What's new

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

You still got no peace, buddy. That’s sad.
Hyundai comes here posting gobar about muh ancient India. The SECOND he gets an iota of pushback he bends over and spreads his scrawny kala gand talking about peace. Pathetic display, Suckdeep.
 
. .
to cure/mitigate porosity of the stone it was built from?

LOL. Nope.

"On August 24, 1814, the British, led by Ross and Cockburn, entered Washington with a force of 4,500 "battle hardened" men.[20][21] The plan to attack Washington had been formulated by Rear Admiral Cockburn, who predicted that "within a short period of time, with enough force, we could easily have at our mercy the capital".[22] Ross commanded the troops and was less optimistic.[13] While Cockburn recommended burning the entire city, Ross planned to damage only public buildings.[21][23]

Ross, who was described by historian John McCavitt as an "an officer and a gentleman", initially planned for an orderly surrender of Washington. However, as he and his men entered the city under a flag of truce, American soldiers remaining in the city "treacherously" opened fire, wounding Ross' horse and killing two of his men. McCavitt argued that this led him to "reluctantly" order the burning of the White House and the Capitol building.[24]"


The British mockingly called it the White House afterwards, referring to their success in burning it down and leaving the US capital all charred and blackened.
 
.
Provide reference for this here- I think he is only referring to the top position ie PM- as you know Jinnah had non-Muslims in the cabinet too and Usmani never made a fuss about that while Jinnah was alive.

Same provide reference for this- only one that I can see him arguing for is PM spot.

Please provide reference for this too.

Provide reference for this. Jinnah said this in the context of equality under law in civil sense similar to England.

Reference for this too. Usmani might have declared some shia beliefs as non-Muslim beliefs but this is different from proclaiming that a person is nonmuslim. As you know Jinnah was Shia himself.

For those reading here, I want to clarify that tahrif is the belief that the Quran had been changed or that some surahs of it have been lost. This is a very minority position amongst extreme Shia groups. Ofc, the majority of Shias do not believe this at all. In general in theology, one can make a difference and point out that an idea is blasphemy - much like the deobandi schools find the idea of istigatha, calling upon dead people for help, to be blasphemy as well. But they make a difference between the idea and the person, uzur bil jahl, intention all these things will stop them from making takfeer of a person of a group because of their membership to it. So you need to prove that Usmani said that Shias are kafirs and that they cannot be PM etc.

Every student of Pakistan's history knows very well what Shabbir Ahmad Usmani stood for. Whatever I wrote about him is easily verifiable, but this is directly from the horse's mouth:

Shabbir Ahmed Usmani (CAP, March 9, 1949)
============================================
The Islamic State means a state which is run on the exalted and excellent principles of Islam. It is evident that a State which is founded on some principles, be it theocratic or secular (like the U. S_ s. R.), can be run only by those who believe in those principles. People who do not subscribe to those ideas may have a place in the administrative machinery of the State but they cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of framing the general policy of the State or dealing with matters vital to its safety and integrity. (p. 45)
===============================================================
Islam has never accepted the view that religion is a private affair between man and his Creator and as such has no bearing upon the social or political relations of human beings. (p.44)

==========================================

It is the duty of an Islamic State to fully safeguard the lives, property, honour, religious freedom and civil rights of all the loyal Non-Muslims within Its jurisdiction. If any outside power endangers the security of their lives and property, the Government should declare war on that power. The non-Muslims should not be burdened with taxes which they cannot afford to pay. (p. 46)





________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As for Shabbir Ahmad Usmani declaring Shia kafir:

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani who led the prayer of his (Jinnah's) public Sunni funeral (a secret Shia funeral having already taken place at night) had earlier signed a fatwa declaring all Shias as kafirs.
(Liaquat H. Merchant, Jinnah: a judicial verdict (East-West Publishing Company Karachi, 1990). The book is an account of a case in which the Sindh High Court sought to know the true religion of Jinnah)
 
Last edited:
.
Bonus question: Why is the White House named as such? Hint: It does not refer to the Anglo-Saxon skin color.

