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

[Chute]

Or are you trying to suggest that the proposition of a Muslim state necessarily entails a disconnect from democratic principles?

Secularism is different to democracy.

Islamic principles, preferences, identity what have you can be embodied in the framework of the republic...just like secular principles can be. There are even different degrees of how this can be done w.r.t what is taken/interpreted verbatim strictly and what is inspired by it in more nuanced way.

Or even a multi-religion (and non-secular non atheist) principle format like say Indonesia elected for (though I would argue in a compromised non-ideal way that has borne out to some degree there as well).

How effectively and genuinely a democracy will then run under it depends on the details of that....and one's perspective and definition of these matters. If it can be inclusive to the largest degree with reality of the country, it will be robust generally speaking.

As to how secular principles were influenced by religious moralistic principles that preceded them... yet sought to "get to meat of the matter" more directly for the practical legal scaffolding in diverse human reality (and identity formation/evolution) and to have as less conflation/trouble potential that it saw with the larger bodies of religion and theology in general regarding this... that is a longer topic to get into.

But it can very much be constructed, there is no reductive complete disconnect when there are large bounds that intersect to begin with and need conscious capacity in choosing for say a nationstate's constitution. Depends on the details.

 

[M. Sarmad]

lol, you are free to deny the authenticity of Jinnahs letter in the British archives. Jinnah always wrote letters in English. They are probably talking about translating the back and forth of hassan Al Bannas letters

That's exactly what I'm trying to convey. If Jinnah commonly wrote letters in English, it seems puzzling that the purported letter would need to be translated into English, as stated in the source you provided.

YLH has clarified:

The letter that Jinnah wrote – in response to Banna’s letter- is in the Jinnah Papers. It merely says that Jinnah could not associate himself with an organisation Banna had set up in Egypt to help Pakistan. Contrary to the claims of the “Jinnah was not in the secular camp”, it was a flat out refusal by Jinnah to seek Banna’s help.

@Joe Shearer knows more about YLH and his writings. Maybe he can clear up the confusion

 

[Ssan]

That's exactly what I'm trying to convey. If Jinnah commonly wrote letters in English, it seems puzzling that the purported letter would need to be translated into English, as stated in the source you provided.

YLH has clarified:

The letter that Jinnah wrote – in response to Banna’s letter- is in the Jinnah Papers. It merely says that Jinnah could not associate himself with an organisation Banna had set up in Egypt to help Pakistan. Contrary to the claims of the “Jinnah was not in the secular camp”, it was a flat out refusal by Jinnah to seek Banna’s help.

@Joe Shearer knows more about YLH and his writings. Maybe he can clear up the confusion

Mr Yasir Latif Hamdani says

“Then the “Jinnah was not secular” camp speaks of Jinnah’s correspondence with Hassan Al Banna. The letter that Jinnah wrote – in response to Banna’s letter- is in the Jinnah Papers. It merely says that Jinnah could not associate himself with an organisation Banna had set up in Egypt to help Pakistan. Contrary to the claims of the “Jinnah was not in the secular camp”, it was a flat out refusal by Jinnah to seek Banna’s help. ”

But frankly, this is downright gaslighting. Because the letter clearly does much more than that. 1) it expresses Jinnahs desire to setup a state with Islamic principle , 2) it asks for an international scholar to come and participate in setting up a govt based on Islam as a state guest.

Finally, I did look for this letter in the Jinnah papers. I might be proven wrong here and would love to be on this point but it was not in the Jinnah papers.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Finally, I did look for this paper in the Jinnah papers. I might be proven wrong here and would love to be on this point but it was not in the Jinnah papers.

This is from Jinnah Papers
:

As per YLH, this is the only letter Jinnah wrote to Al-Banna that is documented in Jinnah papers, he says Jinnah Papers has no reference to the letter Dr. Ayesha (the one you mentioned in OP) claims to have dug out.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Btw, I was going over his wiki - he seems to be a genuinely good guy.

