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

[S.Y.A]

You certainly have the right to hold your opinions, but in this discussion, we are focusing on the vision of the founding fathers of our nation, who had a distinct understanding of Islam that significantly differs from yours. For instance, Allama Iqbal categorically stated about the separation of state and church (i.e. secularism) that "Islam, no doubt, does permit such a view"

Unfortunately, in overly religious societies like ours, secularism is viewed as an attack on the dominant religion i.e. Islam, leading to misunderstandings and resistance to the idea of secularism.

Interestingly, the notion of the separation of State and Church, commonly referred to as secularism, was brought to Western Europe from Islamic philosophy. However, contemporary orthodox Muslims often reject the concept of secularism as a Western ideology incompatible with Islam. One of the most influential Islamic philosophers who played a significant role in shaping the evolution of secularism in Western Europe was Ibn Rushd, an Arab-Spanish polymath and philosopher. Dante's Divine Comedy, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and Rafael's fresco of the School of Athens all immortalize his contributions to Western thought. In the West, Ibn Rushd is celebrated as the founding father of secularism.

It is my belief that the fundamental problem stems from a lack of understanding of the all-encompassing nature of Islam.

the islamic empires, that you mentioned, all had shariah implemented. not talking about the selection of ruler, as that is not defined, but the rules and laws were all shariah compliant, the judges were appointed based on their knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, and the top most ulema actually held an office of shaykh al Islam. Its only the post-colonial modern states, who are intellectually slaves to the west and their masters and who havent tried to break free from a century of slavery, who have avoided adopting that model.

it is your understanding that is lacking. the all-encompassing nature of Islam precisely means that the matters of state will be influenced by Islam. the separation of church and state does not apply to Islam, it applies to Christianity which doesnt exemplify or teach about statecraft. Our Prophet SAW did establish a state and his successors did expand it and manage it. its a western idea because Christianity's teachings are incomplete. Islam's are not.

As for ibne rushd, and secularism, his thought spread in europe because of christianity's limitations. simple.

Finally, Iqbal shb, and the Quaid, werent scholars. Islam does not permit such a view. Islam demands its rules and laws to be implemented. The Quran explicitly states the following: "[And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters.", Surah Hajj, verse 41.

clear cut proof from the Quran, word of Allah Himself. Iqbal and Jinnah, both do not hold any weight whatsoever. and those arguing against that are simply denying the Quran. A muslim ruler is only good and worthy of reward if he established the word of Quran as law of land. otherwise not. The Quran could have simply stated about the reward of praying and fasting and zakah, if it allowed for a secular view, and not linked their establishment to authority. The Quran could have simply stated the virtues of amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar, instead of linking it to authority, if it permitted a secular view.

Now, the study of what amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar is a long chapter. suffice to say that the worse crime for which Allah says there is no forgiveness is shirk. the worse munkar. this does not allow for a secular view.

Do come out of the concept that Islam is about only love, singing qawwalis, dancing and sufism. it calls for war, it calls for punishment, it calls for establishing Allah's Deen and law as well.

Who were/are these ulema? Mainly from deoband and brelvi, both live in stone age evwn today,so howcome they were modernist? Each one have written books about how the other is a kafir. In subcontinent, the british used religion to divide and rule, especially after 1857 uprising. They got scared and thus helped create dwoband and then barelvi and aince that day, there have never been unity in muslims of subcontinent. Deoband still works for the international establishment through their proxy of Pakistan army. See the havoc they caused in Afghanistan.

what an idiotic, limited view that shows your ignorance. if they had gotten scared, they would not have established a religious seminary in face of british opposition. their ancestors took part in 1857 uprising against the british, and even after that, leading to frequent arrests and exiles to malta or rangoon. what have you done to rid pakistan of western influences? or are you inspired by them, and brainwashed by that very thought?

and of course, please do provide proof that they have written more books about each other than other topics. proof is also needed for your last claim. the havoc caused in afghanistan is due to invasions and secular rebellions against established authority leading back to zahir shah. dont be an idiot.

Besides, it was these mullahs (mufti shafi usmani, allama shabbir usmani, molana zafar usmani) who broke away from JUH, formed JUI and lobbied for establishment of Pakistan. the referendum in KPK went in favor of pakistan due to JUI's campaigning. ML had virtually no foothold there.

 

[El Sidd]

@El Sidd @SaadH @Jango @M. Sarmad @VCheng @Sayfullah @Dalit

Brothers I’m still interviewing this week but would love critical feedback and would really love help in exploring other themes on the master thread of this.

Historical evidences for the arguments as to what sort of Pakistan the founding fathers wanted

I wanted to open up a thread where we could present historical evidence for the arguments related to what sort of Pakistan the founding fathers (primarily Jinnah and Iqbal for now) wanted. Clearly, we do have disagreements on this topic. So I wanted to create a thread where we could discuss this...

defence.pk

The national archives won't help in this regard. Jinnah was dealing with worsening health condition by the time country was officially formed.

