Why is our full history not taught to us in Pakistan Studies?

[Ssan]

You don’t even understand what you’re quoting.

Aren‘t you the same people who get upset when Islamophobes pick up a small quote from the Quran and blow it out of proportion?

So why are you doing the same thing here?

Bro,

What even are you on about. Now you are just trolling and gaslighting.

Jinnah was arguing in favour of democracy. He said this because during this period, Pakistan’s political future was still being argued.

The Muslim League and Jinnah were in favour of democracy, while your Ulema and traitors from the JI claimed democracy is against Islam and a haram system.

This isn’t hard to understand.

Syed Sulayman Nadvi and indeed the other students of Shibli Nomani also believed in democracy. They believed that democracy was not only compatible with Islam but ideal. JI or Maududi never claimed to my knowledge that democracy was against Islam. In fact they also held the same position as Nadvi.

If you have proof of this, show it here.

Here he was basically rejecting the idea that democracy was haram or a foreign concept. He argues that embracing democracy would not be against Islam, since Islamic principles and democracy are compatible!

And here he ends it off clearly…

Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State—to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.



You folks try so desperately to portray Jinnah as some mullah.

He is against theocracy. In our 1400 year history, I can only think of two theocracies - one in Fatimid Egypt and one in Iran now. We have never had clergy rule us.

Bro,

What even are you on about. Now you are just trolling and gaslighting.

Syed Sulayman Nadvi and indeed the other students of Shibli Nomani also believed in democracy. They believed that democracy was not only compatible with Islam but ideal. JI or Maududi never claimed to my knowledge that democracy was against Islam. In fact they also held the same position as Nadvi.

If you have proof of this, show it here.

He is against theocracy. In our 1400 year history, I can only think of two theocracies - one in Fatimid Egypt and one in Iran now. We have never had clergy rule us.

I’ll say it again- and again and again.

Jinnah wanted a democracy but with Islamic principles. He wanted freedom of religion for all, protection of minorities and a parliament that made laws. All of these things got enshrined in the objectives resolution.

Once again, when I say Jinnah wanted Islamic principles, we can argue as surely we must as to the contours of what those principles were. But he certainly never wanted a secular state where there was no role of Islam in the political setup. To claim this is absurd.

I am very happy to deconstruct what Jinnah said in any of his speeches. He was remarkably consistent in what he wanted. The only folk who are confused are your liberal secular types.

 

[Sayfullah]

Your views are irrelevant. You live in Canada….go live In your Brampton and establish your Bhangra republic there chutiye.

This isn’t your daddy’s country. And try to break us up, we’ll hang your pedophiles at every chowk.

Now he doesn’t want to share his resources with anyone….the same clown that says nationalism is haram, now is promoting his Bhangra nationalism. LMFAO.

You couldn’t even make this up….thsee chutiyas are beyond confused.

Cope secularist.

Come try do shit to us. You b*tches can’t fight for shit. You guys are the true pedophiles legalizing lgbtq.

Nationalism is haram. Islam made it haram.
Without Islam I am a nationalist.
With Islam I am Muslim first.

Your breed will go extinct soon. Pakistan will never be secular. Go burn in rage.

 

[Sayfullah]

If Pakistan even becomes secular May Allah SWT make an example out of it.
May Allah SWT allow an Islamic revolution to take place in Pakistan.
May Allah SWT allow Pakistan to be ruled by Shariah.
May Allah SWT destroy all munafiq murtads who disguise them self as secular ‘Muslims’.

Ameen

 

[Ssan]

Three things that unite Pakistanis are Islam, Urdu and Biryani. Take away any of them and you've got a Yugoslavia on your hands.

That said, I grew up learning history in school from a textbook that included pre-Islamic history. I remember reading about Asoka, Chandragupta Maurya etc. and it didn't lessen my fervor for Islam, nor did it turn me into a Indus Valley ethno-nationalist.

We need to teach actual history, not a fantasy like they're doing in Modi's India. They've rewritten history to suit their Hindu narrative and taken out Muslim rule as if it never happened.

Pakistan's history should include all the information we have about this land before Islam, just like people in Egypt probably learn about ancient Egypt and Iranians may learn about ancient Persia. Keep in mind, though, that people of both Egypt and Iran are quite ethno-nationalistic.

The peak of civilization in South Asia was during the times of the Mughals. Mughal India was the largest economy in the world, along with China. They had culture, art, architecture, textile production, culinary expertise, military force, etc. Why would I not want to be associated with them?

In the case of Indian history, no matter how much I may read about Asoka or Indus Valley, it does not compare with the glory of Islamic history. I am 100 times more proud of the achievements of Muslims from one end of the world to the other. We're going through bad times now but I also believe in a glorious future.

For the best system of governance we can't look at Islamic history to find the right formula. There never was a perfect form of government in any Muslim country in history. It was all kings and tyrants, some good, some bad.

