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

[ThunderCat]

So your a murtad telling us Muslims what we must be

You should have said that from the beginning

Let me make this clear for you

Pakistan is OURS, IT BELONGS TO THE MUSLIMS
ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE MUST WATCH THEIR STEP BECAUSE WE WILL TEAR THEM TO PIECES IF THEY PUSH US

Pakistan belongs to Pakistanis. All you Arab worshipers can go live in Arabia. Good luck in gaining their acceptance.

 

[hatehs]

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

Hondas still talking about ancient India as a single unit while modern day pajeets chimp out and lynch eachother if they cross state lines LMAO. Delusional Honda

 

[M. Sarmad]

Please let me know where in my thread with timeline and references I quote Rao.


I feel serious pity that you have to say I quote an individual I don’t even quote. My timeline and references are there.

We had a detailed discussion about it and you referenced Rao here:

Lahoris Embarrassing Pakistan Once Again

Not according to "me", troll. I am just stating historic facts. Nothing wrong in being classified, rightly or wrongly, as a 'docile race' though. Take out your frustration on the Brits who classified you guys as such, not us. And in a Muhajir vs Sindhi debate, this postulation is irrelevant...

defence.pk

^^ You not only quoted Zulfiqar Rao's article, you "insisted' that you had provided proof in these words:

"Lol, The drafting of the objectives resolution commenced in 1948 and was passed in 1949. I provided a source for it. You are free to ignore it and we can let the other readers judge it for themselves"


And now when Rao has accepted and rectified his mistake, you are saying You never quoted Rao ... Itni dhitai se kaisay jhoot bol laitay ho Bhai ??

 

[Ssan]

We had a detailed discussion about it and you referenced Rao here:

Lahoris Embarrassing Pakistan Once Again

Not according to "me", troll. I am just stating historic facts. Nothing wrong in being classified, rightly or wrongly, as a 'docile race' though. Take out your frustration on the Brits who classified you guys as such, not us. And in a Muhajir vs Sindhi debate, this postulation is irrelevant...

defence.pk

^^ You not only quoted Zulfiqar Rao's article, you "insisted' that you had provided proof in these words:

"Lol, The drafting of the objectives resolution commenced in 1948 and was passed in 1949. I provided a source for it. You are free to ignore it and we can let the other readers judge it for themselves"


And now when Rao has accepted and rectified his mistake, you are saying You never quoted Rao ... Itni dhitai se kaisay jhoot bol laitay ho Bhai ??

So let’s get this straight. I make some claims on this thread. You ask for proof. I provide them. You ignore said proofs and quote something I said in another thread to make a claim about how I am dodging the question?

Meanwhile, i quote Jinnah you ignore it? And tell me not to quote him? Got it.

What exactly did I use Raos article to prove? Not anything regarding anything in this thread. So your tangent is both irrelevant and frankly pathetic.

 

[Ssan]

Meanwhile all you seculars are going to dodge the forest for the trees- that the CAP under Jinnah no less elected a Shaykh Al islam. In Jan 1948. That Jinnah regularly met ulema and assured them that their principles of Islam would be incorporated into the state constitution.

That Jinnahs own quote says that he wants an democracy with Islamic principles. Not a Muslim state but an Islamic one. That Jinnah himself says to stop calling yourselves Punjabi, Pathan, Sindhi or Bengali. That call yourself Muslim. Not to be sectarian Shia or Sunni. You dodge that too.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So let’s get this straight. I make some claims on this thread. You ask for proof. I provide them. You ignore said proofs and quote something I said in another thread to make a claim about how I am dodging the question?

Meanwhile, i quote Jinnah you ignore it? And tell me not to quote him? Got it.

What exactly did I use Raos article to prove? Not anything regarding anything in this thread. So your tangent is both irrelevant and frankly pathetic.

First, you said you never quoted Rao, But when a link is provided, Now you are saying Ok, I did, but that's irrelevant ?!!

As I said earlier, You can't lie through your teeth and get away with it in this digital age when everyone has ready access to the internet

We had a detailed discussion about Jinnah's alleged role in the drafting of the Objectives Resolution the other day. Your arguments were thoroughly discussed and summarily refuted. But you continue to spam every thread with the same lies and propaganda.

Meanwhile all you seculars are going to dodge the forest for the trees- that the CAP under Jinnah no less elected a Shaykh Al islam. In Jan 1948. That Jinnah regularly met ulema and assured them that their principles of Islam would be incorporated into the state constitution.