Good luck for your interviews.

 

[Ssan]

In this context, Nadvi is not relevant as he was never invited by the Pakistani government during Jinnah's lifetime, and he arrived 2 years after Jinnah's passing.

Just have to correct you here, based on the first hand testimony I already provided above, namely Muhammad Shafi, he was invited in 1948 while Jinnah was alive. He never arrived to Pakistan in 1948. He may have had some input through letters in 1948 apparently according to tertiary sources too.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Just have to correct you here, based on the first hand testimony I already provided above, namely Muhammad Shafi, he was invited in 1948 while Jinnah was alive. He never arrived to Pakistan in 1948. He may have had some input through letters in 1948 apparently according to tertiary sources too.

Even if we consider the "testimony" given by Muhammad Shafi, it does not state that Nadvi was invited by the government of Pakistan. Instead, it affirms that Nadvi was invited by Shabbir Usmani.

 

[M. Sarmad]

.. Iqbal shb, and the Quaid, werent scholars. Islam does not permit such a view. Islam demands its rules and laws to be implemented.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions but your view on Iqbal and Jinnah's understanding of Islam being incorrect is just your personal view that many would disagree with. And in this discussion, the focus is on understanding and exploring the views of Iqbal and Jinnah, regardless of whether they are considered right or wrong.

 

[SaadH]

He also publicly affirmed Sir Zafrullah Khan as a Muslim, despite opposition from many Muslims who considered him non-Muslim due to his Qadiyani beliefs.

Ironic, given that Zafarullah didn't consider Jinnah a Muslim...

 

[M. Sarmad]

Ironic, given that Zafarullah didn't consider Jinnah a Muslim...

There is no evidence to suggest that Zafarullah made such a statement. If you are referring to the incident where he did not participate in the funeral prayers of Jinnah, it was due to the reason that Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, who led the prayers, had previously declared Ahmadis (and even Shias, despite being aware of Jinnah's Shia background) as non-Muslims. Zafarullah's decision, influenced by his personal beliefs, not to pray behind someone who considered him a non-Muslim is understandable

 

[Ssan]

There is no evidence to suggest that Zafarullah made such a statement. If you are referring to the incident where he did not participate in the funeral prayers of Jinnah, it was due to the reason that Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, who led the prayers, had previously declared Ahmadis (and even Shias, despite being aware of Jinnah's Shia background) as non-Muslims. Zafarullah's decision, influenced by his personal beliefs, not to pray behind someone who considered him a non-Muslim is understandable

As we have discussed previously, Usmani never declared Shias as kafir that we know of. The allegations come out of the clownish court of Justice Muneer, who even Leonard Binder in his book, simply says is not unbiased. Not even worth responding to.

If you claim that Usmani declared all Shias to be kafir, you will have to prove it. Him declaring those who do tahreef as kafir is not the same as him declaring Shias as kafir because he did not believe that most Shiahs do tahreef. If he thought Jinnah to be kafir, he wouldn’t lead his janaza prayers.

Anyways, my guys, lets open up seperate threads to discuss these other ideas- they are important in their own right but I just want to discuss to what extent the state of Pakistan under Jinnah sought input from ulema for this thread.

 

[M. Sarmad]

As we have discussed previously, Usmani never declared Shias as kafir that we know of. The allegations come out of the clownish court of Justice Muneer, who even Leonard Binder in his book, simply says is not unbiased. Not even worth responding to.

If you claim that Usmani declared all Shias to be kafir, you will have to prove it. Him declaring those who do tahreef as kafir is not the same as him declaring Shias as kafir because he did not believe that most Shiahs do tahreef. If he thought Jinnah to be kafir, he wouldn’t lead his janaza prayers.

Anyways, my guys, lets open up seperate threads to discuss these other ideas- they are important in their own right but I just want to discuss to what extent the state of Pakistan under Jinnah sought input from ulema for this thread.

So, you disregard the Supreme Court of Pakistan and its Chief Justice as clowns, yet you insist on treating the words of B-grade Mullahs, who have a reputation for being dishonest and hypocritical, as unquestionable truth. And then you expect a serious and scholarly discussion !!?

 

[Ssan]

Even if we consider the "testimony" given by Muhammad Shafi, it does not state that Nadvi was invited by the government of Pakistan. Instead, it affirms that Nadvi was invited by Shabbir Usmani.

It is vague enough to have both possible readings. I went and read Zafar Ahmad Ansari directly too. Looks like that is also vague although it calls it a committee in one place and a majlis in another.

