Jinnah visualized the national polity as a demand polity -- not a command polity -- drawing sustenance from dynamism and creativity of free institutions. In this he differed from some Afro-Asian nation-builders of his era, who opted for one-party system, suppression of dissent in the press and opposition in the deliberative organs -- all this to meet the so-called post-independence strains and stresses.

The basic postulates of modern secular democracy are a polity based on the consent of the people and on law and constitutions, a government responsible to and removable by people, no hereditary rule of an individual or a family, and the conceptions of human dignity, liberty and justice. These fundamental concepts of democracy are also the basic concepts of Islam which put an end to arbitrary and despotic rule of princes and priests. This is what Jinnah meant when he said "Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. [21]

A firm believer in Islam and democracy, he was confident that Pakistan would work towards a democratic order since Islam is inherently democratic in its content, tenor, and spirit. "Islam and its ideals have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody."[22]

When he spoke about the future shape of Pakistan's constitution he envisaged a democratic system based on social justice and fairplay as taught by Islam: "I do not know what the ultimate shape of our constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state -- to be ruled by priests with a divine mission" [23]

Jinnah often referred to Islam and its traditions but only to focus on Islamic values of social justice and fair treatment to the minorities. An examination of his speeches will also show that they abound in references to the preservation of the religion of Muslims, their culture, way of life, their economic interests and their separateness from Hindus but references to an Islamic state are sparse.

Jinnah was of the view that the creation of Pakistan was means to an end and not the end in itself. That end was the establishment of a just society based on the Islamic principles of social justice. "The idea was that we should have a state in which we could live and breathe as free men and in which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find fair play." [24]

However, Jinnah firmly believed that Islamic system of social can only be enforced in the country after the elimination of the class differentiation from society. These classes, according to him, had disturbed the peace of the society. He, in one of his longest presidential addresses delivered extempore at the 30th session of the All India Muslim League in Delhi on April 24, 1943, declared:

"In Pakistan will be a people's government. Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and the capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others in order to fatten themselves. It is true we are not in power today. You go anywhere in the countryside. I have visited villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If this is the ideal of Pakistan. I would not have it. "

Jinnah's speeches and writings undoubtedly point to the fact that he believed that Islam had taught to humanity the lesson of equality of man and social justice. It eliminated class feelings and differentiation from the society since brotherhood, equality and fraternity of man are basic points of "our religion and civilization". It is also evident from his writings and speeches that, he believed, a parliamentary form of democracy was not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. In the light of these principles he wanted to establish a welfare state of Pakistan.

Jinnah was inspired by the Kamalist Revolution and perhaps aspired to make the same experiment in Pakistan as Mustafa Kamal had done in Turkey. Welcoming the first Turkish ambassador to Pakistan he said :"... the rise and career of the Great Ataturk, his revitalization of your nation by his great statesmanship, courage and foresight -- all these stirring events are well known to the people of Pakistan. In fact, right from the very birth of political consciousness amongst the Muslims of this great sub-continent, the fortunes of your country were observed by us with deep sympathy and interests." [25]

Like Jinnah, Dr. Mohammad Iqbal was also admirer of the Turkish experience. In his well-known lectures on Reconstruction of Religious Thoughts in Islam, Dr. Iqbal says : "If the Renaissance of Islam is a fact, and I believe it is a fact, we too one day, like Turks, will have to re-evaluate our intellectual inheritance." [26]

"The truth is that among the Muslim nations of today, Turkey alone has shaken off its dogmatic slumber, and attained to self- consciousness. She alone has claimed her right of intellectual freedom; she alone has passed from the ideal to real -- a transition which entails keen intellectual and moral struggle. .... They (most of Muslim countries today) are mechanically repeating old values, whereas the Turk is on the way to creating new values."[27]

Dr. Iqbal was also against a religious rule in a Muslim state of his conception. Addressing the Muslim League session in Allahbad as its president in 1930, he said : " Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states".

He laid the foundations of a modern Islamic stateon three principles: Equality, Human Solidarity and Freedom. He argued: "The essence of Tauhid (Unity of God) as a working idea is equality, solidarity and freedom. The state from the Islamic standpoint is an endeavor to transform these ideal principles into space-time forces, an aspiration to realize them in a definite human organization."[28]

In his Allahbad address, while talking about religious tolerance in the proposed Muslim state in the light of the Quranic teachings, Dr. Iqbal declared: "A community which is inspired by feelings of ill-will towards other communities is low and ignoble. I entertain the highest respect for the customs, laws, religious and social institutions of other communities. Nay, it is my duty according to the teachings of the Quran even to defend their places of worship, if need be."[29]

It is also clear from Iqbal's letters to Jinnah that in the proposed Muslim state, he wanted to see the establishment of such a social democracy which had the approval of the Islamic Shariah. But he had pleaded for the reinterpretation of the Shariah law through Ijtihad to suit the modern needs and requirements of the Muslim community, and was of the view that if such a reinterpretation was possible, the Muslims could benefit from the material blessings of Islam.

Dr. Iqbal says: "The Shariah values (ahkam) resulting from this application (for example, rules referring to penalties for crimes) are in a sense specific to that people; and since their observance is not an end itself they cannot be strictly enforced in future generations." [30] Iqbal argues that there are two spheres of Islam; one is "ibadaat" which is based on the religious obligations (arkan-i- deen) - these do not require any change; the other sphere is that of "muamelaat" (social dealings) which is subject to the law of change.[31]

The claim of present generations of Muslim liberals to interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is perfectly justified. The teachings of the Quran that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems. [32] A false reverence of past history and its artificial resurrection constitute no remedy for a people's decay. The verdict of history is that worn out ideas have never risen to power among a people who have worn them out.