You may not know this but I was particularly intrigued by the following paragraph:-

“ Unlike the present day Islamists, Prophet Muhammad, when he established the first Islamic state in Medina – actually a Jewish-Muslim federation extended to religious minorities the rights that are guaranteed to them in the Quran. Prophet Muhammad's Medina was based on the covenant of Medina, a real and actual social contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others that treated them as equal citizens of Medina. They enjoyed the freedom to choose the legal system they wished to live under. Jews could live under Islamic law, or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions. There was no compulsion in religion even though Medina was an Islamic state. The difference between Medina and today's Islamic states is profound. The state of Medina was based on a real social contract that applied divine law but only in consultation and with consent of all citizens regardless of their faith. But contemporary Islamic states apply Islamic law without consent or consultation and often through coercion. It is a sad commentary on contemporary Islamists that while democracy is a challenge to contemporary Islamic states, it was constitutive to the first Islamic state in Medina established by the Prophet of Islam.”

This exact idea is actually first stated by Dr Hamidullah- who is one of the individuals referenced in the first posts. In fact, it reads as something Hamidullah would have written exactly!

Why do you think I was immediately hooked by your conversation?

Mr Yasir Latif Hamdani says

“Then the “Jinnah was not secular” camp speaks of Jinnah’s correspondence with Hassan Al Banna. The letter that Jinnah wrote – in response to Banna’s letter- is in the Jinnah Papers. It merely says that Jinnah could not associate himself with an organisation Banna had set up in Egypt to help Pakistan. Contrary to the claims of the “Jinnah was not in the secular camp”, it was a flat out refusal by Jinnah to seek Banna’s help. ”

But frankly, this is downright gaslighting. Because the letter clearly does much more than that. 1) it expresses Jinnahs desire to setup a state with Islamic principle , 2) it asks for an international scholar to come and participate in setting up a govt based on Islam as a state guest.

Finally, I did look for this letter in the Jinnah papers. I might be proven wrong here and would love to be on this point but it was not in the Jinnah papers.

Perhaps you and Sarmad Sahib might consider letting @SoulSpokesman introduce you to YLH? You might have a fascinating 3-way conversation. He is quite generous with his time, when his health permits. Remember he lives in Pakistan (even now, I think) and will observe Pakistani hours.

I am SO interested in the tone of this conversation.

If only one could have a similar conversation about India. Sadly, the only person who might contribute to such is, of all things, a Bangladeshi!

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is from Jinnah Papers
:

View attachment 932658

As per YLH, this is the only letter Jinnah wrote to Al-Banna that is documented in Jinnah papers, he says Jinnah Papers has no reference to the letter Dr. Ayesha (the one you mentioned in OP) claims to have dug out.

@Ssan @Joe Shearer


I have gone through Volumes 6 and 7 of Jinnah Papers, it is evident that YLH's assertions are correct. The only letter written by Jinnah to Hassan El Banna, dated November 29, 1947, is mentioned in Volume 6 as a response to Banna's letter from November 14 of the same year.

Dr. Ayesha has made a claim that Jinnah wrote a letter to El Banna in January 1948. However, upon reviewing Volume 7, which covers that period, there is no mention of such a letter. Dr. Ayesha also alleges that Jinnah requested El Banna to send Saleh El-Ashmawy, a prominent Egyptian journalist, to Pakistan for consultation on establishing an Islamic government and promoting the idea of the Islamic league. Although Jinnah's letter from November 29 refers to an interview with El-Ashmawy, there is no indication that Jinnah invited him. This observation suggests that Dr. Ayesha is referring to the same letter but may be mixing up details.

Interestingly, in the letter written by El Banna to Jinnah on November 14, El Banna introduces Saleh Ashmawi in these words:

" I am glad to introduce to Your Excellency our brother Sayid Saleh Ashmawi, sub-leader of the Ikhwan and the Chief Editor of our daily newspaper. He conveys the cordial compliments and best wishes of the Ikhwan in the Nile Valley, Eastern Arab countries and abroad.. "

This shows that Jinnah did not extend an invitation to El-Ashmawy; rather, El Banna sent his best man after introducing him. Consequently, Dr. Ayesha's assertion that "El-Ashmawy was invited to provide consultation on establishing an Islamic government and advancing the idea of the Islamic league" seems unfounded.


So, without access to the original letter, (assuming that there was a second one too), whose authenticity is established beyond doubt, Dr. Ayesha's claims lack sufficient evidence and remain unsubstantiated. As Ssan sahib is the one asserting the existence of such a letter, it is now his responsibility to provide evidence to prove its authenticity and existence.

