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

[M. Sarmad]

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.

Similarly, your opinion about the B-grade Mullahs you follow blindly is also of no relevance. I simply highlighted the fact that the Supreme Court of Pakistan and its Chief Justice hold far more credibility than individuals like Usmani's cousin and others whose obscure testimonies you are presenting as evidence, even though their names are virtually unknown to 99.99% of Pakistanis. Anyways, let's leave it to the readers to make their own judgments

 

[Ssan]

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.

The point is, and it is self apparent, that the Pakistani archives are a mess. Even Jinnah’s letter to Hassan Al Banna I reference is stored in the British archives.

So in that poor state, it is absolutely valid to use other primary sources to figure out what was going on.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So in that poor state, it is absolutely valid to use other primary sources to figure out what was going on.

I believe you have a misconception about the term "primary source." Please take a break from this discussion, my friend.

 

[Ssan]

Similarly, your opinion about the B-grade Mullahs you follow blindly is also of no relevance. I simply highlighted the fact that the Supreme Court of Pakistan and its Chief Justice hold far more credibility than individuals like Usmani's cousin and others whose obscure testimonies you are presenting as evidence, even though their names are virtually unknown to 99.99% of Pakistanis. Anyways, let's leave it to the readers to make their own judgments

You are missing the point here.

Whether I or you believe Hamidullah or Muneer more is irrelevant. Hamidullah is relevant to the discussion as a first hand witness.

Muneer alleging something of Usmani is less reliable because:-
1) We have Usmani’s very own family of scholars denying diminishes the credibility of his claim.
2) Because unlike what you seem to think, declaring all Shias to be kafir would be extremely sensational coming from a scholar like Usmani. And it would leave traceable artifacts.

I believe you have a misconception about the term "primary source." Please take a break from this discussion, my friend.

I believe you have a misconception about the term "primary source." Please take a break from this discussion, my friend.

From Shaykh Google:-

“A primary source is a first hand testimony, document, speech or other evidence that gives insight into a particular person or an event.”

 

[Joe Shearer]

The point is, and it is self apparent, that the Pakistani archives are a mess. Even Jinnah’s letter to Hassan Al Banna I reference is stored in the British archives.

So in that poor state, it is absolutely valid to use other primary sources to figure out what was going on.

Oh, no cavil about other primary sources, none at all.

 

[M. Sarmad]

From Shaykh Google:-

“A primary source is a first hand testimony, document, speech or other evidence that gives insight into a particular person or an event.”

Thanks for posting that. I hope now you realize that A radio interview recorded in the late 1960s (i.e. almost 20 years after the passing of Jinnah) by a man who never claimed to be a member of any committee set up by Jinnah himself does not qualify as a "primary source" that can be quoted as an evidence to prove the existence of any such committee in 1948

 

[Ssan]

!

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.

I would love for you to critique what I have presented in this thread particularly in the first five posts. Would love your feedback.

Even though, Sarmad, and I are arguing, I actually do value his opinions too.

Thanks for posting that. I hope now you realize that A radio interview recorded in the late 1960s (i.e. almost 20 years after the passing of Jinnah) by a man who never claimed to be a member of any committee set up by Jinnah himself does not qualify as a "primary source"

It certainly qualifies as a primary source to prove the existence of the said committee. And who was invited, and its various details. The other three testimonies flourish a larger picture and Jinnahs letter sets the context.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

@Joe Shearer

You moron, just because I disagree with a secular member, you moron?

And I promote an Islamic Pakistan?

Yes that moron @Joe Shearer gave me a negative rating for promoting an Islamic Pakistan.

LIKE LOL! What an indiot!

 

[M. Sarmad]

It certainly qualifies as a primary source to prove the existence of the said committee. And who was invited, and its various details. The other three testimonies flourish a larger picture and Jinnahs letter sets the context.

Isn't it absurd that even in an interview conducted 20 years after Jinnah's passing, the man himself didn't claim the establishment of such a committee by Jinnah, he didn't even mention Jinnah once, Yet, you're still insisting that it's a "primary source" confirming the existence of this supposed committee established by Jinnah himself !! Talk about desperately clutching at straws, right?

