Historical evidences for engagement of Islamic scholars by the government after Pakistan was founded and while Jinnah was alive

[M. Sarmad]

I guess we simply disagree on what can be used as primary source material. Curiously, the earliest reference I have used is Professor Leonard Binder’s (1961). And he is a contemporary of the event.

As far finding this in the constituent assembly records, we most certainly will not because the committee was a parliamentary committee of the ML.

Usmani died in 1951. Not enough time for him to give interviews that would leave artifacts. The artifacts we do have that are primary source are of those members that lived a long time after. Ofc, students of members that died, ie Usmani and Nadwi, also record this event. But that’s secondary source by definition. Given how pedagogy works in Islamic circles, the claim of his students is proof of his own claims.

My friend, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. The sources you're referring to as primary sources are actually irrelevant secondary sources in this context, and even they don't explicitly support the deductions and assumptions you're making based on them.

To sum it up, we concur on the following points:

1) The national archives do not contain any records of a government committee consisting of Mullahs being formed during Jinnah's lifetime to provide advice on constitution-making.

2) Jinnah himself never made any reference to such a committee.

3) Shabbir Usmani, who is purported to be the chairman of this fictional committee, has never asserted his involvement or leadership in any such committee.

4) There is no direct testimony available from anyone claiming to have been a member of such a committee.

5) We don't even have any secondary sources that explicitly confirm the establishment of such a committee by Jinnah, or give any details about the formation or constitution of this imaginary committee

May I ask what are we even trying to discuss here?

 

[Ssan]

My friend, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. The sources you're referring to as primary sources are actually irrelevant secondary sources in this context, and even they don't explicitly support the deductions and assumptions you're making based on them.

To sum it up, we concur on the following points:

1) The national archives do not contain any records of a government committee consisting of Mullahs being formed during Jinnah's lifetime to provide advice on constitution-making.

2) Jinnah himself never made any reference to such a committee.

3) Shabbir Usmani, who is purported to be the chairman of this fictional committee, has never asserted his involvement or leadership in any such committee.

4) There is no direct testimony available from anyone claiming to have been a member of such a committee.

5) We don't even have any secondary sources that explicitly confirm the establishment of such a committee by Jinnah, or give any details about the formation or constitution of this imaginary committee

May I ask what are we even trying to discuss here?

Lol, we concur on none of these points actually. In fact, we are most decidedly disagreed on them.

But alas, I see now it is not worth discussing this further with you. This back and forth is a polluting this thread and frankly has not generated any useful feedback either.

I’ll await other peoples responses nonetheless.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Lol, we concur on none of these points actually. In fact, the last couple we are most decidedly disagreed on.

I get it, my friend, that you are unable to refute any of the points raised in the previous post. I understand that it can be tiresome and uncomfortable for you when your unfounded assumptions are challenged and disproved. Allow me to offer some friendly advice: don't give up just yet. Take the time to thoroughly research and gather evidence before returning, so you can actually back up your wild theories and attempts at rewriting history. I don't mean any offense by this, my friend, but "fabricating and manipulating history to align with your personal desires and beliefs" is exactly what you are doing here, albeit without being conscious of it.

 

[Ssan]

I get it, my friend, that you are unable to refute any of the points raised in the previous post. I understand that it can be tiresome and uncomfortable for you when your unfounded assumptions are challenged and disproved. Allow me to offer some friendly advice: don't give up just yet. Take the time to thoroughly research and gather evidence before returning, so you can actually back up your wild theories and attempts at rewriting history. I don't mean any offense by this, my friend, but "fabricating and manipulating history to align with your personal desires and beliefs" is exactly what you are doing here, albeit without being conscious of it.

Lol, I guess ultimately the thread is for public audience of people to judge. In this case, they can also judge what is happening here between us. They will read your points above and make their own minds.

Ofc, you can make any wild claims about “disproving whatever this or that”. But alas people will see right through that.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Lol, I guess ultimately the thread is for public audience of people to judge. In this case, they can also judge what is happening here between us. They will read your points above and make their own minds.

Ofc, you can make any wild claims about “disproving whatever this or that”. But alas people will see right through that.

Indeed, let's allow the people to be the ultimate judges. The arguments presented in post #76 still stand strong, and you haven't provided any evidence to refute them. If you ever come across anything that can disprove those points, I'm open to reconsidering my stance. I believe you might not fully realize the significant impact it would have if your assertions were accepted or proven. It would truly revolutionize the scholarly discourse surrounding Jinnah's vision. Best of luck with that

 

[Ssan]

Indeed, let's allow the people to be the ultimate judges. The arguments presented in post #76 still stand strong, and you haven't provided any evidence to refute them. If you ever come across anything that can disprove those points, I'm open to reconsidering my stance. I believe you might not fully realize the significant impact it would have if your assertions were accepted or proven. It would truly revolutionize the scholarly discourse surrounding Jinnah's vision. Best of luck with that

Post #76 has no strong arguments. Mere claims that we supposedly agree on that we don’t. Most of the claims are addressed from the beginning of this thread already. No substance to your assertion of their strength. But alas, I continue to pollute my own thread with this back and forth, lol. I hope the reader will take their time to go through the first five posts of this thread in particular. And if they want, they can review our back and forth today and see who has been acting without proof .