That Jinnahs own quote says that he wants an democracy with Islamic principles. Not a Muslim state but an Islamic one. That Jinnah himself says to stop calling yourselves Punjabi, Pathan, Sindhi or Bengali. That call yourself Muslim. Not to be sectarian Shia or Sunni. You dodge that too.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but There's nothing official about the "Sheikh ul Islam" title

We can discuss that in detail once our discussion on the imaginary Committee of Ulema constituted by Jinnah himself to draft the Objectives Resolution is concluded

 

[ARMalik]

As usual, it had to be a Military Dictator, more specifically a Pakistan Army General Zia, who was commissioned in British India Army, and who was responsible for massive Human Rights abuses. It had to be a Pakistan Army dictator to rewrite history books of Pakistani people. These are the magnitude of challenges being faced by Pakistani people - that they are being ruled by vicious Satanic cult of Generals since 1947. It is not going to be easy to gain independence from these Worshippers of Satan.

 

[Ssan]

First, you said you never quoted Rao, But when a link is provided, Now you are saying Ok, I did, but that's irrelevant ?!!

As I said earlier, You can't lie through your teeth and get away with it in this digital age when everyone has ready access to the internet

We had a detailed discussion about Jinnah's alleged role in the drafting of the Objectives Resolution the other day. Your arguments were thoroughly discussed and summarily refuted. But you continue to spam every thread with the same lies and propaganda.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but There's nothing official about the "Sheikh ul Islam" title

We can discuss that in detail once our discussion on the imaginary Committee of Ulema constituted by Jinnah himself to draft the Objectives Resolution is concluded

Again you dodge the pertinent references I have made in this thread.

I only quoted Rao in this other thread for the singular purpose in the other thread to show how Nadwi Sahab was called from India to advise on the objectives resolution in 1948, while Jinnah was alive no less, although he could not come to Pakistan at that time- he was asked to do so.

Raos article was the singular source I could find in the English language that said as much. The article itself was garbage but it was one of your own secular types speaking to a fact of history so thought it would be easier for you to digest. If Rao Sahab wants to say that the date he placed in his article is wrong, I am happy to post urdu references for the same below.

But whether Nadwi Sahab was indeed invited to come to Pakistan from India in mid 1948, to advise on the drafting of the objectives resolution, while Jinnah was alive, is a smaller tidbit of history. The larger picture is that Jinnah appointed Zafarullah, an Ahmadi, to head the committee and Usmani to advise on the committee with input from other ulema.

Nadwi being invited to come to Pakistan from India in mid 1948 to advise on objectives resolution. Other scholars, like Mufti Mohammad Shafi, Maulana Gillani, and Dr. Hameed Ullah, also invited and all except for Nadwi sahab left India for Pakistan upon invitation.

Hafiz Mohammad Akbar Shah Bukhari, Sheikh-ul-Islam Pakistan, p. 144
Maulana Zafer Ahmed Insari, Nazreya Pakistan Awr Ulema, p. 240

Btw you can check when Mufti Muhammad Shafee came to Pakistan to corroborate this:-

Muhammad Shafi Deobandi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That Jinnah appointed Usmani to advise on the parliamentary committee that was drafting the objectives resolution is here. He told a group of visiting ulema that had concerns about this very nature that “I have tasked Usmani to advise the committee and he is working with them to ensure we have an Islamic constitution.”

Hafiz Mohammad Akbar Shah Bukhari, Maqalat-i-Uthmani, Lahore, Baytul Elem, n.d, p.302. Also see, Maulana Abdul Shakoor Termezi,Tazkra-tul-Zafar, Kamaleya, Matbo’at-i-Elemi Faysilabad, 1977, p. 392

it’s very sad and pathetic that instead of addressing how Jinnah moved the CAP to appoint Usmani Shaykh Al islam “to advise on religious matters for the state of Pakistan”, you want to claim that it’s not official. In fact, it is official. By act of the CAP Jan 1948. You can claim that it was ceremonial and could only advise but what secular state has an advisory position for Shaykh Al islam.

I guess given the fact that you don’t want to address the other references I have posted in this thread, I can take it that you don’t have a cogent argument to the effect.

Fair enough.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Again you dodge the pertinent references I have made in this thread.

I only quoted Rao in this other thread for the singular purpose in the other thread to show how Nadwi Sahab was called from India to advise on the objectives resolution in 1948, while Jinnah was alive no less, although he could not come to Pakistan at that time- he was asked to do so.

Raos article was the singular source I could find in the English language that said as much. The article itself was garbage but it was one of your own secular types speaking to a fact of history so thought it would be easier for you to digest. If Rao Sahab wants to say that the date he placed in his article is wrong, I am happy to post urdu references for the same below.