(Needless to say, even the alleged content of the supposed letter does not mention the imaginary committee whose existence is being debated here)

 

[Ssan]

This is from Jinnah Papers
:

View attachment 932658

As per YLH, this is the only letter Jinnah wrote to Al-Banna that is documented in Jinnah papers, he says Jinnah Papers has no reference to the letter Dr. Ayesha (the one you mentioned in OP) claims to have dug out.

So you are reiterating exactly what I said. The letter I quote is not in the Jinnah papers but it is in the British archives.

@Ssan @Joe Shearer


I have gone through Volumes 6 and 7 of Jinnah Papers, it is evident that YLH's assertions are correct. The only letter written by Jinnah to Hassan El Banna, dated November 29, 1947, is mentioned in Volume 6 as a response to Banna's letter from November 14 of the same year.

Dr. Ayesha has made a claim that Jinnah wrote a letter to El Banna in January 1948. However, upon reviewing Volume 7, which covers that period, there is no mention of such a letter. Dr. Ayesha also alleges that Jinnah requested El Banna to send Saleh El-Ashmawy, a prominent Egyptian journalist, to Pakistan for consultation on establishing an Islamic government and promoting the idea of the Islamic league. Although Jinnah's letter from November 29 refers to an interview with El-Ashmawy, there is no indication that Jinnah invited him. This observation suggests that Dr. Ayesha is referring to the same letter but may be mixing up details.

Interestingly, in the letter written by El Banna to Jinnah on November 14, El Banna introduces Saleh Ashmawi in these words:

" I am glad to introduce to Your Excellency our brother Sayid Saleh Ashmawi, sub-leader of the Ikhwan and the Chief Editor of our daily newspaper. He conveys the cordial compliments and best wishes of the Ikhwan in the Nile Valley, Eastern Arab countries and abroad.. "

This shows that Jinnah did not extend an invitation to El-Ashmawy; rather, El Banna sent his best man after introducing him. Consequently, Dr. Ayesha's assertion that "El-Ashmawy was invited to provide consultation on establishing an Islamic government and advancing the idea of the Islamic league" seems unfounded.

Thank you for confirming that the letter in the British archives is not in the Jinnah papers which is a point against what YLH wrote.

Again only proves the point that Jinnah papers are not complete. Which was never a claim made by them anyways.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So you are reiterating exactly what I said. The letter I quote is not in the Jinnah papers but it is in the British archives.



Thank you for confirming that the letter in the British archives is not in the Jinnah papers which is a point against what YLH wrote.

Again only proves the point that Jinnah papers are not complete. Which was never a claim made by them anyways.

Without access to the original letter, (assuming that there was a second one too), whose authenticity is established beyond doubt, Dr. Ayesha's claims lack sufficient evidence and remain unsubstantiated. As Ssan sahib is the one asserting the existence of such a letter, it is now his responsibility to provide evidence to prove its authenticity and existence.

(Needless to say, even the alleged content of the supposed letter does not mention the imaginary committee whose existence is being debated here)

 

[S.Y.A]

!

As a fortunate outsider, it is instructive to see that all the primary ideological figures of the foundation of Pakistan are casually dismissed with a wave of the hands, and what never was explicit at the time is brought to the forefront as an example of what could have been done, therefore, had been done.

Tendulkar the cricketer could have scored a triple century. It could have been done.

That in no way means that it was done. Or should have been done. It amounts to pure alternative history.

all the primary ideological figures included the founders of jui. without their support ML had no standing either in bengal, up or nwfp. it had lost previously and would have lost again if the Ulema had kept on siding with congress. you are right, the true ideological figures like Ashraf Thanwi, Mufti Shafi, Shabbir Usmani, Zafar Usmani and yusuf binnori really are dismissed, but not with a casual wave of hands, but through an intentional effort by govts and so called liberal secular brigade. so much so that people actually refuse to acknowledge their part, officially or unofficially. their first hand accounts are dismissed by a random poster on a forum, like m. sarmad, who himself is a nobody.

also, as for the Quaid and Iqbal, they arent being dismissed, they were the leaders, no one is doing that. their ideas regarding Islam's implementation are being dismissed. since neither of them was a scholar of Islam and neither of them is qualified to comment on this matter. neither are you or sarmad.

besides, since you arent a muslim, i dont expect you to understand.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions but your view on Iqbal and Jinnah's understanding of Islam being incorrect is just your personal view that many would disagree with.

