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

[M. Sarmad]

.



That is just his opinion just like Jinnah once held the opinion of a united India.

Yes, that's his opinion

But the opinions of the founding fathers of this nation definitely carry more weight than the combined opinions of all Pakistani and overseas Mullahs, including the Najdis you worship

 

[El Sidd]

Yes, that's his opinion

But the opinions of the founding fathers of this nation definitely carry more weight than the combined opinions of all Pakistani and overseas Mullahs, including the Najdis you worship

So you are saying we should be a theocracy based on opinions and theories by theologians and lawyers advocating their theology?

 

[hussain0216]

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" irrespective of one's religion, caste etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" ... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting separation of state and religion" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were diametrically opposed in their understanding and interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal considered was the "true spirit" of Islam was declared "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah where he has talked about Islam, but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah's definition of Islam with Mullah's definition of Islam (which is opposite to Jinnah's def.) ... The result is that one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... Truth is, the only hypocrites are the Mullahs and the conservatives ... Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

It's not about what Jinnah wants

He was the leader of Pakistan of course

It's about what the Pakistani people want

 

[hatehs]

Sure. Wishing you a peace of mind.

Peace of mind over what? It's Hondas chimping out on other Hondas for speaking a different dialect of ape babble or having a slightly different color tone of gobar skin. What are you wishing me peace of mind over, Hyundai?

 

[Ssan]

both of yall are stupid - those who say without Islam we are nothing as a "people"
you are just disrespecting our heritage and ancestors, if your love for your people only comes from their religious practices than you were never from us to begin with

those who say Pakistan and religion should be separate are also wrong - we are a conservative Muslim country and Islam is what keeps our society from disintegration A- along ethnic lines but even within that tribal, and clan lines

Islam has united our society (not just our country) like never in history, when we were Muslim but not as "Muslim" as we are rn, we were regularly fighting each other along clan lines like morons which kept us back as people took advantage of that fault lines, as our society Islamized those issues became irrelevant

Islam is a core part of Pakistani identity as our region has been Muslim for centuries now, it unites our society, gives it some sorta moral compass

I believe in the balance of both - it does not define us but its a very important part of us, Pakistan should reflect its society

so islam has a role to guide our laws and lawmaking, but it shouldn't play an active role in the decision-making, or statecraft of our country - IE how Malays or Indonesia works

hell even our own constitution if followed properly is a good blend of anglo-saxon laws with that of Islamic jurisprudence in modern world with more reforms over time itll become even better

issues is not more secularization or more Islamization - focus on the democratization of our government, politics and society
we'll become a great country, we dont ned to become 2000s Saudi Arabia or Shahs Iran to be a great country, our society is okay as is, it just needs democracy to fulfill its potential

I agree with you

Stop lying, and stop embarrassing yourself, mate ...

Jinnah never tasked Usmani (or any other Mullah for that matter) to draft Objectives Resolution.



Already did in the previous post

Read again, carefully

Googling stuff and then posting it here without even bothering to read it first is not a good idea .. You just keep embarrassing yourself.... give it a rest, mate ... Feel pity for you.... How old are you anyway?

lol, don’t get so despondent- I already answered you.

I don’t share PII on the internet with weirdos.

 

[M. Sarmad]

lol, don’t get so despondent- I already answered you.

You didn't answer anything, mate... You are clueless

Khair leave it Bhai, nothing personal

Peace

 

[CLUMSY]

It's not about what Jinnah wants

He was the leader of Pakistan of course

It's about what the Pakistani people want

So anything flies as long as its what the people want?

 

[Sayfullah]

What Allah has blessed you with? You’re far from Allah you hypocrite. You literally live in a secular country and lecturing US about how bad secularism is? Go move to Saudi Arabia….othay bund maarwa apni.

You haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to suggest or prove that the Muslim League or Jinnah wanted an Islamic country.

Insult me all you want pedophile mullah.

Without Islam, Pakistan doesn’t vanish into thin air…the literal word PAKISTAN stems from the acronym PAKSTAN. This land has existed long before your religion showed up and will last long ager your religion disappears.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

View attachment 926416

Religious demographics of the Indus Valley & Pakistan
(Years of influence)

Indus Harappan religion (pre-3500 BCE to 1300 BCE)
+2200 years

Vedic religion (1500 BCE to 500 BCE)
1000 years

Buddhism (500 BCE to 700 AD)
1200 years

Hinduism (400 AD to 1000 AD)
600 years

Islam (700 AD to present)
1319 years

https://www.facebook.com/AncientPakistan.pk/posts/pfbid0cYhZUQpARSax757ioaGBaJAS2XwVF25AgG4GWYAHEuuqARqgbzW5AEJuE63yxwD1l

Open a book and educate yourself

Pakistan vanishes into thin air without Islam.
Islam has been around longer than Pakistan and Indus valley civilization.
Adam A.S. was a Muslim.
No true Muslim can disregard Islam like you do. You’re a hypocrite.
Learn a lesson or two from the death of murtad Tarek Fateh. Open your eyes before it’s too late and you end up like him.