It has religious connotations. If my memory serves me right , I recall reading somewhere that it got something to do with prophet David and the Pentagon was named after the shield of prophet Solomon -------.
 
.
It has religious connotations. If my memory serves me right , I recall reading somewhere that it got something to do with prophet David and the Pentagon was named after the shield of prophet Solomon -------.

Please see #231 above.
 
. . . .
Can't exactly remember the source but it was like some years ago .

I thought so. Such a link would be unlikely given the avoidance of religious symbols in Federal government buildings.
 
.

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

The answer is, it was...until 1981.

When examining surviving Pakistani history textbooks written between 1947 to 1980, all of them begin with the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation from 3000 BCE rather than the invasion of Sindh by Mohammad bin Qasim in 712. These books contained the collective history of the region Pakistan was in (the Indus Valley), and a decent effort was made to connect students to the land of Pakistan. The nation was viewed as a melting pot of different people and languages. Most importantly, the Pakistan Movement was described as the Muslim League had defined it; as a defence against Brahmin domination.

That all changed in 1981. Under the direction of General Zia ul Haq, the University Grants Commission issued a notice to all prospective textbook authors specifying that new history textbooks were to:

"induce pride for the nation's past, enthusiasm for the present, and unshakable faith in the stability and longevity of Pakistan".

To eliminate all possible ambiguities to this approach, Pakistani authors were given the following directive:

"To demonstrate that the basis of Pakistan is not to be founded in racial, linguistic, or geographical factors, but, rather, in the shared experience of a common religion. To get students to know and appreciate the Ideology of Pakistan, and to popularize it with slogans. To guide students towards the ultimate goal of Pakistan - the creation of a completely Islamised State."

In fulfillment of this directive, all of Pakistan's ancient history was either removed or simply relegated to a single insignificant chapter, with no emphasis being put that it was our history.

Secondly, the invasion of Sindh by Mohammad bin Qasim was given high importance and was considered as the origin of "Pakistani history".

The most disturbing aspect was the redefinition of the Pakistan Movement from the Muslim League's definition, to "a movement for Islamic revival", which mirrored the same concepts and politics of Jamaat-i-Islami.

All textbooks were now being centered around the following themes, of which none were historically accurate:

1. The 'Ideology of Pakistan', both as a historical force which motivated the movement for Pakistan as well as its raison d'etre.

2. The depiction of Jinnah as a man of orthodox religious views who sought the creation of a theocratic state.

3. A move to establish the ulema as genuine heroes of the Pakistan Movement.

4. An emphasis on ritualistic Islam, together with a rejection of liberal interpretations of the religion and generation of communal antagonism.

Destruction of Jinnah's speeches
On top of this, General Zia ul Haq ordered many of Jinnah's speeches and audio recordings held at National Archives and Radio Pakistan to be destroyed. These speeches and audio recordings were those that promoted secular, democratic ideals for Pakistan. One famous audio recording was the 11 August Speech, in which Jinnah famously said:

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

By sheer luck, the only reason why Pakistan knows of this speech today is thanks to a audio copy that was stored by BBC Radio Archives.

Collapse of Education System
Prior to the 90s, everyone attended government schools. The advent of private schools began when Zia implemented his education reforms in the 80s. After 1982, government schools prioritised stuffing student’s minds with paranoia, parochialism, and hyper-religiosity.

Students were seen as "young foot soldiers" to preserve and protect a praetorian, ideological state of which they could eventually become a part. To produce students with empathy, moral sense, and capacity to reason independently was not just unnecessary, it was undesirable.

Almost never were students told to respect a queue, obey traffic rules, and desist from littering. Exam cheating and degree buying, though widespread, was not decried as a moral crime.

Machoism was promoted as a virtue, not treated as a disease. Nowhere was a student taught to appreciate those who are different culturally, ethnically, religiously, in physical appearance, or perhaps ability-disability.