...and again, the many who are disagreeing are mostly inspired by western ideologies and like to view Islam through the lens of those ideologies. their opinion is simply wrong. they dont want to interpret or implement modern systems in light of Islam, they want to make Islam compatible with western ideas. incorrect approach.

 

[S.Y.A]

So, you disregard the Supreme Court of Pakistan and its Chief Justice as clowns, yet you insist on treating the words of B-grade Mullahs, who have a reputation for being dishonest and hypocritical, as unquestionable truth. And then you expect a serious and scholarly discussion !!?

lol. the current state of courts is enough to show their credibility. the same people who OK'd doctrine of necessity. west brainwashed and mental slaves are better than Scholars who have dedicated their lives to learning and teaching and Deen. What a joke! those B-grade mullahs are the reason that ML received votes after suffering defeat earlier on. it is their activism and following that convinced people to support Pakistan in the first place. your comments just show your jahalat and nothing more. an arts, history, social sciences prof will be considered credible, justice muneer is considered credible, but towering personalities are considered B-grade. come out of this mental slavery of the west. you do not have any thought of your own other than parroting western values. what a shame.

 

[Joe Shearer]

besides, since you arent a muslim, i dont expect you to understand.

Noted.

Since the state owed its very existence to the almost single-handed effort of Jinnah, dismissing him (and Iqbal, whether casually or otherwise) does not seem logical.

None of the Islamic scholars had anything to do with the political struggle that led to the concession by the British of the Dominion of Pakistan; where did their role suddenly appear? Their role in the sudden change of attitude in the Punjab has been quoted (the view that their role was essential in garnering support for the ML in Bengal is absolute rubbish), and apparently they were responsible for the gains of the ML in UP as well, to what purpose is not clear.

It seems that the political leaders had their role to play in achieving a political conclusion, and thereafter, their role was to sit by while scholars determined the constitution of the new country, if I have understood you correctly. Iqbal was dead by then, and in any case, he had suggested no very concrete plans for a new land of Pakistan; Jinnah was alive for a little over a year, for a year and 27 days, to be precise, so is it that within that period, he was informed of his displacement and of the over-riding role of the scholars?

It appears that contrary to all practice of historical research, the self-appraisal and self-proclamation of the scholars in question is to be taken into account and nothing else;

that their tenuous links to the conceptualisation process that is never at the request of the constituted government that was already in place and already effectively moving to form laws and procedures and the governance principles of the new country are to be replaced by their personal accounts,

that these links that are barely possibly due to an invitation by a provincial government that is no way entitled to commission such an act of police determination on behalf of the entire nation is also to be ignored,

all seems contrary to logic.

What being a Muslim or not being a Muslim has to do with this process of reconstructing the earliest constitution making activities of the country is not clear, unless it is the assumption that certain facts will become apparent to the Muslim in a moment of transcendental clarity that is excluded for those who are not Muslims.

You need to understand the scepticism that this evokes, as it is the exact mirror image of the distorted history claimed by the Hindutva brigade in India, who claim similarly that using conventional methods of historical research are misleading and that the clear understanding of the Hindu theologian is necessary for the proper understanding and recording of history.

It appears that your position is identical to that of the most fanatic Hindutvavadi, only with the labels interchanged.

 

[S.Y.A]

None of the Islamic scholars had anything to do with the political struggle that led to the concession by the British of the Dominion of Pakistan; where did their role suddenly appear? Their role in the sudden change of attitude in the Punjab has been quoted (the view that their role was essential in garnering support for the ML in Bengal is absolute rubbish), and apparently they were responsible for the gains of the ML in UP as well, to what purpose is not clear.

that is your BS right there. and that is what dismissal means. their political role did not suddenly appear. their role was there since ashraf thanwi's time. your claims are nothing short of rubbish. the only issue is that the liberal secular elite that has overtaken pakistan, and incidentally has been in power since its establishment (including justice muneer, a corrupt to the core judge, who is suddenly now being claimed as credible) refuses to acknowledge the role of Ulema in the movement. this is what dismissal is.

