Historical evidences for engagement of Islamic scholars by the government after Pakistan was founded and while Jinnah was alive

[M. Sarmad]

The story goes as I have said in other threads that Jinnah had set up Usmani to take input from ulema for the task.

In his personal capacity, he may or may not have done so. But there was nothing official about it

 

[Ssan]

The provincial government of Punjab and the Federal government of Pakistan under Jinnah were not one and the same. They were separate entities with their own jurisdictions and responsibilities. Here we are talking about Jinnah and the Central government of Pakistan, which was responsible for drafting the Constitution. The Punjab government had no authority or involvement in this matter.

They were separate entities but Jinnah had purview to interfere in state matters and he did- like when he intervened in Punjab when he wanted to- like in the inheritance bill.

In his personal capacity, he may or may not have done so. But there was nothing official about it

I can go back and see if Ansari or someone else details in his account explicitly whether this was official state business. It certainly seems to have had the blessing of Jinnah. Like I said, Hamidullah’s biography is implicit that it was state business. On the other hand- this is Pakistan/ might just be corruption.

In any case, Jinnahs letter to the Muslim brotherhood is official as official gets.

 

[M. Sarmad]

They were separate entities but Jinnah had purview to interfere in state matters and he did- like when he intervened in Punjab when he wanted to- like in the inheritance bill.

Federal governments have jurisdiction over certain provincial matters. On the other hand, provincial governments typically have limited or no jurisdiction over federal matters, as those fall under the purview of the central or federal government. In Pakistan, Constitution-making and law are (and always have been) federal subjects. The federal government holds the authority to enact and amend the Constitution, as well as establish overarching laws that apply throughout the country (with a few exceptions of concurrent subjects)

I can go back and see if Ansari or someone else details in his account explicitly whether this was official state business. It certainly seems to have had the blessing of Jinnah. Like I said, Hamidullah’s biography is implicit that it was state business. On the other hand- this is Pakistan/ might just be corruption.

In any case, Jinnahs letter to the Muslim brotherhood is official as official gets.

To ascertain whether something qualifies as an official state business, it is advisable to refer to official archives rather than relying solely on secondary sources, which can potentially contain errors, lack accurate information, be influenced by bias, or even include outright falsehoods.

 

[Ssan]

Federal governments have jurisdiction over certain provincial matters. On the other hand, provincial governments typically have limited or no jurisdiction over federal matters, as those fall under the purview of the central or federal government. In Pakistan, Constitution-making and law are (and always have been) federal subjects. The federal government holds the authority to enact and amend the Constitution, as well as establish overarching laws that apply throughout the country (with a few exceptions of concurrent subjects)



To ascertain whether something qualifies as an official state business, it is advisable to refer to official archives rather than relying solely on secondary sources, which can potentially contain errors, lack accurate information, be influenced by bias, or even include outright falsehoods.

Obviously they have different jurisdictions. However, historically, so long as Jinnah was alive, he had almost complete authority. So it might very much be likely as some people say that Asad’s department was set up with his blessing. Certainly, the core ML leadership certainly ended the department almost immediately after Jinnah died.

Obviously, this is true. But as I detailed, the state of our archives is a complete mess. In any case, Jinnah inviting people as “state guests” for certain tasks is official. We luckily do have that in the British archives that did a better job of preserving historical artifacts unlike ours.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So it might very much be likely as some people say that Asad’s department was set up with his blessing. Certainly, the core ML leadership certainly ended the department almost immediately after Jinnah died.

Yes, it's quite possible, as Jinnah, despite not actively practicing Islam himself, drew significant inspiration from Islam and its ideals. Jinnah's entire advocacy for the creation of Pakistan centered around the Islamic ideals of democracy and absolute equality of manhood. He firmly believed that these Islamic ideals were in perfect harmony with modern concepts of statehood and its affairs.

 

[Ssan]

Yes, it's quite possible, as Jinnah, despite not actively practicing Islam himself, drew significant inspiration from Islam and its ideals. Jinnah's entire advocacy for the creation of Pakistan centered around the Islamic ideals of democracy and absolute equality of manhood. He firmly believed that these Islamic ideals were in perfect harmony with modern concepts of statehood and its affairs.

Yes that’s my general thesis too.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Yes that’s my general thesis too.

It seems that our disagreement primarily stems from the approach taken to arrive at this conclusion rather than the conclusion itself. The founding fathers of our nation aspired to establish a modern welfare Islamic State, which, in essence, aligns more closely with the principles of modern secular welfare states rather than a theocratic or traditional concept of an Islamic state advocated by clerics and orthodox Ulema, which has gained prominence in contemporary Pakistan.