Families with money almost immediately withdrew from government schools because of this reason, and by the 90s the era of private schools began.

Zia Generation
The legacy of Zia was the generation he left behind and what negative effects it had on Pakistan 20 years later. The lost Zia generation (school children of the 1980s) became young adults in the early 2000s. Is it any coincidence that Pakistan's most troubling years of suicide bombings and extremism came between 2002 to 2015? This was the period the Zia generation took control of the country, both politically and socially. Now we're seeing a downturn in extremism, partly because the 90s generation are becoming adults and are beginning to replace the Zia generation. I can already see a big difference between the Zia generation and 90s generation. A general comparison between the two generations is a day and night difference in overall behaviour, beliefs and attitude. They are not perfect, but they are one step in the right direction.

Solution
The solution to this problem is simple. Pakistan Studies curriculum needs to be cleansed and rewritten, if Pakistan is to become a peaceful, democratic and moderate state.

In the 90s, some changes were made, which ensured the 90s generation wouldn't turnout like the Zia generation. However, it's evident more needs to be done both in terms of eliminating extremist ideology in society as well as reconnecting our people back to this land and its various cultures. It is also one way to "nation build", something Pakistan has struggled to do.

Pakistan Studies could be one of the most interesting subjects in school, if we make the necessary changes.

> Sources
University Grants Commission directive, quoted in Azhar Hamid, et al. Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan (Islamabad: Allama Iqbal Open University, 1983), p. xi.

University Grants Commission directive, quoted in Azhar Hamid, et al. Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan (Islamabad: Allama Iqbal Open University, 1983), pp. xii-xiii.

Its not taught .because we are still very young balograhy...😁
 
.
Lol, Because US dollars were coming,
Money from Saudi and Arabs also coming..

Musharraf days were best among all.
Computer, Media, Telecommunication and Economy was good.
But same US BUSH gave 4 Billion dollars.
And mushi fckkd afghanistan for 10 yrs fir .4 billion $$
 
.
Let’s keep track of the claims that you made earlier. It will help structure the points you make and the replies to them too.

Resources you used in this reply is very neutral and speeches in the CAP on the objectives resolution post Jinnahs death.


Every student of Pakistan's history knows very well what Shabbir Ahmad Usmani stood for. Whatever I wrote about him is easily verifiable, but this is directly from the horse's mouth:
1) “For example, after the death of Jinnah, Usmani argued on the Assembly floor that Non-Muslims could not be entrusted with the responsibility of framing the general policy or dealing with matters vital to the safety and integrity of Pakistan.”

To prove this you quote
Shabbir Ahmed Usmani (CAP, March 9, 1949)
============================================
The Islamic State means a state which is run on the exalted and excellent principles of Islam. It is evident that a State which is founded on some principles, be it theocratic or secular (like the U. S_ s. R.), can be run only by those who believe in those principles. People who do not subscribe to those ideas may have a place in the administrative machinery of the State but they cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of framing the general policy of the State or dealing with matters vital to its safety and integrity. (p. 45)
===============================================================
My reply to this is as following:-

Firstly, the entire speech of Usmani is pretty enlightening. I would read all of it. In what you quote alone, I would point out that Usmani says, “
The Islamic State means a state which is run on the exalted and excellent principles of Islam.
Note that this is exactly what Jinnah said he wanted too.

It is evident that a State which is founded on some principles, be it theocratic or secular (like the U. S_ s. R.), can be run only by those who believe in those principles.
Yes, many states have principles on which they are founded. Pakistan is founded on democracy and Islamic principles. Again, what exactly are Islamic principles can be debated.

People who do not subscribe to those ideas may have a place in the administrative machinery of the State but they cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of framing the general policy of the State or dealing with matters vital to its safety and integrity. (p. 45)
===============================================================
And yes those who do not subscribe to the idea that Pakistan is founded on certain principles that need to be followed cannot lead the state.