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

Isn't it absurd that even in an interview conducted 20 years after Jinnah's passing, the man himself didn't claim the establishment of such a committee by Jinnah, he didn't even mention Jinnah once, Yet, you're still insisting that it's a "primary source" confirming the existence of this supposed committee established by Jinnah himself !! Talk about desperately clutching at straws, right?

I think I find it absurd that you want to consult people who died basically 100 years ago about what Pakistan should be about.

Shouldn't Pakistan be good for South Asian Muslims?

Therefore Pakistan should be an Islamic country.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Even though, Sarmad, and I are arguing, I actually do value his opinions too.

No, no, thank you very much, but I am not in the same class as Sarmad Sahib.

In very broad terms, if you do find original sources that support your proposition that Islamic experts were called together to deliberate on how to define a Muslim state with full expression of democratic principles, it will be a breakthrough discovery.

Good luck in your efforts. I shall watch from a distance with the greatest interest and goodwill.

@Joe Shearer

You moron, just because I disagree with a secular member, you moron?

And I promote an Islamic Pakistan?

Yes that moron @Joe Shearer gave me a negative rating for promoting an Islamic Pakistan.

LIKE LOL! What an indiot!

No, no, not so.

The negative rating was for using abusive language. You cannot create logic from a torrent of abuse.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@Ssan

In this context, a valid primary source would be an official document from the government of Pakistan or a direct testimony (in any form) from Jinnah himself, specifically confirming the establishment of such a committee. Or even a relevant news story published in a mainstream newspaper during that time could serve as a valid source. Any other information or claims are simply irrelevant.

And as we discussed earlier, numerous committees and sub-committees were formed by the Constituent/Legislative Assembly in 1947 and 1948 for various purposes, all of which have been documented in national archives. Interestingly, these archives even mention committees established to address the issue of prostitution in Karachi. Therefore, unless one believes that the issue of prostitution was deemed more significant and important than constitution-making, the absence of any mention of a committee of scholars formed to draft the constitution is quite conspicuous.

Lastly, even if Shabbir Usmani himself were to provide a testimony, it could be seen as biased due to potential conflicts of interest. However, as far as I know, even Shabbir Usmani, the alleged chairman of the hypothetical committee in question, has never made any such claim. Correct me if I am wrong

 

[Ssan]

No, no, thank you very much, but I am not in the same class as Sarmad Sahib.

In very broad terms, if you do find original sources that support your proposition that Islamic experts were called together to deliberate on how to define a Muslim state with full expression of democratic principles, it will be a breakthrough discovery.

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.

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.

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

 

[M. Sarmad]

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.

My friend, it is actually you who is making desperate attempts to fabricate history by connecting an irrelevant letter with an imaginary committee. I haven't even addressed that letter yet.

 

[Ssan]

@Ssan

In this context, a valid primary source would be an official document from the government of Pakistan or a direct testimony (in any form) from Jinnah himself, specifically confirming the establishment of such a committee. Or even a relevant news story published in a mainstream newspaper during that time could serve as a valid source. Any other information or claims are simply irrelevant.

And as we discussed earlier, numerous committees and sub-committees were formed by the Constituent/Legislative Assembly in 1947 and 1948 for various purposes, all of which have been documented in national archives. Interestingly, these archives even mention committees established to address the issue of prostitution in Karachi. Therefore, unless one believes that the issue of prostitution was deemed more significant and important than constitution-making, the absence of any mention of a committee of scholars formed to draft the constitution is quite conspicuous.

Lastly, even if Shabbir Usmani himself were to provide a testimony, it could be seen as biased due to potential conflicts of interest. However, as far as I know, even Shabbir Usmani, the alleged chairman of the hypothetical committee in question, has never made any such claim. Correct me if I am wrong

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, it is actually you who is making desperate attempts to fabricate history by connecting an irrelevant letter with an imaginary committee. I haven't even addressed that letter yet.

Please do my friend. And also, kindly, leave the slights to the side. I take the accusation of fabricating falsehoods seriously. I have not thrown slights your way, please do the same.