But whether Nadwi Sahab was indeed invited to come to Pakistan from India in mid 1948, to advise on the drafting of the objectives resolution, while Jinnah was alive, is a smaller tidbit of history. The larger picture is that Jinnah appointed Zafarullah, an Ahmadi, to head the committee and Usmani to advise on the committee with input from other ulema.

Nadwi being invited to come to Pakistan from India in mid 1948 to advise on objectives resolution. Other scholars, like Mufti Mohammad Shafi, Maulana Gillani, and Dr. Hameed Ullah, also invited and all except for Nadwi sahab left India for Pakistan upon invitation.

Hafiz Mohammad Akbar Shah Bukhari, Sheikh-ul-Islam Pakistan, p. 144
Maulana Zafer Ahmed Insari, Nazreya Pakistan Awr Ulema, p. 240

Btw you can check when Mufti Muhammad Shafee came to Pakistan to corroborate this:-

Muhammad Shafi Deobandi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That Jinnah appointed Usmani to advise on the parliamentary committee that was drafting the objectives resolution is here. He told a group of visiting ulema that had concerns about this very nature that “I have tasked Usmani to advise the committee and he is working with them to ensure we have an Islamic constitution.”

Hafiz Mohammad Akbar Shah Bukhari, Maqalat-i-Uthmani, Lahore, Baytul Elem, n.d, p.302. Also see, Maulana Abdul Shakoor Termezi,Tazkra-tul-Zafar, Kamaleya, Matbo’at-i-Elemi Faysilabad, 1977, p. 392

it’s very sad and pathetic that instead of addressing how Jinnah moved the CAP to appoint Usmani Shaykh Al islam “to advise on religious matters for the state of Pakistan”, you want to claim that it’s not official. In fact, it is official. By act of the CAP Jan 1948. You can claim that it was ceremonial and could only advise but what secular state has an advisory position for Shaykh Al islam.

I guess given the fact that you don’t want to address the other references I have posted in this thread, I can take it that you don’t have a cogent argument to the effect.

Fair enough.

Duh!

How many times have you been told that posting tons of irrelevant crap won't prove you right? Why so desperate, bro?

Sorry to disappoint you, But Your classic "Gish Gallop" isn't going to work here

Each and every lie posted by you here is easily refutable

You've been asked to discuss one thing at a time but you keep jumping here and there, and continue evading simple questions

You have posted absolutely nothing to back up your childish claim that Jinnah constituted a committee of Mullahs to draft the Objectives Resolution.

You only had one source, an article by Zulfiqar Rao, and as Rao himself has rectified his mistake regarding the timeline, now you are trying to be evasive about it too

 

[Tamerlane]

Biradaraan e mun.

Mr. Jinnah died 75 years ago. Can’t 250 million Pakistanis figure out what system of government we need today?

The system we have now, based on the British parliamentary system, works fine in some of the most successful countries in the world where every Pakistani would love to live, like UK, Canada, Australia etc.

In Pakistan the problem is that the country has been hijacked by a colonial army that rejects all rule of law. No system will work under these conditions.

Before we can start tweaking the system of governance, we need to set ourselves free from the colonial army.

 

[hussain0216]

Pakistan belongs to Pakistanis. All you Arab worshipers can go live in Arabia. Good luck in gaining their acceptance.

You are tripping

And let me tell you pal, this is lynching level talk in Pakistan

I first thought maybe your just ethnocentric and my point was it's all good speaking about the history of our ethnicities but Pakistan was meant for a diverse group of people from across south Asia and originally Pakistan could NEVER be limited to the glory of the history of a handful of people/ethnicities as the rest of the Muslim population across south Asia would have very limited to zero connection to that history hence why would they support Pakistan. Thus the unifying factor is ISLAM was central to the creation of Pakistan



But now you have revealed yourself to be a Murtad, boy forget about Pakistan I doubt your own family would want anything to do with you


It's one thing pushing Pakistani history which is fair and maybe should be done more,, but completely another trying to delink our concept of Pakistan from Islam. You would be putting your life at risk if you EVER make the mistake of doing this in public inside Pakistan

 

[M. Sarmad]

Again you dodge the pertinent references I have made in this thread.

Well, I just went through the link you yourself provided in this thread (without bothering to first read it yourself of course), and guess what, it completely destroys your lies and propaganda


For example, it says on p. 267:

"Sayyid Sulaymãn Nadwi (1884-1953) came to Pakistan (14 June 1950) at the invitation of the Pakistan Government."