The quaid himself acknowledged the role by having the two usmanis hoist the flag of pakistan in both dhaka and karachi.

if there was no vote for ML, if ML hadnt been able to win over constituencies, would the british have considered something worthy of note? it is your rant that is illogical.

fianlly, being a non-muslim you will not understand the teachings of Islam regarding statehood. your own religion, which most probably you have given up, is incomplete in this regard.

It appears that contrary to all practice of historical research, the self-appraisal and self-proclamation of the scholars in question is to be taken into account and nothing else;

really? the practice of historical research means including all accounts, whether self-proclamatory or not. people consider chagla's account to be definitive on the Quaid, a man who fought with him, left him and opposed him. but not those who consider him their leader, campaigned for him, issued fatwas in his favor, and still oppose those who opposed him. you are nothing short of a joker.

It seems that the political leaders had their role to play in achieving a political conclusion, and thereafter, their role was to sit by while scholars determined the constitution of the new country, if I have understood you correctly.

the political leaders of ML had failed to garner support for pakistan. dont you yourself read history? ML had been washed out by congress and its allies.

and no, their role was not to sit by. their role, once a muslim majority country has come into being, is to rule it according to Islamic injunctions. again, since you are a non muslim, with no knowledge of islam, its beliefs, practices and teachings, you cannot be expected to understand the simple concept that a secular muslim is an oxymoron.

 

[El Sidd]

lol. the current state of courts is enough to show their credibility. the same people who OK'd doctrine of necessity. west brainwashed and mental slaves are better than Scholars who have dedicated their lives to learning and teaching and Deen. What a joke! those B-grade mullahs are the reason that ML received votes after suffering defeat earlier on. it is their activism and following that convinced people to support Pakistan in the first place. your comments just show your jahalat and nothing more. an arts, history, social sciences prof will be considered credible, justice muneer is considered credible, but towering personalities are considered B-grade. come out of this mental slavery of the west. you do not have any thought of your own other than parroting western values. what a shame.

It's a fashionable lifestyle to promote alternative to very modern history and sometimes sinister.

The emergence of Pakistan movement crowned the struggles of the past 2-3 hundred years to formulate and mature the concept of nationhood for Muslims in the subcontinent. From Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to Johar, from the poet buried in Rangoon to Iqbal, everyone played their critical role in solidifying the concept of a separate nations compared to many other nations that inhabit the subcontinent.

 

[S.Y.A]

The emergence of Pakistan movement crowned the struggles of the past 2-3 hundred years to formulate and mature the concept of nationhood for Muslims in the subcontinent. From Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to Johar, from the poet buried in Rangoon to Iqbal, everyone played their critical role in solidifying the concept of a separate nations compared to many other nations that inhabit the subcontinent.

yes, they did, no one is denying that. i am simply pointing out that a certain group is hell bent on stamping out all proof of involvement of ulema in creation of pakistan, and has never acknowledged the involvement.

 

[Joe Shearer]

that is your BS right there. and that is what dismissal means. their political role did not suddenly appear. their role was there since ashraf thanwi's time. your claims are nothing short of rubbish. the only issue is that the liberal secular elite that has overtaken pakistan, and incidentally has been in power since its establishment (including justice muneer, a corrupt to the core judge, who is suddenly now being claimed as credible) refuses to acknowledge the role of Ulema in the movement. this is what dismissal is.

This is a laughable later-day recreation based on fictional accounts and a retro-fitting of the role of the ulema into the freedom struggle. Nobody for all these years had claimed any role for the ulema, it is already the consensus that Maudoodi was an example of those Islamic scholars who actively opposed Pakistan, and actively opposed Jinnah. Right through, from all existing accounts, except those that are being posited today by Islamicists, it was clear that the secular principles of the Muslim League were opposed tooth and nail by the Ulema.

However, since it is clear that you are on a crusade, there is no point in discussing history or historical events with you, as you even manage to contradict yourself

if there was no vote for ML, if ML hadnt been able to win over constituencies, would the british have considered something worthy of note? it is your rant that is illogical.

the political leaders of ML had failed to garner support for pakistan. dont you yourself read history? ML ahd been washed out by congress and its allies.