 

[Ssan]

It seems that our disagreement primarily stems from the approach taken to arrive at this conclusion rather than the conclusion itself. The founding fathers of our nation aspired to establish a modern welfare Islamic State, which, in essence, aligns more closely with the principles of modern secular welfare states rather than a theocratic or traditional concept of an Islamic state advocated by clerics and orthodox Ulema, which has gained prominence in contemporary Pakistan.

It depends on what you mean by “traditional” and “orthodox”. My expanded thesis which I want to draw out over these threads is that Jinnah did know who he was calling to consult on the constitution.

I mean take a close look at Hamidullah or Nadvi Sahab? Do they fall under the pit of traditional and orthodox?

Well technically, yes and no, they are both modern and yet steeped in tradition.

My expanded thesis is that Jinnah thought that it would be possible to have an Islamic state with the same protection for minority rights as Britain.

On the one hand, it has a state religion and the monarch not only has to belong to the church, (that can excommunicate members), but sits at the head of it. Likewise Pakistan was to have a state religion, where the head, the PM or president was to be Muslim, and some body of scholars was to determine what the boundary of the faith was.

Outside of this though, like in Britain, this was supposed to be a perfectly civil constitutional state like Hamidullah argued- no discrimination other than this. This doesn’t mean that the laws would be against Islam but they would be the same laws for everybody nonetheless. If anything, there could only be positive discrimination against minorities.

I think in Jinnahs mind, Pakistan was supposed to be both modern and traditional like Britain is. But all of this ofc was perfectly in line with Islam.

Anyways, let’s keep this thread to just discussing the historical facts or events. Maybe we can open another thread in the main thread to discuss expanded theses or something.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I mean take a close look at Hamidullah or Nadvi Sahab? Do they fall under the pit of traditional and orthodox?

In this context, Nadvi is not relevant as he was never invited by the Pakistani government during Jinnah's lifetime, and he arrived 2 years after Jinnah's passing.

Likewise Pakistan was to have a state religion, where the head, the PM or president was to be Muslim, and some body of scholars was to determine what the boundary of the faith was.

Jinnah's speeches, addresses, and correspondence do not contain any indications whatsoever to support such a notion. On the contrary, we have sources that establish Jinnah's strong opposition to the state interfering in matters of religious belief. He famously stated, "Who am I to declare a person Non-Muslim who calls himself a Muslim," when questioned by the press about Qadiyanis joining the Muslim League in Sri Nagar in 1944. He also publicly affirmed Sir Zafrullah Khan as a Muslim, despite opposition from many Muslims who considered him non-Muslim due to his Qadiyani beliefs.

 

[Ssan]

In this context, Nadvi is not relevant as he was never invited by the Pakistani government during Jinnah's lifetime, and he arrived 2 years after Jinnah's passing.


Jinnah's speeches, addresses, and correspondence do not contain any indications whatsoever to support such a notion. On the contrary, we have sources that establish Jinnah's strong opposition to the state interfering in matters of religious belief. He famously stated, "Who am I to declare a person Non-Muslim who calls himself a Muslim," when questioned by the press about Qadiyanis joining the Muslim League in Sri Nagar in 1944. He also publicly affirmed Sir Zafrullah Khan as a Muslim, despite opposition from many Muslims who considered him non-Muslim due to his Qadiyani beliefs.

Let’s not get into that here on this thread. We should discuss this in another thread attached to the master thread. Maybe something like what did Jinnah say in his speeches.

 

[S.Y.A]

On the contrary, we have sources that establish Jinnah's strong opposition to the state interfering in matters of religious belief. He famously stated, "Who am I to declare a person Non-Muslim who calls himself a Muslim," when questioned by the press about Qadiyanis joining the Muslim League in Sri Nagar in 1944.

irrelevant, he is neither a Messenger of Allah nor an Aalim. what he did or didnt want in this matter carries no weight. he wasnt knowledgeable about Islam, and as such his opinion is irrelevant. a Muslim is Muslim in all matters of life. whether its politics, statecraft, government or individual roles. this isnt christianity or a set of cultural practices like hinduism. there is no secularism for a muslim, there is no secular muslim, its an oxymoron. any muslim who believes in it, denies that the Word of Allah as sent down by Him should be implemented in its entirety.

 

[TNT]

It depends on the type of ulema.

But before we can even start going there, we actually need to ascertain and make up our minds of the historical facts surrounding whether they were called.

Only after we prove that this happened, can we prove that, in fact, these ulema were actually fairly modernist types who had a different conception of an Islamic republic that was more inclusive and tolerant of minorities. Which was Jinnahs vision after all.