(Jinnah died in 1948, he never invited Nadwi, and that's exactly what had been told to you but you refuse to accept)


And:


While the 'ulamã' expected Pakistan as a state to exercise Sharih, Jinnãh, in his inaugural address to CAP (11 August 1947), enunciated the concept of a 'Pakistani nation' based on secularism. (p. 311)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From historical accounts it would appear that, when the struggle for Pakistan was in full swing, no serious thought was given by the upper echelons of the AIML leadership to the question of the character that the new state should assume. It was considered sufficient to declare that:

the Constitution and the Government [of 'would-be' Pakistan] will be what the people will decide.

Nevertheless, stray attempts were in fact made by the ulama to elaborate the nature of the Islamic state. (p. 310)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jinnah's concept of a national secular state was not in conformity with his own as well as his party's pre-partition posture; 36 it was quite unpalatable to the 'u1amã though there was a small section of intelligentsia which dared to support a complete separation between religion and politics. The idea of 'secularism' in the early days of Pakistan was so unpopular among the masses that PML did not like to voice Jinnãh's view on the subject; and, Jinnâh himself never reiterated it again (p.312)

 

[Kuru]

Hondas still talking about ancient India as a single unit while modern day pajeets chimp out and lynch eachother if they cross state lines LMAO. Delusional Honda

Sure. Wishing you a peace of mind.

 

[Ssan]

Duh!

How many times have you been told that posting tons of irrelevant crap won't prove you right? Why so desperate, bro?

Sorry to disappoint you, But Your classic "Gish Gallop" isn't going to work here

Each and every lie posted by you here is easily refutable

You've been asked to discuss one thing at a time but you keep jumping here and there, and continue evading simple questions

You have posted absolutely nothing to back up your childish claim that Jinnah constituted a committee of Mullahs to draft the Objectives Resolution.

You only had one source, an article by Zulfiqar Rao, and as Rao himself has rectified his mistake regarding the timeline, now you are trying to be evasive about it too

Lol, I just gave more refs besides Rao for the only thing I used Rao to justify.

Suffice it to say that people who read this exchange will see who is dodging who.

Well, I just went through the link you yourself provided in this thread (without bothering to first read it yourself of course), and guess what, it completely destroys your lies and propaganda


For example, it says on p. 267:

"Sayyid Sulaymãn Nadwi (1884-1953) came to Pakistan (14 June 1950) at the invitation of the Pakistan Government."

(Jinnah died in 1948, he never invited Nadwi, and that's exactly what had been told to you but you refuse to accept)


And:


While the 'ulamã' expected Pakistan as a state to exercise Sharih, Jinnãh, in his inaugural address to CAP (11 August 1947), enunciated the concept of a 'Pakistani nation' based on secularism. (p. 311)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From historical accounts it would appear that, when the struggle for Pakistan was in full swing, no serious thought was given by the upper echelons of the AIML leadership to the question of the character that the new state should assume. It was considered sufficient to declare that:

the Constitution and the Government [of 'would-be' Pakistan] will be what the people will decide.

Nevertheless, stray attempts were in fact made by the ulama to elaborate the nature of the Islamic state. (p. 310)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jinnah's concept of a national secular state was not in conformity with his own as well as his party's pre-partition posture; 36 it was quite unpalatable to the 'u1amã though there was a small section of intelligentsia which dared to support a complete separation between religion and politics. The idea of 'secularism' in the early days of Pakistan was so unpopular among the masses that PML did not like to voice Jinnãh's view on the subject; and, Jinnâh himself never reiterated it again (p.312)

Lol, I quote your own liberal sources to prove points in the timeline. I do this because then you simply can’t dodge the facts of history that are agreed by both sides. That Jinnah espoused something and then backed off, ie was a coward as supposedly suggested by your secular liberal authors, is another tangent. Clearly No sane person believes that. Except people that want to make what Jinnah said circumscribed to only one or two speeches and ifnore what he did prior and after.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Lol, I just gave more refs besides Rao for the only thing I used Rao to justify.

Suffice it to say that people who read this exchange will see who is dodging who.


Lol, I quote your own liberal sources to prove points in the timeline. I do this because then you simply can’t dodge the facts of history that are agreed by both sides. That Jinnah espoused something and then backed off, ie was a coward as supposedly suggested by your secular liberal authors, is another tangent. Clearly No sane person believes that. Except people that want to make what Jinnah said circumscribed to only one or two speeches and ifnore what he did prior and after.

You know nothing about me, mate... I am neither a secularist nor a liberal

And there are no "2 sides" when it comes to Pakistan's history

There is Pakistan's history, and then there is Pakistan Studies (and lies peddled by right-wingers like yourself). I won't blame you though as it's the decades of state-sponsored religious-chauvinistic indoctrination via distortion that has created a whole generation of clueless Islamists and patriots

You won't be able to get away with your lies and propaganda here on PDF, go to FB or some other forum