What was Quaid-e-Azam's sect?
Written by Abdul Jabbar Salhari
In the turbulent history of the subcontinent, the personality of Muhammad Ali Jinnah emerges as such a towering reality that every school of thought has tried to understand and present him from its own perspective. In these intellectual debates, a question repeatedly arises: Was Quaid-e-Azam Sunni or Shia? If the answer to this question is sought in the impartial court of history instead of emotions, affiliations, or biases, a very subtle but very meaningful truth emerges.
First, if we review the position of the Ahle Sunnat, one group claims with full confidence that Jinnah was Sunni. This claim is generally based on two points: First, his official funeral prayer was led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani; second, he was the leader of the All India Muslim League, which was considered the representative party of the majority Sunni Muslims of the subcontinent. Apparently, these arguments seem weighty, but a fundamental question arises here: Can someone's official funeral be the definitive and conclusive proof of their sect? A serious study of history answers this question in the negative; because state requirements and religious identity are not always synonymous.
On the other hand, the position of the Ahle Tashayyu' is that Jinnah was actually Shia. In favor of this, it is argued that he belonged to the Khoja family, whose roots are found in the Ismaili Shia tradition. Furthermore, it is also mentioned in some traditions that his private funeral prayer was performed according to Shia rites. Supporters of this position consider it decisive evidence. However, here too, an important question remains in place: Does family background necessarily fully represent an individual's personal beliefs and sect? History answers this question cautiously in the negative as well; because an individual's intellectual and ideological identity cannot be determined solely on the basis of inheritance.
When this discussion moves from emotional circles to the field of research, the opinions of impartial historians become very important. Ayesha Jalal clearly writes that Jinnah never openly associated himself with any particular sect. The Sole Spokesman (Cambridge University Press). Similarly, according to Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah's sectarian identity remained ambiguous (Jinnah of Pakistan (Oxford University Press). These opinions change the direction of this entire discussion; because here the question becomes more important than "what he was" is "what he presented himself as."
Furthermore, Quaid-e-Azam's close associate M. C. Chagla writes in his book that Jinnah's personal life was to some extent secular, legal, and constitutional in nature, and outward adherence to religious rituals was less prominent in him (Roses in December (page 45). This excerpt gives the impression that the dominant aspect of Jinnah's personality was political and constitutional awareness rather than religious expression.
In some circles, it is also claimed that Jinnah had changed his sect in the last days of his life; but when primary sources, especially Dr. Elahi Bakhsh's book (With the Quaid-i-Azam During His Last Days) are studied, there is no clear mention of any such change. Thus, it emerges that the claim exists, but authentic evidence in its favor is missing.
If Jinnah's own statements are analyzed, another important aspect emerges. He repeatedly talks about the "Muslim nation," but never uses the term "Sunni nation" or "Shia nation." This highlights the point that in his view, religion was a collective identity, not a means of sectarian division. This is why unity, nationalism, and constitutional rights have been fundamental in his political thought.
A very interesting and meaningful aspect of history is that his funeral prayer was performed in the Sunni way on one side, while according to some traditions, it was also performed in the Shia way on the other side. This is not an apparent contradiction, but a symbolic reality: To confine Quaid-e-Azam to the limited circle of one sect is tantamount to injustice to history itself.
If all the arguments are examined impartially, the situation emerges as follows: The argument for being Shia is based on family background, the argument for being Sunni is based on the official funeral, while the impartial truth is that Jinnah did not openly express any sect on a personal level. Therefore, the strongest and most balanced position is the one that is free from emotions and based on evidence.
After reading all the arguments in the court of history, it seems more appropriate to say that:
To definitively place Muhammad Ali Jinnah in one particular jurisprudential or sectarian box is against historical honesty, he was a Muslim secular leader whose identity was mostly political, constitutional and national, not sectarian, if the Quaid had a particular sect, he would have wanted to represent it, but he absolutely took the name of Islam, meaning that he only wanted Islam and not a particular sect.
Perhaps this is why the debate on Jinnah does not end even today because he was not the leader of one sect, but of an entire nation.
Today, when we look at this discussion, a bitter truth emerges that instead of understanding our leader, we try to confine him to our own boxes. However, Quaid-e-Azam's real message was unity, organization, and firm belief. The survival of Pakistan lies in rising above sectarian disputes and becoming one nation, limiting our differences to the academic sphere, and uniting against those elements who want to harm the peace, stability, and ideological foundations of this country. If we still do not take heed, history will not forgive us, and if we unite, this unity will become the greatest strength of Pakistan, and a clear and decisive message for every mischief-monger.