Can’t find the article source from Hamidullah’s post Morten biography that explicitly says that government of a Pakistan called him to advise on constitution from Zafar Ansari’s son.

So, you disregard the Supreme Court of Pakistan and its Chief Justice as clowns, yet you insist on treating the words of B-grade Mullahs, who have a reputation for being dishonest and hypocritical, as unquestionable truth. At the same time, you expect a serious and scholarly discussion !!?

Suffice it to say that Justice Muneer has a reputation that precedes him. Not an allegation that everyone else has not made.

Anyways, let’s leave aside that particular discussion for a seperate thread.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It is vague enough to have both possible readings. I went and read Zafar Ahmad Ansari directly too. Looks like that is also vague although it calls it a committee in one place and a majlis in another.

No, it's not even remotely vague. In fact, he explicitly states that he and a small group, which also included Nadvi, were personally invited by his cousin Shabbir Usmani.

Suffice it to say that Justice Muneer has a reputation that precedes him. Not an allegation that everyone else has not made.

Anyways, let’s leave aside that particular discussion for a seperate thread.

Justice Munir, despite being a controversial figure, possesses far greater credibility compared to the B-grade Mullahs whose vague testimony you are futilely relying on to fabricate our history from scratch.

 

[Ssan]

Even if you insist that the committee/body set up by Usmani was in his own initiative, the problems are multi fold. How does someone just setup a body by himself on these issues? How is he inviting other people to come and sit on it by himself as a personal project? Why are international scholars coming from other places, although they have better things to do, and sitting on these bodies, then going back to their home countries?

Finally, the letter from Jinnah to the head of the Muslim brotherhood is archived document. That invites an Islamic scholar to come and discuss matters of the Islam in the state setup. And be a state guest.

So frankly, if that letter exists already, what is more likely?

No, it's not even remotely vague. In fact, he explicitly states that he and a small group, which also included Nadvi, were personally invited by his cousin Shabbir Usmani.



Justice Munir, despite being a controversial figure, possesses far greater credibility compared to the B-grade Mullahs whose vague testimony you are futilely relying on to fabricate our history from scratch.

It’s irrelevant if you think the individuals to be “B-grade”, “A-grade” or “C-grade”. The fact of the matter is that first hand testimony is primary evidence material and if you have three first hand testimonies of scholars who later sat in a very similar board a year later, their claim will gain some legitimacy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The fact that these records don’t exist are not an indication of the department’s lack of officialness or proof of the lack of existence of its charter or work- simply proof of the fact of absolutely rubbish archiving.

They certainly don't do the opposite; they don't prove the department's lack of official standing, they don't prove the existence of any 'charter' either.

To extrapolate from missing evidence that such missing evidence might not have undercut an alternative narrative, or that it being missing should actually suggest such a missing narrative is rather breath-taking.

 

[Ssan]

No, it's not even remotely vague. In fact, he explicitly states that he and a small group, which also included Nadvi, were personally invited by his cousin Shabbir Usmani.

“After eight months upon the request of Allamah Shabbir Ahmed Usmani (RA) I arrived in Pakistan and foremost was the need to prepare a skeleton of an Islamic constitution and for this purpose, I, Shaykh Sulaiman Nadwi (RA) and Dr Hameedullah (RA), Maulana Manzir Ahsan Gilani (RA) were invited from India.”

He only says that was invited by Usmani.

He doesnt say that Usmani invited the other three. Even if we assume that Usmani invited them, the issue is the same as whether they are invited to represent the state of Pakistan for a task or not.

They certainly don't do the opposite; they don't prove the department's lack of official standing, they don't prove the existence of any 'charter' either.

To extrapolate from missing evidence that such missing evidence might not have undercut an alternative narrative, or that it being missing should actually suggest such a missing narrative is rather breath-taking.

So what we were referring to was the department of Islamic reconstruction. I make the comment in line of the fact that our kind secular friends have been gaslighting us that no such department even existed.

That Muhammad Asad, the alleged director of the department, who individually published the proposal of the department and claimed that this was furnished to the assembly was just making it up.

Well the finance bills prove that the department does exist. And so with the lack of official archives of its charter or work besides its budget, we are left to rely on Muhammad Asad’s words. Who is universally accepted as the director of the department among those who believe that such a department existed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Do come out of the concept that Islam is about love, singing qawwalis, dancing and sufism. it calls for war, it calls for punishment, it calls for establishing Allah's Deen and law as well.

!

As a fortunate outsider, it is instructive to see that all the primary ideological figures of the foundation of Pakistan are casually dismissed with a wave of the hands, and what never was explicit at the time is brought to the forefront as an example of what could have been done, therefore, had been done.

Tendulkar the cricketer could have scored a triple century. It could have been done.

That in no way means that it was done. Or should have been done. It amounts to pure alternative history.