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

[Ssan]

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.

I’ll ignore the slights - at no point on our interactions have I gotten the impression that your English is any better than mine. But I don’t really see the world as through the normal liberal Pakistani lens that English and white is right. But my English is not deficient anyways.

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

Yes and I quoted directly from Usmani too. And Jinnah. And have shown that Usmani did not believe his views to be contrary to Jinnah. At best you could say he was interpreting Jinnah through his religious lens.

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)

----------

What does Mubarak Ali quote from Usmani to prove his point? If it is the CAP assembly speech, which it probably is, then I have already de-constructed that above.

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

The Shaykh ul Islam position was passed in the CAP in Jan 1948.

According to Hakeem Qureshi, Jinnah presented the proposal himself so that Usmani could advise the govt on religious matters. This would be easy enough to check if we go into archives and are able to pull all the proposals that the CAP passed if it is archived somewhere.

Hakeem Aftab Ahmed Qurashi, Karwan-i-Shooq, Lahore, Adara Tehqeqat-i-
Pakistan, February 1984, p. 306

Also note on a smaller point that I never explicitly said prior to this that Jinnah gave the title although I may have insinuated it. What I said was only that it was while Jinnah was alive that a position of Shaykh Al Islam was created. And I quoted a liberal source to prove this point.

Also your liberal authors have a tendency to ignore the Urdu material. Does it not seem strange to you that you cannot produce for me the fatwa from Usmani that all Shias are kafirs while I am able to produce for you another Usmani scholar, from the same family, and post something with his original urdu fatwa that rebuts that?

 

[M. Sarmad]

The Shaykh ul Islam position was passed in the CAP in Jan 1948.

According to Hakeem Qureshi, Jinnah presented the proposal himself so that Usmani could advise the govt on religious matters. This would be easy enough to check if we go into archives and are able to pull all the proposals that the CAP passed if it is archived somewhere.

Hakeem Aftab Ahmed Qurashi, Karwan-i-Shooq, Lahore, Adara Tehqeqat-i-
Pakistan, February 1984, p. 306

Also note on a smaller point that I never explicitly said prior to this that Jinnah gave the title although I may have insinuated it. What I said was only that it was while Jinnah was alive that a position of Shaykh Al Islam was created. And I quoted a liberal source to prove this point.

Also your liberal authors have a tendency to ignore the Urdu material. Does it not seem strange to you that you cannot produce for me the fatwa from Usmani that all Shias are kafirs while I am able to produce for you another Usmani scholar, from the same family, and post something with his original urdu fatwa that rebuts that?

Well, who is Hakeem Qureshi?
Quote primary sources, not some unknown Sajas and Majas

And It's really interesting to see how you reject even highly credible sources (claiming that they aren't primary sources) when they go against your pre-conceived notions and biases, but then go on to present every Tom, Dick, and Harry as authentic source when it suits you

Anyway, all sources I have come across so far mention that Shaikh ul Islam was a title given to Shabbir Usmani by his followers. Until and unless you are able to provide a primary source that proves otherwise (which I doubt you'd be able to), this claim, like many others you have made here, can't be accepted

What does Mubarak Ali quote from Usmani to prove his point? If it is the CAP assembly speech, which it probably is, then I have already de-constructed that above.

You haven't 'de-constructed' anything, mate... Anyways, Let's leave it to the readers to decide who knows history better, the eminent historian Dr. Mubarak Ali, or our very own "Ssan" from PDF

I’ll ignore the slights - at no point on our interactions have I gotten the impression that your English is any better than mine. But I don’t really see the world as through the normal liberal Pakistani lens that English and white is right. But my English is not deficient anyways.

And nowhere did I say that my English was any better than yours, or that your English was deficient. I merely pointed out your deliberate twisting of Usmani's words

 

[Ssan]

Well, who is Hakeem Qureshi?
Quote primary sources, not some unknown Sajas and Majas

We could probably fish out a primary source if someone has enough motivation to dig through the archives of the CAP sessions.

Anyways, we don’t have to do that to prove it because like I said, in my timeline I have attached prior to this, I included a source from a secular liberal type to prove my point. When both sides of the debate agree to the point, it becomes less likely to be false. And like I said, I did this intentionally so that you wouldn’t be able to say that my source or evidence is biased.

Hakeem Qureshi may very well be biased. He may be an outright right wing liar for all I know. But that Usmani was elected as shaykh Al Islam through a bill in CAP seems universal. That this happened while Jinnah was alive is also true. That he had an advisory role, could only advise- also true, sure.

And my liberal secular source says this explicitly in his Dr phil thesis from York University that I referenced in the timeline above already.

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

P.295 - has the relevant bit.