 

[M. Sarmad]

Post #76 has no strong arguments. Mere claims that we supposedly agree on that we don’t. Most of the claims are addressed from the beginning of this thread already. No substance to your assertion of their strength. But alas, I continue to pollute my own thread with this back and forth, lol. I hope the reader will take their time to go through the first five posts of this thread in particular. And if they want, they can review our back and forth today and see who has been acting without proof .

Take a break, my friend, and refrain from continuing to embarrass yourself in this manner. I believe you are capable of much better than this.

Have a nice day

 

[Joe Shearer]

Or are you trying to suggest that the proposition of a Muslim state necessarily entails a disconnect from democratic principles?

Not at all.

An eminent scholar, Muqtedar Khan, of my own adopted city of Hyderabad, has done outstanding work in this area. PLEASE read him, as he is an eminent authority from my lowly point of view, in the area of applying Islamic principles to the practice of modern democracies.

A caution: he has tried to bridge the gap between older models of Islamic governance and a conceptual model for the modern world. In doing so, he has put forward some radical ideas; please consider them with a tolerant outlook, and without judging him outright. I am sure that if you can reach out to him, a discussion will be very fruitful, even if you do not accept his viewpoint.

He is US based; let me see if I can fetch his coordinates for you. He is on tenure at Delaware U., btw.

M. A. Muqtedar Khan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My own interest in him lies in the possibility that scholars like him may help us to design a universal civil code, with the help of theologically-sound scholars from other religions, that will preserve us from the extreme and severe damage done to India by Modi and the Sangh Parivar.

In all honesty, I value your input more than Sarmad’s. Sarmad has committed himself to a point of view in this regard and is more attached to it, as am I.

Regarding your second point, why is Jinnahs letter to Hassan Al Banna not to be taken as a primary/original source to prove that claim? Sarmad is trying to disconnect that letter from the committee that sat, and I am trying to do the opposite, but in the most general sense of your claim, the letter proves exactly that.

Please remember that my stand is that of a secular Indian by religion Hindu who wishes to see an absolutely and rigidly egalitarian society and legal system in India where not even an iota of doubt remains in the mind of a Muslim man or woman, or, for that matter, a Hindu or a Jain or a Buddhist or a Sikh or a Christian man or woman, regarding his or her absolute security and comfort in his or her ownership of a citizenship of India.

This has been severely damaged in the last ten years, but had been compromised even earlier, and my interest in your discussions is to follow the arguments used by thinkers to establish principles on which religious maxims, teachings and principles can be worked into the societal and constitutional framework of a country.

The point about Jinnah's letter to Hassan Al Banna has to carry conviction to all (disregarding external observers like myself) who are internal to the discussion, and while I will watch with great - with the greatest of interest - my agreement or disagreement is not important. Sarmad Sahib's is, as is that of other sceptics.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Take the time to thoroughly research and gather evidence before returning

Excellent advice, and worth seeking funding for the research. Such funding will surely be available, especially in the context of the state of the archives in Pakistan that you have described in such shocking detail.

I believe you might not fully realize the significant impact it would have if your assertions were accepted or proven. It would truly revolutionize the scholarly discourse surrounding Jinnah's vision.

As I have already mentioned, a breakthrough in this regard will be a thunderclap. You MUST seek assistance and funding.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The point about Jinnah's letter to Hassan Al Banna...

If I recall correctly, YLH has cast doubt on the existence of the mentioned letter, as it is not documented in the Jinnah papers. Additionally, even if the letter were proven to be genuine, it does not provide any evidence to support the claims being made here.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I wish you good fortune in your research. It is too important a matter to be abandoned without sufficient effort.

If I recall correctly, YLH has cast doubt on the existence of the mentioned letter, as it is not documented in the Jinnah papers. Additionally, even if the letter were proven to be genuine, it does not provide any evidence to support the claims being made here.

Yes, and coming from a minutely-knowledgeable person like him, it must be weighed with seriousness.

 

[Ssan]

Not at all.

An eminent scholar, Muqtedar Khan, of my own adopted city of Hyderabad, has done outstanding work in this area. PLEASE read him, as he is an eminent authority from my lowly point of view, in the area of applying Islamic principles to the practice of modern democracies.

A caution: he has tried to bridge the gap between older models of Islamic governance and a conceptual model for the modern world. In doing so, he has put forward some radical ideas; please consider them with a tolerant outlook, and without judging him outright. I am sure that if you can reach out to him, a discussion will be very fruitful, even if you do not accept his viewpoint.

