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

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

History = Is an account of historic events, not fictional stuff

History = Account of events on given period of time with least amount of bias , if possible

 

[Ssan]

You're wasting your time with him. Guy cannot provide a shred of evidence.

Basically what I meant by the Zia generation unable to be independent thinkers.

He literally posted a fake quote of Jinnah and when I asked him to provide a source of that quote from Jinnah's Archive he ignored it.

This is the level of intelligence of the average Islamic extremist in Pakistan.

On the contrary, it is you who cannot provide a shred of evidence that Jinnah believed in the sort of secularism you want that would preclude an Islamic republic

 

[SecularNationalist]

A Muslim majority country is not equivalent to an Islamic country. Jinnah and the Muslim League opposed theocracy.

Unfortunately, this is what 99% of Pakistanis fail to understand.

 

[Neelo]

Unfortunately, this is what 99% of Pakistanis fail to understand.

You'd think praying 5 times a day they'd figure it out. But I guess not.

This is why moderation of everything is good.

Eat just enough
Make just enough money
Follow faith but live life

But this is a nation that thinks اللہ is written in naan.

On the contrary, it is you who cannot provide a shred of evidence that Jinnah believed in the sort of secularism you want that would preclude an Islamic republic

I just gave you two quotes. Both of which are sourced to Jinnah's archive.

The Jinnah Society | Home

jinnahsociety.org.pk

Shall I provide you the exact page number?

 

[Neelo]

 

[Neelo]

Funny how the Islamic extremists Zia d**k riders disappeared.

 

[Neelo]

Pakistan was established for the religious freedom and economic uplift for the Muslims of this region.
Not to become a theocratic state like Iran or Afghanistan.
In fact,Jinnah dreamed Pakistan as a state that can ensure social and economic freedom of its people regardless of their caste, ethnicity and even religion.
Generals and Mullahs just hijacked the whole purpose of Pakistan for their own short term gains.

Only mistake Muslim League ( or let's say Quaid e Azm) did is that they could not formulate a documented system of what they want to be implemented in Pakistan.

And the result is that even after 75 years,we don't know who actually rules Pakistan( it's judiciary it's Jernails or it's Politicians? our government system has become a khichri. every lalu panju can hijack the whole system any time any day)

Indus Valley civilization is a part of our history and there is no shame in teaching it to our kids

Well said!

 

[Neelo]

Classic example of hijacking the narrative and running with it...

So, let's step back

Crucial to identity are people's Faith, ethnicity and language among others...
It is an amalgamation of the above that propelled movements for Freedom, Khilafat movement, thoughts of Rehmat Ali and Iqbal... translated into what then became Pakistan. Of course the realm of possibility under a British umbrella short of military conflict was only what was acceptable to parting Brits.

Let's leave it here...
The concept of Islamic state is NEVER a theocracy!
It is not an equivalent to Papal State.
Islam has no ministry nor ordained clergy... No Clerical State!
The Iranian and Afghan responses are identical and representative of their discourse, bouts with secularism shoved down their throats... be it the tyranny of a Monarch or communism. Simultaneously, Pakistan's example and a resultant ethno-linguitic State of B-desh.

Islamic response is instead, Fitrah, or innate nature of creation. They do not have to divide or split their loyalties, to affiliate with overlapping, conflicting or fleeting ideologies. They remain united behind their people, their clan and speak their language. Lives are not endlessly legislated
يسر ولا تعسر
Is the concept of this governance.
Fitrah is kept and only that of The Creator, his law codified!

It therefore takes away the secular paradigm of a spectrum, making everything subjective and trivial. It takes away the reason to divide people on race, creed, color, origin, economic or social backgrounds, in fact tyranny of all kinds.

It will be an endless discussion and I think I have posited enough as a food for thought for the reader.

Why is it that every defender of an Islamic religious state lives in the secular west.

It’s just astounding.

 

[Ssan]

You'd think praying 5 times a day they'd figure it out. But I guess not.

This is why moderation of everything is good.

Eat just enough
Make just enough money
Follow faith but live life

But this is a nation that thinks اللہ is written in naan.



I just gave you two quotes. Both of which are sourced to Jinnah's archive.

The Jinnah Society | Home

jinnahsociety.org.pk

Shall I provide you the exact page number?

I already gave the context of the said quotes.

They do not preclude us being an Islamic republic. See my earlier post

This is simply wrong.

First of all, the quote that this comes from has a context. It was a speech primarily addressed to the minorities in Pakistan who had suffered from violence and bloodshed post partition. He was telling them that the formation of the two states had to happen and there was no way around it.

Second, what Jinnah actually said in his August address was that he wanted Pakistan to become a civil state like the Great Britain. We can call it secularism of an American kind. This much is probably true.

But here’s the rub. The UK has a state religion. The queen reagent there is the head of the religious church there. The “secularism” of Great Britain particularly in the 1940s that Jinnah is referring to in his August address is actually a fairly conservative society with a state religion and frankly with the monarch heading the church of said state religion. Unlike today, in 1940s, UK had no laws or rules engendering secularism (today one could argue UK atleast signs EU chapter).

The secularism it had (and even now) was essentially one that had the following:- 1) freedom of religion for all, 2) protection of minorities, 3) some degree of institutional separation (parliament that comes up with laws). It had a state religion then as it does now. The queen then headed the Church of England then as it does now. And it was a conservative society where laws were indeed made based on religion.