The primary source of the law of Islam is the Quran. The Quran however, is not the legal code. Its main purpose is to awaken in man the higher consciousness of his relation with God and the universe.[33] The principle of movement in Islam is ijtihad - effort to form an independent opinion.[34] The transfer of power of ijtihad to a Muslim legislative assembly [35 which, in view of the growth of the opposing sects is the only possible form ijma can take in modern times, will secure contributions to legal discussions from laymen who happen to possess a keen insight into affairs.[36] The closing of the door of ijtihad is a pure fiction suggested partly by the crystallization of legal thought in Islam and partly by intellectual laziness which, especially in the period of spiritual decay turns great thinkers into idols.[37]

Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakeem, the author of Islamic Ideology, comes to a similar conclusion. In the chapter "Basic Concepts of an Islamic State" he says: "It is a matter of vital importance to understand the attitude of Islam to legislation that must suit time and circumstances and must vary from nation to nation and from epoch to epoch.[38]

"Islam originally had brought no extensive and comprehensive code of laws with it; it gave only the fundamentals of civilized life which could secure for the individual and society total well- being. The most authoritative, if not the only authoritative, book is Quran, but in the entire holy Book, the code of laws would not cover more than ten pages. So Islam is really not burdened with a heavy code of which by its immutability could stand in the way of any progressive legislation. [39]

"The theocratic basis of Islamic jurisprudence should not, therefore, scare away the progressive rationalists who really hunger and thirst after social justice and the gradual creation of a classless society. The Quran teaches only fundamentals of morality and social justice and ordains it as a duty to wage war only against persecution or intolerance. The Quran is the real basis of Islamic life and its actual legislation is very limited. Muslims are free to legislate as needs arise, in the spirit of social justice. The few laws in the Quran are often permissive and give large latitudes to suit any change in circumstances. Its theocratic basis grants equal civil liberties to the non-Muslims who live as loyal subjects of a Muslim state; their personal laws are respected and even a Muslim judge must decide the cases of non-Muslims according to their own laws, provided they do not violate the general principles of social justice on which all laws and orders are based.[40]

"A truly Muslim state would possess all the good qualities of a secular state without being secular in the modern sense. It would be theocratic without having the narrowness of outlook generally associated with theocracies. A truly Muslim state would synthesize theocracy with healthy secularism as Islam has synthesized so many traits which were considered by the world to be contradictory and irreconcilable.[41]

"Essentials of legislation shall be derived from the basic principles of the Quran and the practice followed by the Prophet; otherwise almost the entire field of legislation shall be left unhampered, to be molded as circumstances demand by men of knowledge who know and can evaluate the actualities of a situation. Legislation shall proceed according to the principles of logical and analogical deduction and the demands of public welfare and an assembly of the learned shall, by a practical consensus, legislate for all changing situations.[42]

"Usages and customs of all communities shall have the force of law, if they not violate the fundamentals of Islam and do not cause injury and injustice. All communities living in a Muslim state shall enjoy equal civil rights. The reign of law shall not be a respecter of persons. All privileges shall be abolished; there shall be no privileged classes or individuals; mankind shall not be cut up into castes and classes with special rights or invidious distinctions. Such is the theocracy of Islam which is not to be identified with any theocracy that ever existed. Call it a theocracy or call it a secular state as you please: it synthesizes the virtues of both repudiating the evils with which they often get contaminated."[43]

Jinnah believed that the Islamic laws, which he described as precedences, could be amended or even ignored to meet the requirement of times. His speech on the Special Marriage Bill in the Imperial Legislative Council reflects his conviction that Islam is not the name of any static mode or pattern of life. It is a spirit and not body.[44]

According to Dr. Javed Iqbal, it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state. [45]

If the ideological foundation of Pakistan is approached in the light of the teachings of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal, one is bound to arrive at the conclusion that the views held by both these eminent founders of Pakistan regarding Islam were liberal, dynamic and forward-looking. They both were misunderstood during their respective times and were declared renegades or apostates (kafir) by the Ulema. Nevertheless, the Muslims of the subcontinent accepted their views, and under their guidance and leadership, achieved Pakistan.[46

Dr. Iqbal and other giant Indo-Pakistan Muslim scholar-leaders were interested in finding out the Islamic mechanism to achieve national cohesion in a modern, progressive, Islamic democratic federal or unitary state. Contrariwise, the rigid, orthodox religious scholars desire to bask in the bygone splendor of the good old days.[47]

In the final analysis, Jinnah was not an Islamicist per se, but one to promote secular goals. His approach even as his definition of Muslim nationhood exemplifies, was not religious, but largely sociological. While it is undoubtedly true that Jinnah was inspired by the Holy Quran and considered the Messenger of Allah as the perfect man, he never even once in his life time, referred Sunnah as a source of law.

Nobody has so far openly challenged Jinnah's status as the most authentic enunciator of Pakistan's ideal, though quite a few who had bitterly opposed him and the demand for Pakistan, have tried to pose as his legitimate heirs. The deliberate distortion of his ideal or the adoption of a course diametrically opposed to the goal of a modern democratic state is not merely a question of disowning the father of the nation but embarking on a process which will lead to further fragmentation of the nation. It can be seen that by discriminating against the minorities (through separate electorates and several other laws) Pakistan governments have been violating the Quaid's testament.