He is US based; let me see if I can fetch his coordinates for you. He is on tenure at Delaware U., btw.

M. A. Muqtedar Khan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My own interest in him lies in the possibility that scholars like him may help us to design a universal civil code, with the help of theologically-sound scholars from other religions, that will preserve us from the extreme and severe damage done to India by Modi and the Sangh Parivar.


Please remember that my stand is that of a secular Indian by religion Hindu who wishes to see an absolutely and rigidly egalitarian society and legal system in India where not even an iota of doubt remains in the mind of a Muslim man or woman, or, for that matter, a Hindu or a Jain or a Buddhist or a Sikh or a Christian man or woman, regarding his or her absolute security and comfort in his or her ownership of a citizenship of India.

This has been severely damaged in the last ten years, but had been compromised even earlier, and my interest in your discussions is to follow the arguments used by thinkers to establish principles on which religious maxims, teachings and principles can be worked into the societal and constitutional framework of a country.

The point about Jinnah's letter to Hassan Al Banna has to carry conviction to all (disregarding external observers like myself) who are internal to the discussion, and while I will watch with great - with the greatest of interest - my agreement or disagreement is not important. Sarmad Sahib's is, as is that of other sceptics.

I appreciate you recognizing your own biases. I’ll certainly look into the gentleman you mentioned above. As always, it’s a pleasure interacting with you.

If I recall correctly, YLH has cast doubt on the existence of the mentioned letter, as it is not documented in the Jinnah papers. Additionally, even if the letter were proven to be genuine, it does not provide any evidence to support the claims being made here.

I have linked the letter from the British archives in my original post. YLH can gaslight all he wants. Anyone can go and view the letter. It is public access- you can even pay 10$ and get a copy for yourself apparently.

The Jinnah papers themselves say that they are incomplete. Vol 1.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I appreciate you recognizing your own biases.

Oh, absolutely so.

After all, historiography was brought in deliberately, by professional historians, on realising and accepting as a general principle that their personal situations and societal locations would inevitably bias their findings. We owe it to ourselves to recognise and externalise these biases, so that readers are fully aware of them.

Once again, good fortune.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have linked the letter from the British archives in my original post. YLH can gaslight all he wants. Anyone can go and view the letter. It is public access- you can even pay 10$ and get a copy for yourself apparently.

The Jinnah papers themselves say that they are incomplete. Vol 1.

According to the source you yourself provided, it states that "The English translation of this letter was communicated from Cairo to the British Foreign Office..." This raises the question: Where is the original letter? Was it written in Arabic? Did Jinnah know Arabic? If not, then who wrote that letter? How can we ensure the accuracy of the translation? So, Let's postpone the discussion about the letter until its authenticity is definitively established.

For now, the "translated letter" in question does not make any reference to the hypothetical committee you are talking about. What's your point?

 

[Ssan]

Oh, absolutely so.

After all, historiography was brought in deliberately, by professional historians, on realising and accepting as a general principle that their personal situations and societal locations would inevitably bias their findings. We owe it to ourselves to recognise and externalise these biases, so that readers are fully aware of them.

Once again, good fortune.

Btw, I was going over his wiki - he seems to be a genuinely good guy.

You may not know this but I was particularly intrigued by the following paragraph:-

“ Unlike the present day Islamists, Prophet Muhammad, when he established the first Islamic state in Medina – actually a Jewish-Muslim federation extended to religious minorities the rights that are guaranteed to them in the Quran. Prophet Muhammad's Medina was based on the covenant of Medina, a real and actual social contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others that treated them as equal citizens of Medina. They enjoyed the freedom to choose the legal system they wished to live under. Jews could live under Islamic law, or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions. There was no compulsion in religion even though Medina was an Islamic state. The difference between Medina and today's Islamic states is profound. The state of Medina was based on a real social contract that applied divine law but only in consultation and with consent of all citizens regardless of their faith. But contemporary Islamic states apply Islamic law without consent or consultation and often through coercion. It is a sad commentary on contemporary Islamists that while democracy is a challenge to contemporary Islamic states, it was constitutive to the first Islamic state in Medina established by the Prophet of Islam.”

This exact idea is actually first stated by Dr Hamidullah- who is one of the individuals referenced in the first posts. In fact, it reads as something Hamidullah would have written exactly!

According to the source you provided, it states that "The English translation of this letter was communicated from Cairo to the British Foreign Office..." This raises the question: Where is the original letter? Was it written in Arabic? Did Jinnah know Arabic? If not, then who wrote that letter? How can we ensure the accuracy of the translation? So, Let's postpone the discussion about the letter until its authenticity is definitively established.

For now, the letter in question does not make any reference to the hypothetical committee you are talking about. What's your point?

lol, you are free to deny the authenticity of Jinnahs letter in the British archives. Jinnah always wrote letters in English. They are probably talking about translating the back and forth of hassan Al Bannas letters