So when push came to shove and we had to write our objectives resolution, Jinnah, himself, selected religious figures to sit and advise on the drafting of the objectives resolution. That fundamentally enshrined the three principles above I have listed in the objectives resolution. Which was passed by the assembly with over 3/4ths majority. But also as Islam as state religion and our state as an Islamic republic.

So, we need to realize one of two things:-

1) we were never meant to be the sort of secular state that the secular liberals want at this moment. Reading that into Jinnah is an anachronism that frankly is silly. Given all the other history around the Pakistan movement. See for example constituting a panel of religious ulema under Syed Sulaymaniyah Nadvi after Lahore resolution to determine what is needed to be an Islamic state.

2) that the secularism that Jinnah wanted was compatible with the idea of having an Islamic republic in the first place. This might confuse a lot of you but it happens to be the case and is grounded in history and reality. One might argue that American secularism was actually conceived of in the Abbasid empire post mihna of ibn Hanbal.

Here

 

[Meengla]

We have a generation of Zia's babies. The one's living in the west have lost their Pakistani identity and ended up being culturally conquered by Arab culture and have this hyper Islamic identity which doesn't resonate with Pakistani or their host countrys culture. Some think they arrived with Bin Qasim's armada. They regard this as high culture apparently. Basically tryhards, its not congruent in anyway. Neither here nor there. Its a failed experiment just like Zia's attempt at integrating Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

This is going to be a long process to correct our course but it will happen eventually. It certainly begins with what we teach our kids in school.

Correct: Zia's Babies.
Unless you lived in Pakistan in the 1970s and 1980s AND were old enough to know the culture around you, you wouldn't be able to tell how much Pakistan changed in a mere decade of Zia's rule!
The ruling class of Pakistan--even Zia's proteges--are only now beginning to openly acknowledge the mistakes of the 'Afghan Jihad' of the 1980s. But curiously Imran Khan, while criticizing the WOT, had been (or still??) almost silent about the 1980s help to the Americans; a help which essentially destroyed the social-fabric of Pakistan with lasting effects. Opportunistic and hypocritical!!

 

[Ssan]

If your point is that Pakistan is not meant to be a theocracy, no one has said that. But Pakistan was always supposed to a democratic state that enshrined the principles of Islam. Ie an Islamic republic.

Not merely a democratic republic for Muslims notice, ie a Muslim state.

Jinnah is explicit about this. You posted something above with the relevant quote yourself.

 

[Meengla]

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.

I hate Zia but I have never ever questioned his patriotism or his financial integrity.
There ARE similarities between the Zia and Musharraf rules. American aid played a part in the relative prosperity enjoyed in their respective decades long rules. But, unlike Zia, Musharraf was never about indoctrination. In fact, he, unlike Zia, is credited by even his critics in the media to have given freedoms which eventually contributed to Musharraf's own downfall. But the basic requirement for a country to progress is internal peace and stability: That was present during the rules of the two dictators. It is a different matter that Zia's absolute stupidity of allowing armed Afghan refugees to roam freely in Pakistan destroyed Pakistan, on top of Zia's social policies.

Islam was NEVER under threat in Pakistan. Those accusing Zia's critics of being some 'libtards' have it wrong!! Very wrong.

 

[Ssan]

View attachment 925715

View attachment 925716

Here. Islamic principles enshrined in republic that is to be Pakistan.

 

[hussain0216]

If your point is that Pakistan is not meant to be a theocracy, no one has said that. But Pakistan was always supposed to a democratic state that enshrined the principles of Islam. Ie an Islamic republic.

Not merely a democratic republic for Muslims notice, ie a Muslim state.

Jinnah is explicit about this. You posted something above with the relevant quote yourself.

Yes


And fundamentally, the Muslims of South Asia needed a hook

And the random secular state that these guys here are simping for had no way of uniting so many different Muslims


India is a hindutva extremist state, but the one united secular state for all is what they pushed India as


Jinnah's whole message was the one untied secular state was bullshit and you will suffer because he being an astute man could see the writing on the wall


Islam was ALWAYS CENTRAL TO PAKISTAN AND ITS CREATION, ITS PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

they want to reimagine Pakistan as some sort of liberal secular state, BUT that is not the Pakistan that was sold to us nor the Pakistan the majority of Pakistani want

 

[El Sidd]

I hate Zia but I have never ever questioned his patriotism or his financial integrity.
There ARE similarities between the Zia and Musharraf rules. American aid played a part in the relative prosperity enjoyed in their respective decades long rules. But, unlike Zia, Musharraf was never about indoctrination. In fact, he, unlike Zia, is credited by even his critics in the media to have given freedoms which eventually contributed to Musharraf's own downfall. But the basic requirement for a country to progress is internal peace and stability: That was present during the rules of the two dictators. It is a different matter that Zia's absolute stupidity of allowing armed Afghan refugees to roam freely in Pakistan destroyed Pakistan, on top of Zia's social policies.

Islam was NEVER under threat in Pakistan. Those accusing Zia's critics of being some 'libtards' have it wrong!! Very wrong.

Hippies of 60s and 70s are caught under a false disguise. Had Pakistan not extended her security apparatus to Afghanistan, you would be entertaining a conflict sandwiched between soviet sphere of influence. The very identity of the people were under threat not just their Islamic ways.

Why don't you take a short trip to Central Stan countries and see what's left of them. Corruption and utter devastation of culture.

Musharraf acted along the similar lines by waging a war which threatened the very identity of the people in a different manner.

All subsequent and in between only worked to keep a cold blanket on regional fires. The imposed clash of civilisations by India is just another manifestation of eternal conflicts of man.