Ofc like the secular type he is, he manages to bury it in between ceremonial role. Can only advise, no real power, and JUI wanted more etc. He quotes Dawn news Jan 14,1948 edition so it seems that we would be able to verify this easily with access to any amount of archival material. And verify who presented the final bill also which would either show Mr Qureshi to be truthful or not.

And It's really interesting to see how you reject even highly credible sources (claiming that they aren't primary sources) when they go against your pre-conceived notions and biases, but then go on to present every Tom, Dick, and Harry as authentic source when it suits you

Like I said the evidence in my timeline is tight. I quote ppl on the other side.

Otoh, to prove that Usmani bit, you quote a source that doesn’t provide a primary source. And prima facie, it seems to be a deliberate lie or exaggeration, given that we have another Usmani, within he same family, saying the opposite of this. And I provide the original source material for that fatwa already. Also it goes against what I understand of deobandi teachings- and to clarify I am not deobandi myself.

Anyway, all sources I have come across so far mention that Shaikh ul Islam was a title given to Shabbir Usmani by his followers. Until and unless you are able to provide a primary source that proves otherwise (which I doubt you'd be able to), this claim, like many others you have made here, can't be accepted

Provided source material above but can’t verify as I don’t have access to cap sessions or the Dawn news from that edition. That would end this debate I suppose.

Anyways man, it has been fun I guess. Well let folk reading this decide.

 

[El Sidd]

Correction and in line with the theme of this thread...the oft-ignored historical fact by supporters of Qadianis and libtards is that Qadianis declared all Muslims kafir in parliamentary proceedings before the takfiri knife fell on them.

The theme of the thread is quite old, projecting Pakistan as 'Sunnistan'. Its a standard chest beaters episode

 

[airhead]

most people misunderstand the rationale of pakistan creation. It was not created for muslims, as it was clear that there Hindus and Sikhs living here. The basis of creating pakistan was the system of government...ie a government run on Islamic principles and according to Sunnat. That is what the Quaid said in several of his speeches...it was really about a different system of govt and that is what differentiates Pakistan. Some sikhs or even hindus preferred to live here because how in an Islamic state, minorities are protected as opposed to free for all in other states. Infact if you did a poll of pakistanis and indian muslims, most would vote for an Islamic type of govt in what is now Pakistan

 

[Maula Jatt]

most people misunderstand the rationale of pakistan creation. It was not created for muslims, as it was clear that there Hindus and Sikhs living here. The basis of creating pakistan was the system of government...ie a government run on Islamic principles and according to Sunnat. That is what the Quaid said in several of his speeches...it was really about a different system of govt and that is what differentiates Pakistan. Some sikhs or even hindus preferred to live here because how in an Islamic state, minorities are protected as opposed to free for all in other states. Infact if you did a poll of pakistanis and indian muslims, most would vote for an Islamic type of govt in what is now Pakistan

Our current constitution is a perfect as is, maybe some reforms here and there

Issue is we are not implementing it in it's true spirit, we need true democracy, true following the constitution to the tee

Not anything else, not argue over random stuff IMO

 

[Tamerlane]

Infact if you did a poll of pakistanis and indian muslims, most would vote for an Islamic type of govt in what is now Pakistan

The problem is that no one knows what an Islamic system of government is.

Governance is a way of managing a country. Similarly, a business enterprise also has a system of governance. You can’t say that we need an Islamic corporation, it won’t make any sense. Proper administration has nothing to do with religion.

What people imply with “Islamic system” is one where Islamic values are implemented, like honesty, justice, rule of law, welfare of the masses etc. Well, the reality is that Western countries are better than every single Muslim country in the world in all those things. Even Saudi Arabia ranks high in the corruption index compared to a country like Canada. 99% of Muslims would prefer to move to Canada rather than Saudi Arabia.

What we need is well functioning democracy. The way it will be different than a non-Muslim country like Canada is that it will have Islam based laws, like forbidding the consumption of pork, alcohol and it won’t promote LGBTQI.

Forget about being better than others, we have a long, long way to go to even reach the middle of the list of best run countries in the world.

 

[Ssan]

The theme of the thread is quite old, projecting Pakistan as 'Sunnistan'. Its a standard chest beaters episode

Bro what is your deal- I really want to know. Do you come here just to troll- are you a libertarian, I thought you were JI for a long time but doesn’t seem like it.

 

[Maula Jatt]

The problem is that no one knows what an Islamic system of government is.

Governance is a way of managing a country. Similarly, a business enterprise also has a system of governance. You can’t say that we need an Islamic corporation, it won’t make any sense. Proper administration has nothing to do with religion.

What people imply with “Islamic system” is one where Islamic values are implemented, like honesty, justice, rule of law, welfare of the masses etc. Well, the reality is that Western countries are better than every single Muslim country in the world in all those things. Even Saudi Arabia ranks high in the corruption index compared to a country like Canada. 99% of Muslims would prefer to move to Canada rather than Saudi Arabia.

What we need is well functioning democracy. The way it will be different than a non-Muslim country like Canada is that it will have Islam based laws, like forbidding the consumption of pork, alcohol and it won’t promote LGBTQI.

Forget about being better than others, we have a long, long way to go to even reach the middle of the list of best run countries in the world.

This man gets it, people arguing over stupid shit

We are already islamic republic as is, our issue is governance, rule of law, democracy

Focus on improving that people

 

[Ssan]

The problem is that no one knows what an Islamic system of government is.

Governance is a way of managing a country. Similarly, a business enterprise also has a system of governance. You can’t say that we need an Islamic corporation, it won’t make any sense. Proper administration has nothing to do with religion.

What people imply with “Islamic system” is one where Islamic values are implemented, like honesty, justice, rule of law, welfare of the masses etc. Well, the reality is that Western countries are better than every single Muslim country in the world in all those things. Even Saudi Arabia ranks high in the corruption index compared to a country like Canada. 99% of Muslims would prefer to move to Canada rather than Saudi Arabia.

What we need is well functioning democracy. The way it will be different than a non-Muslim country like Canada is that it will have Islam based laws, like forbidding the consumption of pork, alcohol and it won’t promote LGBTQI.

Forget about being better than others, we have a long, long way to go to even reach the middle of the list of best run countries in the world.

I agree with this- I think Pakistan is a terrible example of an Islamic state or a state based on Islamic principles.

The amount of corruption, whether it be financial, moral or intellectual, is quite frankly staggering. So yeah being a functional state, with even common sense principles, like meritocracy and accountability would go a long way to making us more of an Islamic state.

This man gets it, people arguing over stupid shit

We are already islamic republic as is, our issue is governance, rule of law, democracy

Focus on improving that people

I mean I argue when I get bored and have free time at work. Currently I’m supposed to be studying for an interview so I’m procrastinating. Pray for me.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

Arabs don't have this problem.

Yeah because none of the Arab countries are called an “Islamic Republic”.

Iraq used to be called an Arab republic but now it is just a republic. Yemen is just called a republic. Algeria went through an anti-imperialist revolution so it is called a Peoples Republic. Morocco is a kingdom

Egypt is called an “Arab Republic” and so is Syria. Syria is called “Syrian Arab Republic”.

None of the Arab countries are called an “Islamic Republic”. Only Pakistan, Mauritania, and Iran are called Islamic Republcis.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Hakeem Qureshi may very well be biased. He may be an outright right wing liar for all I know. But that Usmani was elected as shaykh Al Islam through a bill in CAP seems universal. That this happened while Jinnah was alive is also true. That he had an advisory role, could only advise- also true, sure.

No, it's not. No primary source mentions that. There is nothing in the archives of CAP to suggest that. As per the available records, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was only a member of the standing committee on the Haj, and Auqaf

As for your claim that he was made Shaikh ul Islam in Jan 1948 through a bill in CAP, that's obviously incorrect as CAP wasn't in session in Jan 1948. CAP held its second session from 24 Feb to 2 March 1948 to draft the rules and procedures of the Constituent Assembly. After the drafting of the rules, 3 Committees were set up (Steering Committee, Finance Committee, and Credentials Committee). It adopted a motion to constitute a committee on the addition and redistribution of seats in the CAP. Then a bill was introduced to amend the Indian Independence Act of 1947 and the session was adjourned sine die. Extensive debates were carried out and a lot of members participated in those debates, Shabbir Usmani was not one of them

I included a source from a secular liberal type to prove my point. When both sides of the debate agree to the point, it becomes less likely to be false. And like I said, I did this intentionally so that you wouldn’t be able to say that my source or evidence is biased.



And my liberal secular source says

Well, the sources are either authentic and credible, or they are not

We cannot accept (or reject) a source based on the political leanings and affiliations of the author

Provide primary and authentic sources. Secondary sources (no matter whether liberal/secular or conservative) do not carry much weight

like I said, in my timeline I have attached prior to this,

The timeline you provided is inaccurate. We will come to that later
No committee was set up in 1948 under Zafrullah Khan to draft Objectives Resolution
BPC was the first such committee and it was constituted after the death of Jinnah

 

[Ssan]

No, it's not. No primary source mentions that. There is nothing in the archives of CAP to suggest that. As per the available records, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was only a member of the standing committee on the Haj, and Auqaf

As for your claim that he was made Shaikh ul Islam in Jan 1948 through a bill in CAP, that's obviously incorrect as CAP wasn't in session in Jan 1948. CAP held its second session from 24 Feb to 2 March 1948 to draft the rules and procedures of the Constituent Assembly. After the drafting of the rules, 3 Committees were set up (Steering Committee, Finance Committee, and Credentials Committee). It adopted a motion to constitute a committee on the addition and redistribution of seats in the CAP. Then a bill was introduced to amend the Indian Independence Act of 1947 and the session was adjourned sine die. Extensive debates were carried out and a lot of members participated in those debates, Shabbir Usmani was not one of them



Well, the sources are either authentic and credible, or they are not

We cannot accept (or reject) a source based on the political leanings and affiliations of the author

Provide primary and authentic sources. Secondary sources (no matter whether liberal/secular or conservative) do not carry much weight




The timeline you provided is inaccurate. We will come to that later
No committee was set up in 1948 under Zafrullah Khan to draft Objectives Resolution
BPC was the first such committee and it was constituted after the death of Jinnah

Are you going to reply to only a para of my previous post?

Are you going to bury the reference to the Dawn article that the clearly secular and liberal biases Dr Phil uses?

Yalla, well let people decide.

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.

And suffice it to say, from my timeline:-

Dawn article-

SMOKERS’ CORNER: CREATING PSEUDOHISTORY

Much has been written about the dubious claims which became part of Pakistani textbooks and nationalist narratives.

www.dawn.com

“Secondly, the parliamentary committee formed by the PM to draft the resolution was headed by Pakistan’s influential foreign minister Zafarullah Khan, a prominent member of the Ahmadiyya community (Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, June 2019). Even though this perturbed the ulema, Zafarullah Khan proceeded to vote for the resolution which was eventually prepared with the input from the ulema.”

 

[M. Sarmad]

Are you going to reply to only a para of my previous post?

Are you going to bury the reference to the Dawn article that the clearly secular and liberal biases Dr Phil uses?

Well, that source didn't say what you claim it's saying that's why ignored it. But if you insist, let me break it down for you

The source tells us that JUI demanded the position of Shaikh ul Islam (with ministerial powers) through a resolution in Jan 1948

It quotes Dawn's article (14, Jan 1948) as a source

You have assumed on your own that the resolution was moved in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, CAP (which wasn't even in session at that time). That was a JUI resolution

No one has disputed the fact that Ulema demanded such privileges

The contention is whether or not those demands were granted

As per the available official records, CAP didn't take up any such resolution for discussion even

I suggest you read the 12th Aug 1947 debates in the CAP (to get an idea of how things worked) when a resolution to give Jinnah the title of "Quaid-e-Azam" was moved. It was opposed and resisted, and extensive debates were carried out.

And suffice it to say, from my timeline:-

Dawn article-

SMOKERS’ CORNER: CREATING PSEUDOHISTORY

Much has been written about the dubious claims which became part of Pakistani textbooks and nationalist narratives.

www.dawn.com

“Secondly, the parliamentary committee formed by the PM to draft the resolution was headed by Pakistan’s influential foreign minister Zafarullah Khan, a prominent member of the Ahmadiyya community (Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, June 2019). Even though this perturbed the ulema, Zafarullah Khan proceeded to vote for the resolution which was eventually prepared with the input from the ulema.”

Suffice? not really

nowhere does it mention that such a committee was set up in early 1948 or during Jinnah's lifetime

You have assumed it on your own, again

 

[Ssan]

Well, that source didn't say what you claim it's saying that's why ignored it. But if you insist, let me break it down for you

The source tells us that JUI demanded the position of Shaikh ul Islam (with ministerial powers) through a resolution in Jan 1948

It quotes Dawn's article (14, Jan 1948) as a source

You have assumed on your own that the resolution was moved in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, CAP (which wasn't even in session at that time). That was a JUI resolution

No one has disputed the fact that Ulema demanded such privileges

The contention is whether or not those demands were granted

As per the available official records, CAP didn't take up any such resolution for discussion even

I suggest you read the 12th Aug 1947 debates in the CAP (to get an idea of how things worked) when a resolution to give Jinnah the title of "Quaid-e-Azam" was moved. It was opposed and resisted, and extensive debates were carried out.

Okay for those interested, they will go take a look at what is written in the quoted gentleman’s Dr Phil thesis. And will see what is written. Let’s leave it at that.

Do you have archival access to all the CAP sessions? If you do, post it here. If you don’t then don’t make these claims without posting a reference to the same from either source material or from a historian who is not biased. Or at least biased towards the version of history that is coming from the other side.

Suffice? not really

nowhere does it mention that such a committee was set up in early 1948 or during Jinnah's lifetime

You have assumed it on your own, again

I mean I guess it’s progress somewhat that now we agree there was a parliamentary committee headed by Zafarullah to draft the objectives resolution and that it had input from ulema. Prior to this, you yourself claimed that Zafarullah headed no such committee and that the first committee with ulema was the BPC.

Again ofc, archival access to committee notes, if those exist, would prove when it was setup and who participated in said committee. And when.