Now we need to create a modern new system. If we're building a car we can't use 100 year old technology; instead we have to innovate. Similarly, we need to develop a better form of government than what we have now based on the best ideas we can find from around the world.

I actually agree a great deal with what you have said. I disagree with the underlying assumptions however.

Islam does not give us a system of government. It does not tell us to be a kingdom or a democracy or something else.

Rather, it gives us principles of engagement (God given rights, consent of ruled, justice) and a set of laws (which are debated but normative) and principles to interpolate between them. Whichever country appropriates those principles and claims to be an Islamic state is going to be one.

But what the structure will look like is wholly a matter of pragmatism. Jinnah wanted a democracy with civil state and that is perfectly fine as long as the principles of Islam are not left aside.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Here is timeline with references:-



1947:- independence and the first constituent assembly meets (CAP). Tasked with drafting constitution, etc.



Jan 1948:- CAP appoints Usmani elected shaykh Al Islam, head mufti. He will be the main interlocutor on the drafting committee with the ulema and the real author of the objectives resolution.



https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/4235/2/DX087128_2.pdf



Early 1948:- Zafarullah Khan is appointed to head the committee- this caused tension with the more conservative ulema, him being Ahmadi and all.



http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/history/PDF-FILES/17_56_1_19.pdf



Mid 1948:- The JUP draft principles that must be accepted in the constitution. Jinnah accepted the draft of proposal about the Islamic nature of the state that the JUP had drafted and said it would be incorporated into the constitution.



Ahmad, Jam‘iyyat ‘Ulama-i-Pakistan 1948-79, 5.



Date Inferred- Mid 1948:- Zafarullah headed committee to draft the resolution and that it had input from ulema.



https://www.dawn.com/news/1530114



September 1948:- Jinnah dies.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah



March 1949:- Liaquat Ali presents the objectives resolution.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectives_Resolution#:~:text=The resolution proclaimed that the,under Article 2(A).



March 1949:- Zafarullah defends the objectives resolution when it is presented



https://tribune.com.pk/story/1306912/road-not-taken?amp=1

Btw, what is available in public on the internet is heavily biased side of history. And it is confused. They can’t agree who actually drafted the resolution whether it was Liaquat Ali, Usmani or Zafarullah.

The salient thing is that Jinnah chose an Ahmadi to lead the committee and he also had the ulema advise on it. This was intentional on his part because he wanted to get an Islamic republic that protected minorities.

As stated earlier, posting loads of irrelevant stuff won't prove anything, my friend



Let's keep it simple




You haven't been able to post a single source to back up your claim that Jinnah set up a committee of ulema to draft Objectives Resolution




As for Shabbir Usmani, he wasn't even a member of the cabinet, and we can discuss his role and the significance (or the lack thereof) of the title "Sheikh ul Islam" once our discussion on the imaginary committee of religious scholars, allegedly set up by Jinnah himself to draft Objectives Resolution, is concluded



And as for Sir Zafarullah Khan, you really want to argue that he was a Mullah/religious scholar of Islam?

 

[Ssan]

As stated earlier, posting loads of irrelevant stuff won't prove anything, my friend



Let's keep it simple




You haven't been able to post a single source to back up your claim that Jinnah set up a committee of ulema to draft Objectives Resolution




As for Shabbir Usmani, he wasn't even a member of the cabinet, and we can discuss his role and the significance (or the lack thereof) of the title "Sheikh ul Islam" once our discussion on the imaginary committee of religious scholars, allegedly set up by Jinnah himself to draft Objectives Resolution, is concluded



And as for Sir Zafarullah Khan, you really want to argue that he was a Mullah/religious scholar of Islam?

Bro, you are gaslighting. Ignoring what I am have written and trying to say that I have said things I have simply not said. What I have said, I have backed up.

No interest in trying to prove things I have not said.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Bro, you are gaslighting. Ignoring what I am have written and trying to say that I have said things I have simply not said. What I have said, I have backed up.

No interest in trying to prove things I have not said.

Good then... So, now we agree that Jinnah didn't set up any committee of Ulema to draft Objectives Resolution?

The very purpose of such debates is to learn, improve and sharpen one's own understanding of history by comparing it with opposing views

We had a discussion earlier where you were claiming that Syed Suleman Nadvi was invited by Jinnah. You were told that Nadvi came to Pakistan in 1950 only but you refused to accept. You had nothing to back up your claim except one blog by Zulfiqar Rao in which he had made a mistake/typo and written 1948 instead of 1949, and you "invented" a whole new history based on that typo.

You can't fool people with such lies and propaganda in this age of Internet/era of information

 

[Kuru]

We are different from Indians. Just because Pakistanis like me reject an imaginary connection to Arabs, we equally reject Indian hegemony on our identity, history and heritage.

Okay.

Even the name "India" should be accredited to Pakistan's geography.

Present day Pakistan is part of ancient India. So there you have it.

 

[Menace2Society]

Okay.