But note two things which are worded very carefully. 1) accepting the idea that Pakistan is founded on certain religious principles does not necessarily mean that you have to believe in a certain religion. Rather, you have to accept the salient principles of said religion which the state is founded on.
2) the taxonomy of what is a leadership role or an administrative one is subjective at best. If Usmani meant that no cabinet member can be non-Muslim, then we know that Jinnah had those. If he meant that no nonMuslim can head a committee in parliament, then we know that the very committee to draft the objectives resolution was headed by Zafarullah, an Ahmadi, and that Usmani participated in said committee under him, even if with presumed consternation. And while Jinnah was alive, Usmani never said anything against Jinnah having these minorities in cabinet (and if he did, would love to be proven wrong). And in this very speech as we will see, Usmani quotes Jinnah to prove that Jinnah believed as he did.

So, either Usmani believed that being a cabinet member or committee head was an administrative role and he was saying only roles above that should be limited like PM and CJ positions or he meant to say that minorities could serve only if they accepted that Pakistan was formed on ideological principles of Islam and that must be respected.

This seems to be an addendum maybe to point 1- not necessarily related to it below as well.
Islam has never accepted the view that religion is a private affair between man and his Creator and as such has no bearing upon the social or political relations of human beings. (p.44)

==========================================
When you quote this, I think you do to show that a Usmani had different ideas to Jinnah with regards to whether religion was a private or public matter. Because of his famous quote of his to the effect. However, that quote should only be understood in the civil sense in the context of England- that the state should not be intervening in the freedom of worship for all and that minorities ought to be protected.

Usmani thinks as much too. He doesn’t believe that Jinnahs quote is being understood properly. To this effect, he says in this very speech on p.44-45:-


Islam has never accepted the view that religion is a private affair between man and his Creator and as such has no bearing upon the social or political relations of human beings. Some other religious systems may expound this theory and may, incidentally, be too idealistic to possess a comprehensive and all-embracing code of life.:. But Islam has no use for such false notions and its teachings are in direct contradiction to them. The late Quaid-e-Azam made the following observations in the letter he wrote to Gandhiji in August, 1944 :--

"The Quran is a complete code of «life ,It provides for all matters, religious, "social, civil, criminal, military, penal, economic and commercial. It regulates every act, speech and movement from the ceremonial religion to those of daily life, from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body ; from the rights of all to those of each individual, from. punishment here to that in the life to come. Therefore when I say that the Muslims are a naction , I have in my mind all physical and metaphysical standards and values."

In 1945, the Quaid-i-Azarn observed in an Id Day message to the Muslims-

"Every Mussalman knows that the Qur an is not confiu ed to religious and moral duties The Qur an is the dearest possession the Muslims and their general core of life, a religious, social, civil, commercial, military,judicial, criminal and penal Code. Our prophet has enjoyed on us that every Mussalman should possess" copy of the" Quran and study it carefully so that It may promote our material as well a, individual welfare."

The Quaid-e-Azam gave frequent expression to such ideas. In the face of such unequivocal and repeated declarations, is it not fair to say that religion has got nothing to do with politics or that if the Quaid-e-Azam had been alive, the Objectives Resolution would not have come up before this House.”

So Usmani did not make the statement to contradict Jinnah- but to clarify his ideas for Pakistan- at worst; you can say he interpreted what Jinnah said. He never disagreed with him.



================================
I don’t see evidence for claim 2 but I guess it might be the same as claim 1 to which I have replied.
2) “Usmani believed that no Non-Muslim could be allowed to hold any "key post" in Islamic Pakistan.”

I think following is for claim 3:-
3) “He even proposed Jizya for Non-Muslims.”
It is the duty of an Islamic State to fully safeguard the lives, property, honour, religious freedom and civil rights of all the loyal Non-Muslims within Its jurisdiction. If any outside power endangers the security of their lives and property, the Government should declare war on that power. The non-Muslims should not be burdened with taxes which they cannot afford to pay. (p. 46)




________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This doesn’t provide for Jizya. Under the objectives resolution, and in line with Islamic principles, not only were minorities meant to be protected but they were supposed to be given positive discrimination of a kind along with other economically distressed groups under article 8.


8. Adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes.

I don’t think you provide anything for claim 4.

4) Usmani had mocked Jinnah about Muslims and non Muslims will cease to be Muslims and non Muslims.

To my best knowledge, Usmani never mocked Jinnah publicly. Before or after his death. This is unlike say Mawdudi- who did it publicly and regularly and was frankly a bit of a d1k about it. The appointment of Zafarullah to head the committee to draft the objectives probably did give him plenty of anxiety though.

And this is what you post for claim
5) Usmani had declared all Shias to be kafir
As for Shabbir Ahmad Usmani declaring Shia kafir:

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani who led the prayer of his (Jinnah's) public Sunni funeral (a secret Shia funeral having already taken place at night) had earlier signed a fatwa declaring all Shias as kafirs.
(Liaquat H. Merchant, Jinnah: a judicial verdict (East-West Publishing Company Karachi, 1990). The book is an account of a case in which the Sindh High Court sought to know the true religion of Jinnah)
This is frankly inaccurate and doesn’t quote said supposed fatwa. It should be available publicly if it exists so shouldn’t be hard to find so we can look at what he says exactly.

And here is another Usmani scholar, Taqi Usmani, on why you can’t declare Shias kafir although some beliefs like tahreef are blasphemy - and some shias, presumably, a minority, might believe this.

 
Last edited:
. .
Let’s keep track of the claims that you made earlier. It will help structure the points you make and the replies to them too.

Resources you used in this reply is very neutral and speeches in the CAP on the objectives resolution post Jinnahs death.



1) “For example, after the death of Jinnah, Usmani argued on the Assembly floor that Non-Muslims could not be entrusted with the responsibility of framing the general policy or dealing with matters vital to the safety and integrity of Pakistan.”

To prove this you quote

My reply to this is as following:-

Firstly, the entire speech of Usmani is pretty enlightening. I would read all of it. In what you quote alone, I would point out that Usmani says, “

Note that this is exactly what Jinnah said he wanted too.


Yes, many states have principles on which they are founded. Pakistan is founded on democracy and Islamic principles. Again, what exactly are Islamic principles can be debated.


And yes those who do not subscribe to the idea that Pakistan is founded on certain principles that need to be followed cannot lead the state.

But note two things which are worded very carefully. 1) accepting the idea that Pakistan is founded on certain religious principles does not necessarily mean that you have to believe in a certain religion. Rather, you have to accept the salient principles of said religion which the state is founded on.
2) the taxonomy of what is a leadership role or an administrative one is subjective at best. If Usmani meant that no cabinet member can be non-Muslim, then we know that Jinnah had those. If he meant that no nonMuslim can head a committee in parliament, then we know that the very committee to draft the objectives resolution was headed by Zafarullah, an Ahmadi, and that Usmani participated in said committee under him, even if with presumed consternation. And while Jinnah was alive, Usmani never said anything against Jinnah having these minorities in cabinet (and if he did, would love to be proven wrong). And in this very speech as we will see, Usmani quotes Jinnah to prove that Jinnah believed as he did.

So, either Usmani believed that being a cabinet member or committee head was an administrative role and he was saying only roles above that should be limited like PM and CJ positions or he meant to say that minorities could serve only if they accepted that Pakistan was formed on ideological principles of Islam and that must be respected.

This seems to be an addendum maybe to point 1- not necessarily related to it below as well.

When you quote this, I think you do to show that a Usmani had different ideas to Jinnah with regards to whether religion was a private or public matter. Because of his famous quote of his to the effect. However, that quote should only be understood in the civil sense in the context of England- that the state should not be intervening in the freedom of worship for all and that minorities ought to be protected.

