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

[Ssan]

Funny how the Islamist apologist still can't answer this

Okay I’ll give it a shot. I’ll summarize what Eqbal Ahmad has written about this prior.

The reason that the class of ulema were against the creation of Pakistan was entirely petty and pertained to issues of group struggle- not socio-economic necessarily but of worldviews.

On one end, you had the conservative mullah class, barelwis and Deobandis. They had been in power and been in opposition to the British, going so far as to boycott their schools and their language.

On the other hand, you had Sir Syed and Aligarh and what not which was more recent and which had accepted aspects of British rule and amongst other things started teaching people English and western education and what not.

Prior to Aligarh, the religious class had a monopoly on literacy, post Sir Syed, it got split and they were in decline- the new educated middle class was a threat to their hegemony.

The taxonomy of Muslim educated middle class into two categories is not universal. You also had liberal Islamic outposts that bridged the gap between the two. Like Shibli Nomanis school.

But when the Pakistan movement started, and it’s main leaders belonged to one camp, it was hard for the religious class in India to stomach the idea of accepting leadership of the movement from the other camp. There are plenty of exceptions that we have already mentioned above. Jinnah ofcourse did not really care about the educated religious class differences. He was just looking for support. As a result, the ulema who did support him in the Pakistan movement were given positions when Pakistan was formed.

Yes it’s a fact that the majority of ulema were against the Pakistan movement. They used the excuse that islam ant he reconciled into the boundaries of a nation-state. That Islam was a global religion without boundaries and that nation statehood was a British concept. This frankly is a minority opinion but they stuck to it because of the class aspect above. The other reason they stuck to it too was because congress courted their support.

That the majority of ulema were against Pakistan movement is true. That virtually none of the ulema supported Pakistan is absolutely false. There were plenty but in the minority.

 

[Ssan]

You're welcome

I have no reason to believe that it's "incomplete" by any means, it even has the most minute details, and there are literally thousands of pages

I have skimmed through all 5 Constitution Making and 4 Legislature sessions of the CAP that were held between Aug 1947 and March 1949 (Passing of the Objectives Resolution). I couldn't find any mention of the alleged Committee formed to draft the Objectives Resolution (though dozens of other committees and sub-committees have been mentioned in detail). Do let me know if you find anything relevant

Like I said, the committee is part of the public discourse. Mentioned in dozens of Urdu sources and in English sources like the Dawn article I quoted which explicitly mentions the committee. So we may not have all the archival material- or the committee might very well me a ML committee.

You are free to say that the Dawn article is wrong ofc. But it explicitly states the existence of said committee. And a dozen of Urdu sources too. Is that the recourse you are taking here? That they are all making it up.

Bro I am supposed to be studying for an interview man, lol. I’ll try to do more on this week after next.

 

[Ssan]

In my mind, we may have gotten of to a bad start due to definitions.

@Neelo

Let’s put aside what to call such states but in my mind, we could taxonomize states into the following categories:-

1) a state that is not democratic

2) a state that may have aspects of democracy but also theocracy kind of like Iran where a parliament passes laws but all rules have to be accepted by the said clergy class who have the final say

3) a democratic state based on islamic principles- a parliament and no clergy in administrative positions that will have authority but whose opinions may be sought to understand Islamic principles (say advisory roles).

4) a democratic state that is merely Muslim majority and has no formalized role for religion and in fact a strict separation of religion from politics.

Which of the above are you arguing for? And which of the above do you think Jinnah wanted? And which of the above do you think I am arguing for?

@Sarmad you too, others feel free to jump in for the above question as well.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Like I said, the committee is part of the public discourse. Mentioned in dozens of Urdu sources and in English sources like the Dawn article I quoted which explicitly mentions the committee. So we may not have all the archival material- or the committee might very well me a ML committee.

You are free to say that the Dawn article is wrong ofc. But it explicitly states the existence of said committee. And a dozen of Urdu sources too. Is that the recourse you are taking here? That they are all making it up.

Well, academic discourse demands that secondary sources must be corroborated with primary sources to attain authoritative status. In the absence of primary source references, secondary sources may be dismissed as unverifiable and may not be considered in serious academic debates

And You are being inconsistent in your approach to source evaluation. On one hand, you rejected secondary sources referencing Usmani's Kufr Fatwa against Shia, citing the need for the original Fatwa to be presented as a credible source. OTOH, you insist on accepting the existence of a committee that drafted the Objectives Resolution solely based on a few obscure secondary sources, despite the lack of mention of such a committee in any primary source.

Now coming to that Dawn article by NFP, no dates have been mentioned and a PU paper has been cited as a reference. That PU paper in turn has cited an unknown book by an unknown author as a source. So, basically, we have only one secondary source and even that source doesn't mention any dates or details. The guy may well be talking about BPC

It can be stated with certainty that there is no evidence to support the existence of the committee comprising of Usmani and Zafarullah (besides others) that allegedly drafted the Objectives Resolution, as no primary sources mention it. On the contrary, primary sources do mention that the first objection raised against the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly was why no committee was constituted to consider the resolution.

I won't say that all those Urdu sources are making it up, I would rather say that it is possible that some of the sources may have mistakenly or inaccurately reported the dates or timeline of the formation of the BPC, leading to confusion or errors in other sources that relied on them.

Bro I am supposed to be studying for an interview man, lol. I’ll try to do more on this week after next.

Best of luck, bhai

 

[M. Sarmad]

In my mind, we may have gotten of to a bad start due to definitions.

@Neelo

Let’s put aside what to call such states but in my mind, we could taxonomize states into the following categories:-

1) a state that is not democratic

2) a state that may have aspects of democracy but also theocracy kind of like Iran where a parliament passes laws but all rules have to be accepted by the said clergy class who have the final say

3) a democratic state based on islamic principles- a parliament and no clergy in administrative positions that will have authority but whose opinions may be sought to understand Islamic principles (say advisory roles).

4) a democratic state that is merely Muslim majority and has no formalized role for religion and in fact a strict separation of religion from politics.

Which of the above are you arguing for? And which of the above do you think Jinnah wanted? And which of the above do you think I am arguing for?

@Sarmad you too, others feel free to jump in for the above question as well.

Something between 3 and 4 (closer to 3 than 4), I would say

We don't have to declare Pakistan a Secular state to stop Mullahs from misusing and abusing our beautiful religion.

We don't have to remove Islam from the constitution to create Jinnah's Pakistan. The 1951 Libyan Constitution is a perfect example of what Jinnah wanted

The 1951 Libyan Constitution, for example, proclaims Islam as the state religion but formally sets out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and equal responsibility for public duties and obligations "without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions"

Islam and Secularism are indeed compatible ...

We just need to Reclaim the vision of our Founding Fathers who believed in "absolute equality of mankind".

 

[Ssan]

Well, academic discourse demands that secondary sources must be corroborated with primary sources to attain authoritative status. In the absence of primary source references, secondary sources may be dismissed as unverifiable and may not be considered in serious academic debates

And You are being inconsistent in your approach to source evaluation. On one hand, you rejected secondary sources referencing Usmani's Kufr Fatwa against Shia, citing the need for the original Fatwa to be presented as a credible source. OTOH, you insist on accepting the existence of a committee that drafted the Objectives Resolution solely based on a few obscure secondary sources, despite the lack of mention of such a committee in any primary source.

Now coming to that Dawn article by NFP, no dates have been mentioned and a PU paper has been cited as a reference. That PU paper in turn has cited an unknown book by an unknown author as a source. So, basically, we have only one secondary source and even that source doesn't mention any dates or details. The guy may well be talking about BPC

It can be stated with certainty that there is no evidence to support the existence of the committee comprising of Usmani and Zafarullah (besides others) that allegedly drafted the Objectives Resolution, as no primary sources mention it. On the contrary, primary sources do mention that the first objection raised against the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly was why no committee was constituted to consider the resolution.

I won't say that all those Urdu sources are making it up, I would rather say that it is possible that some of the sources may have mistakenly or inaccurately reported the dates or timeline of the formation of the BPC, leading to confusion or errors in other sources that relied on them.



Best of luck, bhai

Okay so then you say that all these sources are in error or mistaken. That feels like a big error to me. Normally, if you have both sides of the aisle reference an event, it probably did happen. One buttressing evidence I would use to show that Zafarullah might indeed have had input into the resolution, is his defense of it in the CAP session that passed it. Otherwise, it’s unusual to defend a resolution you have no input into.

When you bought up the Usmani fatwa, I did not say that I deny it. I said that you need to quote someone on the other side of the aisle. The one time in my debate with you that I tried to do this was with Rao. Again, Urdu sources I quoted after but I would have liked a secular source.

The deobandis have large variation in them. Some fringe (I recall some in KP) do indeed declare all others (not just Shias btw) to be kafir. But the Usmani group is very moderate- and the overall deobandi group indeed don’t declare all Shias to be kafir. So if Usmani had such a fatwa, different to the other Usmani’s whose I have posted already, it would certainly generate debate internally, and would leave artifacts somewhere, granted in Urdu, but they would exist. Additionally, the fatwas of an eminent scholar are normally collected and published so this should exist in the public record.

Something between 3 and 4 (closer to 3 than 4), I would say

We don't have to declare Pakistan a Secular state to stop Mullahs from misusing and abusing our beautiful religion.

We don't have to remove Islam from the constitution to create Jinnah's Pakistan. The 1951 Libyan Constitution is a perfect example of what Jinnah wanted

The 1951 Libyan Constitution, for example, proclaims Islam as the state religion but formally sets out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and equal responsibility for public duties and obligations "without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions"

Islam and Secularism are indeed compatible ...

We just need to Reclaim the vision of our Founding Fathers who believed in "absolute equality of mankind".

Yeah I think 3 too.

 

[Ssan]

For all the others, feel free to give a sliding number, ie 3.5 and give your category too

 

[M. Sarmad]

Okay so then you say that all these sources are in error or mistaken. That feels like a big error to me. Normally, if you have both sides of the aisle reference an event, it probably did happen. One buttressing evidence I would use to show that Zafarullah might indeed have had input into the resolution, is his defense of it in the CAP session that passed it. Otherwise, it’s unusual to defend a resolution you have no input into.

Which "All" sources, bhai?... We have only one source so far, and that too fails to specify any dates or give any details... baqi, I am inclined to believe that you have read the information from various Urdu sources, as you have claimed, but sources that cannot be verified or lack credibility carry no weight or authority.

And I don't know where you got the idea that "both sides" agreed on the existence of such a committee. I haven't come across any "liberal" historian who has mentioned the existence of such a committee. Even many conservative historians do not argue for the existence of the committee in question. This notion of the existence of any such committee during Jinnah's lifetime (implying his approval of OR), if at all, may only be regarded as a popular historical narrative among a limited segment of right-wing scholars.

Your buttressing evidence is actually counterproductive for your argument. Firstly, Zafarullah Khan, despite responding to all objections raised by the opposition, did not challenge the objection regarding the absence of a committee. Secondly, even Mian Iftikharuddin, a staunch socialist, rejected the Pakistan National Congress members' claim that the resolution was theocratic, despite having some reservations about it.

When you bought up the Usmani fatwa, I did not say that I deny it. I said that you need to quote someone on the other side of the aisle. The one time in my debate with you that I tried to do this was with Rao. Again, Urdu sources I quoted after but I would have liked a secular source.

The deobandis have large variation in them. Some fringe (I recall some in KP) do indeed declare all others (not just Shias btw) to be kafir. But the Usmani group is very moderate- and the overall deobandi group indeed don’t declare all Shias to be kafir. So if Usmani had such a fatwa, different to the other Usmani’s whose I have posted already, it would certainly generate debate internally, and would leave artifacts somewhere, granted in Urdu, but they would exist. Additionally, the fatwas of an eminent scholar are normally collected and published so this should exist in the public record.

I have sent an inquiry to the author of the article, let's see if he responds. Otherwise, court se to li hi ja sakti case ki attested copy

Edit: Just googled to find a reference to "quote someone from the other side" (as you said),
This is a Fatwa from Deoband Dar-ul-Mubligheen, Lucknow that mentions Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's Takfir Fatwa against Shia:

(7) "ONE WHO PUTS FAITH THAT THE QUR'AN HAS BEENS UBJECTED TO TAHRIF (ALTERATION) IS A KAFIR WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT."

SHABIR AHMAD USMANI, SHAIKH AL-TAFSIR, DAR-UL-ULOOM,
DEOBAND AND JAMIA ISLAMIA DABAEEL, GUJRAT (INDIA).

[IslamCity] Unanimous Fatwa (Verdict) Of Ulama About Kufr (Infidelity) And Irtidad (Apostacy) Of Shias - The Conclusion

www.mail-archive.com

 

[Ssan]

Which "All" sources, bhai?... We have only one source so far, and that too fails to specify any dates or give any details... baqi, I am inclined to believe that you have read the information from various Urdu sources, as you have claimed, but sources that cannot be verified or lack credibility carry no weight or authority.

And I don't know where you got the idea that "both sides" agreed on the existence of such a committee. I haven't come across any "liberal" historian who has mentioned the existence of such a committee. Even many conservative historians do not argue for the existence of the committee in question. This notion of the existence of any such committee during Jinnah's lifetime (implying his approval of OR), if at all, may only be regarded as a popular historical narrative among a limited segment of right-wing scholars.

Your buttressing evidence is actually counterproductive for your argument. Firstly, Zafarullah Khan, despite responding to all objections raised by the opposition, did not challenge the objection regarding the absence of a committee. Secondly, even Mian Iftikharuddin, a staunch socialist, rejected the Pakistan National Congress members' claim that the resolution was theocratic, despite having some reservations about it.




I have sent an inquiry to the author of the article, let's see if he responds. Otherwise, court se to li hi ja sakti case ki attested copy

Edit: Just googled to find a reference to "quote someone from the other side" (as you said),
This is a Fatwa from Deoband Dar-ul-Mubligheen, Lucknow that mentions Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's Takfir Fatwa against Shia:

(7) "ONE WHO PUTS FAITH THAT THE QUR'AN HAS BEENS UBJECTED TO TAHRIF (ALTERATION) IS A KAFIR WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT."

SHABIR AHMAD USMANI, SHAIKH AL-TAFSIR, DAR-UL-ULOOM,
DEOBAND AND JAMIA ISLAMIA DABAEEL, GUJRAT (INDIA).

[IslamCity] Unanimous Fatwa (Verdict) Of Ulama About Kufr (Infidelity) And Irtidad (Apostacy) Of Shias - The Conclusion

www.mail-archive.com

Bro, I’ve already explained this before. The position will be as following that is in the fatwa I posted from the other Usmani.

Believing that the Quran was changed in going to kufr. I am pretty sure I will find Shia scholars who say this too btw.

But we do not declare Shias as kafir because there is only a fringe that hold this belief and for the vast laity, you do uzur bil jahl and interpret things. Even if someone explicitly claims this, you will have to listen to if there is some qualification that they are offering, ie what they mean, etc.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Bro, I’ve already explained this before. The position will be as following that is in the fatwa I posted from the other Usmani.

Believing that the Quran was changed in going to kufr. I am pretty sure I will find Shia scholars who say this too btw.

But we do not declare Shias as kafir because there is only a fringe that hold this belief and for the vast laity, you do uzur bil jahl and interpret things. Even if someone explicitly claims this, you will have to listen to if there is some qualification that they are offering, ie what they mean, etc.

Based on my reading of some of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's Urdu writings, it seems apparent that he espoused a higher degree of tolerance and inclusivity than most of present-day individuals/collectives... Nothing against the man

This is in relation to Usmani's comparison with Jinnah, who refused to classify anyone as a Kafir if they identified themselves as a Muslim. Even though there may have been some merit to Usmani's fatwa, he still committed Takfir... There was a marked contrast in their visions and understanding of Islam

 

[Neelo]

Yet, though Iqbal mentioned the limitations of democracy, he did not despair of this form of government, again based on a keen observation.

In his view:
“Democratic government has attendant difficulties but these are difficulties which human experience elsewhere has shown to be surmountable.”

Thus, the assumption that Iqbal did not believe in democracy rests largely on a verse he wrote in which he said that democracy was:

“that form of government in which persons are counted, not weighed”.

In a democracy, everyone counts for one and no one counts for more than one. This is both the most obvious advantage (in the sense that it prevents monopoly of power and privilege) and disadvantage (in the sense that numerical equality is stressed at the expense of unequal merit) of democracy.

That Iqbal should have pointed out something obvious by no means indicates that he was against democracy.

Iqbal`s view of democracy

THAT Iqbal was a critique of democracy is well known. He saw it practised in the western, imperialist world of his...

www.dawn.com

 

[Ssan]

Based on my reading of some of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's Urdu writings, it seems apparent that he espoused a higher degree of tolerance and inclusivity than most of present-day individuals/collectives... Nothing against the man

This is in relation to Usmani's comparison with Jinnah, who refused to classify anyone as a Kafir if they identified themselves as a Muslim. Even though there may have been some merit to Usmani's fatwa, he still committed Takfir... There was a marked contrast in their visions and understanding of Islam

Okay good, so you concede that Usmani never called Shias as kafirs. Or Jinnah a kafir either. He may have said something limited, which everyone to the best of my knowledge does, that if you think the Quran is changed, you become kafir. The earlier sources you quote have that insinuation explicitly or implicitly.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Okay good, so you concede that Usmani never called Shias as kafirs. Or Jinnah a kafir either. He may have said something limited, which everyone to the best of my knowledge does, that if you think the Quran is changed, you become kafir. The earlier sources you quote have that insinuation explicitly or implicitly.

According to those earlier sources, Usmani added his signature to a Fatwa that had already been endorsed by four or five other clerics, proclaiming all Shia Muslims as non-believers. The Fatwa was reportedly presented as evidence in a court case that sought to determine Jinnah's sectarian identity. Without seeking further evidence to substantiate this claim, we shouldn't accept it as true or valid.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Pakistan literally was created on basis of Islam and our population being Muslim. It wasn’t created because we were “Indus Valley Civilization” and needed a separate homeland. You need to just stfu!

From a different thread, but still relevant to your claim.

 

[AA_]

From a different thread, but still relevant to your claim.

View attachment 926959

Thank you, will read this in a bit.