Present day Pakistan is part of ancient India. So there you have it.

No such thing as Ancient India.

 

[Ssan]

Good then... So, now we agree that Jinnah didn't set up any committee of Ulema to draft Objectives Resolution?

You are a fraud to claim this. Jinnah asked the ulema to advise the committee and included them in said committee. And he accepted their suggestions for said committee numerous times.

The very purpose of such debates is to learn, improve and sharpen one's own understanding of history by comparing it with opposing views

Lol- I’m not sure how much you are comparing anything.

We had a discussion earlier where you were claiming that Syed Suleman Nadvi was invited by Jinnah. You were told that Nadvi came to Pakistan in 1950 only but you refused to accept. You had nothing to back up your claim except one blog by Zulfiqar Rao in which he had made a mistake/typo and written 1948 instead of 1949, and you "invented" a whole new history based on that typo.

Nope and I provided evidence for what I said about Nadvi being invited to advise said committee. And prior history of how he was literally tasked by ML to address what an Islamic state was post Lahore resolution in mid 1940s.

You can't fool people with such lies and propaganda in this age of Internet/era of information

People can judge who is a fraud after going through everything I have posted and referenced themselves.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You are a fraud to claim this. Jinnah asked the ulema to advise the committee and included them in said committee. And he accepted their suggestions for said committee numerous times.

Lol- I’m not sure how much you are comparing anything.

Nope and I provided evidence for what I said about Nadvi being invited to advise said committee. And prior history of how he was literally tasked by ML to address what an Islamic state was post Lahore resolution in mid 1940s.

People can judge who is a fraud after going through everything I have posted and referenced themselves.

As pointed out by @Neelo, you guys want to establish an Islamic Pakistan by lying and cheating.. ?!

But the problem is that in this digital age you cannot lie through your teeth and get away with it, like you guys had been doing for the last 1400 years

And I wrote to Zulfiqar Rao, whose article you quoted here as your "proof", and pointed out his mistake. He accepted his mistake and rectified it:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1650416994275975168

^^ I seriously feel pity for you, mate

You are a fraud to claim this. Jinnah asked the ulema to advise the committee and included them in said committee. And he accepted their suggestions for said committee numerous times.

Well, my friend, as you have been proven a fraud and a hypocrite by the same Zulfiqar Rao whose article you posted here (as if it was some gospel truth), I think that you should show some grace and avoid calling those "fraud" who know better than you, and who do not fall for the deceitful lies and propaganda of Your Mullah demigods

 

[M. Sarmad]

People can judge who is a fraud after going through everything I have posted and referenced themselves.

Agreed. Your lies and fraud has been exposed by the very person whose article you posted here as your proof ... It's there for everyone to see .. Again, I seriously feel pity for you

 

[hussain0216]

Fundamentally we a diverse people, the major commonality the Muslims of South Asia had was faith

IVC and all that history is fine but you can't build a community around that shit, your not going to inspire a diverse group of people to rally round on that basis

All we had was Islam and it's what we have today

Uber liberal, ahmedi, murtad types are obviously going to be bent out of shape, but you know fcuk em

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

But the problem is that in this digital age you cannot lie through your teeth and get away with it, like you guys had been doing for the last 1400 years

Seriously, every other dude on this forum has an ego fit for a Pharoah... you "mad sar" be exceeding him, the Pharoah, in a duel, around for 1400 years.
Are you claiming the status of the one with solitary eye?
The dispenser of truth in the digital age... waiting just for the opportune moment, catching'em bare in the act.

The whole argument is flawed and a fraud! Did jinnah bring a new religion? Did he claim to be a Messiah? A lawyer! Parting brits gifted only the land they wished... seethe with it! Since jinnah didn't bring his theology, don't invent one! If you claim to be the one, a beneficiary of his act... then the best he could have delivered was to allow YOU, YOUR KIND, to live FREE! Not ape your former lord and their creed. Carve your own niche not dwell on the one of your plunderer. But today if, his majesty himself shows remorse and begs a pardon. You wouldn't loose your act, such is the frame of mind of willfully enslaved.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Seriously, every other dude on this forum has an ego fit for a Pharoah... you "mad sar" be exceeding him, the Pharoah, in a duel, around for 1400 years.
Are you claiming the status of the one with solitary eye?
The dispenser of truth in the digital age... waiting just for the opportune moment, catching'em bare in the act.

The whole argument is flawed and a fraud! Did jinnah bring a new religion? Did he claim to be a Messiah? A lawyer! Parting brits gifted only the land they wished... seethe with it! Since jinnah didn't bring his theology, don't invent one! If you claim to be the one, a beneficiary of his act... then the best he could have delivered was to allow YOU, YOUR KIND, to live FREE! Not ape your former lord and their creed. Carve your own niche not dwell on the one of your plunderer. But today if, his majesty himself shows remorse and begs a pardon. You wouldn't loose your act, such is the frame of mind of willfully enslaved.

You make no sense, clown