Usmani thinks as much too. He doesn’t believe that Jinnahs quote is being understood properly. To this effect, he says in this very speech on p.44-45:-


Islam has never accepted the view that religion is a private affair between man and his Creator and as such has no bearing upon the social or political relations of human beings. Some other religious systems may expound this theory and may, incidentally, be too idealistic to possess a comprehensive and all-embracing code of life.:. But Islam has no use for such false notions and its teachings are in direct contradiction to them. The late Quaid-e-Azam made the following observations in the letter he wrote to Gandhiji in August, 1944 :--

"The Quran is a complete code of «life ,It provides for all matters, religious, "social, civil, criminal, military, penal, economic and commercial. It regulates every act, speech and movement from the ceremonial religion to those of daily life, from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body ; from the rights of all to those of each individual, from. punishment here to that in the life to come. Therefore when I say that the Muslims are a naction , I have in my mind all physical and metaphysical standards and values."

In 1945, the Quaid-i-Azarn observed in an Id Day message to the Muslims-

"Every Mussalman knows that the Qur an is not confiu ed to religious and moral duties The Qur an is the dearest possession the Muslims and their general core of life, a religious, social, civil, commercial, military,judicial, criminal and penal Code. Our prophet has enjoyed on us that every Mussalman should possess" copy of the" Quran and study it carefully so that It may promote our material as well a, individual welfare."

The Quaid-e-Azam gave frequent expression to such ideas. In the face of such unequivocal and repeated declarations, is it not fair to say that religion has got nothing to do with politics or that if the Quaid-e-Azam had been alive, the Objectives Resolution would not have come up before this House.”

So Usmani did not make the statement to contradict Jinnah- but to clarify his ideas for Pakistan- at worst; you can say he interpreted what Jinnah said. He never disagreed with him.



================================
I don’t see evidence for claim 2 but I guess it might be the same as claim 1 to which I have replied.
2) “Usmani believed that no Non-Muslim could be allowed to hold any "key post" in Islamic Pakistan.”

I think following is for claim 3:-
3) “He even proposed Jizya for Non-Muslims.”

This doesn’t provide for Jizya. Under the objectives resolution, and in line with Islamic principles, not only were minorities meant to be protected but they were supposed to be given positive discrimination of a kind along with other economically distressed groups under article 8.


8. Adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes.

I don’t think you provide anything for claim 4.

4) Usmani had mocked Jinnah about Muslims and non Muslims will cease to be Muslims and non Muslims.

To my best knowledge, Usmani never mocked Jinnah publicly. Before or after his death. This is unlike say Mawdudi- who did it publicly and regularly and was frankly a bit of a d1k about it. The appointment of Zafarullah to head the committee to draft the objectives probably did give him plenty of anxiety though.

And this is what you post for claim
5) Usmani had declared all Shias to be kafir

This is frankly inaccurate and doesn’t quote said supposed fatwa. It should be available publicly if it exists so shouldn’t be hard to find so we can look at what he says exactly.

While I do appreciate all the effort you have put in trying to defend the indefensible, it's quite pointless frankly

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's exact words have been quoted and anyone who can read English (and who doesn't lack basic comprehension skills) can easily understand what Usmani is going on about. No matter how hard you try, you cannot twist those words and give them new meanings. Shabbir Ahmad Usmani may have been a good man and a great Deobandi scholar but here we are discussing Jinnah's views/understanding of Islam, and their ideological visions differed significantly

I will conclude this discussion with comments from the eminent Pakistani historian, Dr. Mubarak Ali, regarding Usmani:

"Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani immediately after the formation of Pakistan demanded that all key posts and important offices should be given only to the Muslims. All cultural Muslims and Non-Muslims should be excluded from such posts"
(The Ulema, Sufis and the Intellectuals p. 163)

----------

And btw you provided no source to back up your claim that Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was given the title of "Shaikh ul Islam" by Jinnah himself. I have checked official records from that time but couldn't find any such reference
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom