for their own ends are doing a great disservice both to those whom they falsely attribute their assertions and to the country they created. They need to know more about Islam as a code of life, Islamic concept of government and the unity of the spiritual and the mundane. In our recourse to Islam lie our progress, development and salvation.