Also some of them probably did

Who were/are these ulema? Mainly from deoband and brelvi, both live in stone age evwn today,so howcome they were modernist? Each one have written books about how the other is a kafir. In subcontinent, the british used religion to divide and rule, especially after 1857 uprising. They got scared and thus helped create dwoband and then barelvi and aince that day, there have never been unity in muslims of subcontinent. Deoband still works for the international establishment through their proxy of Pakistan army. See the havoc they caused in Afghanistan.

 

[M. Sarmad]

... there is no secularism for a muslim, there is no secular muslim, its an oxymoron. any muslim who believes in it, denies that the Word of Allah as sent down by Him should be implemented in its entirety.

You certainly have the right to hold your opinions, but in this discussion, we are focusing on the vision of the founding fathers of our nation, who had a distinct understanding of Islam that significantly differs from yours. For instance, Allama Iqbal categorically stated about the separation of state and church (i.e. secularism) that "Islam, no doubt, does permit such a view"

Unfortunately, in overly religious societies like ours, secularism is viewed as an attack on the dominant religion i.e. Islam, leading to misunderstandings and resistance to the idea of secularism.

Interestingly, the notion of the separation of State and Church, commonly referred to as secularism, was brought to Western Europe from Islamic philosophy. However, contemporary orthodox Muslims often reject the concept of secularism as a Western ideology incompatible with Islam. One of the most influential Islamic philosophers who played a significant role in shaping the evolution of secularism in Western Europe was Ibn Rushd, an Arab-Spanish polymath and philosopher. Dante's Divine Comedy, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and Rafael's fresco of the School of Athens all immortalize his contributions to Western thought. In the West, Ibn Rushd is celebrated as the founding father of secularism.

It is my belief that the fundamental problem stems from a lack of understanding of the all-encompassing nature of Islam.

 

[Ssan]

You certainly have the right to hold your opinions, but in this discussion, we are focusing on the vision of the founding fathers of our nation, who had a distinct understanding of Islam that significantly differs from yours. For instance, Allama Iqbal categorically stated about the separation of state and church (i.e. secularism) that "Islam, no doubt, does permit such a view"

Unfortunately, in overly religious societies like ours, secularism is viewed as an attack on the dominant religion i.e. Islam, leading to misunderstandings and resistance to the idea of secularism.

Interestingly, the notion of the separation of State and Church, commonly referred to as secularism, was brought to Western Europe from Islamic philosophy. However, contemporary orthodox Muslims often reject the concept of secularism as a Western ideology incompatible with Islam. One of the most influential Islamic philosophers who played a significant role in shaping the evolution of secularism in Western Europe was Ibn Rushd, an Arab-Spanish polymath and philosopher. Dante's Divine Comedy, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and Rafael's fresco of the School of Athens all immortalize his contributions to Western thought. In the West, Ibn Rushd is celebrated as the founding father of secularism.

It is my belief that the fundamental problem stems from a lack of understanding of the all-encompassing nature of Islam.

irrelevant, he is neither a Messenger of Allah nor an Aalim. what he did or didnt want in this matter carries no weight. he wasnt knowledgeable about Islam, and as such his opinion is irrelevant. a Muslim is Muslim in all matters of life. whether its politics, statecraft, government or individual roles. this isnt christianity or a set of cultural practices like hinduism. there is no secularism for a muslim, there is no secular muslim, its an oxymoron. any muslim who believes in it, denies that the Word of Allah as sent down by Him should be implemented in its entirety.

Hey my guys, let’s open up a seperate thread from the master thread to discuss Iqbal speeches or views and Jinnahs speeches or views.

Who were/are these ulema? Mainly from deoband and brelvi, both live in stone age evwn today,so howcome they were modernist? Each one have written books about how the other is a kafir. In subcontinent, the british used religion to divide and rule, especially after 1857 uprising. They got scared and thus helped create dwoband and then barelvi and aince that day, there have never been unity in muslims of subcontinent. Deoband still works for the international establishment through their proxy of Pakistan army. See the havoc they caused in Afghanistan.

Let’s open up a seperate thread to pull at this point connected to the main thread.

 

[Ssan]

I can go back and see if Ansari or someone else details in his account explicitly whether this was official state business. It certainly seems to have had the blessing of Jinnah. Like I said, Hamidullah’s biography is implicit that it was state business. On the other hand- this is Pakistan/ might just be corruption.

So the post-Morten biography I linked for Hamidullah in the first few posts explicitly says that he was invited to work for the govt of Pakistan in 1948. The source apparently is Zafar Ahmad Ansari’s son zafar Ishaq Ansari in a post-Morten biographical piece written in a magazine in 2003 that I can’t access. So if nothing else, it seems like an indirect claim from the original Ansari and a direct claim from his son.