There is no need to curse. You can simply renounce your ties with the country. It would be People's Republic of Pakistan just like Bangladesh.

It seems religion has run its course with the natives and with water wars around the corner, the people would have to revert back to worshipping the Indus doing ghar wapsi to their original title of Indoranis.



That is just his opinion just like Jinnah once held the opinion of a united India.

If Pakistan even becomes secular May Allah SWT make an example out of it.
May Allah SWT allow an Islamic revolution to take place in Pakistan.
May Allah SWT allow Pakistan to be ruled by Shariah.
May Allah SWT destroy all munafiq murtads who disguise them self as secular ‘Muslims’.

Ameen

 

[Maula Jatt]

both of yall are stupid - those who say without Islam we are nothing as a "people"
you are just disrespecting our heritage and ancestors, if your love for your people only comes from their religious practices than you were never from us to begin with

those who say Pakistan and religion should be separate are also wrong - we are a conservative Muslim country and Islam is what keeps our society from disintegration A- along ethnic lines but even within that tribal, and clan lines

Islam has united our society (not just our country) like never in history, when we were Muslim but not as "Muslim" as we are rn, we were regularly fighting each other along clan lines like morons which kept us back as people took advantage of that fault lines, as our society Islamized those issues became irrelevant

Islam is a core part of Pakistani identity as our region has been Muslim for centuries now, it unites our society, gives it some sorta moral compass

I believe in the balance of both - it does not define us but its a very important part of us, Pakistan should reflect its society

so islam has a role to guide our laws and lawmaking, but it shouldn't play an active role in the decision-making, or statecraft of our country - IE how Malays or Indonesia works

hell even our own constitution if followed properly is a good blend of anglo-saxon laws with that of Islamic jurisprudence in modern world with more reforms over time itll become even better

issues is not more secularization or more Islamization - focus on the democratization of our government, politics and society
we'll become a great country, we dont ned to become 2000s Saudi Arabia or Shahs Iran to be a great country, our society is okay as is, it just needs democracy to fulfill its potential

you gave me the first example of why both are morons

Pakistan vanishes into thin air without Islam.
Islam has been around longer than Pakistan and Indus valley civilization.
Adam A.S. was a Muslim.
No true Muslim can disregard Islam like you do. You’re a hypocrite.
Learn a lesson or two from the death of murtad Tarek Fateh. Open your eyes before it’s too late and you end up like him.


If Pakistan even becomes secular May Allah SWT make an example out of it.
May Allah SWT allow an Islamic revolution to take place in Pakistan.
May Allah SWT allow Pakistan to be ruled by Shariah.
May Allah SWT destroy all munafiq murtads who disguise them self as secular ‘Muslims’.

Ameen

 

[Ssan]

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" irrespective of one's religion, caste etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" ... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

Jinnah disapproved of a theocratic state- one where mullahs would run the country. He never disapproved of an Islamic state or a state with Islamic principles. It is up to you to reconcile the fact that in the entire history of Pakistan, we have had only one shaykh Al Islam- and that too under Jinnah.

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting separation of state and religion" may take another few decades ...

Yes Jinnah believed democracy to be Islamic. This was in line with more liberal understanding of Islam coming out of the subcontinent schools like the Nadwi school. They also believed democracy to be the ideal.

I am happy you bring Iqbal into the picture because what he says is even more clear. And for that you can refer with his written correspondence with Nadvi Sahab to start with.

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were diametrically opposed in their understanding and interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal considered was the "true spirit" of Islam was declared "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

Some of them. Others like Usmani supported a vision for Pakistan that Jinnah was promoting.

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah where he has talked about Islam, but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah's definition of Islam with Mullah's definition of Islam (which is opposite to Jinnah's def.) ... The result is that one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... Truth is, the only hypocrites are the Mullahs and the conservatives ... Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

Again the vision they had involved setting up a committee of ulema in India post Lahore resolution to deliberate what an islami riyasat was and also included an official role for a shaykh Al Islam. Both Jinnah and Iqbal thought that the ulema should be there in an advisory role. Iqbal is explicit on this point and Jinnahs action of appointing Usmani to shaykh Al Islam is too.

Jinnah wanted the following things:-
1) democracy
2) freed of worship for all
3) protection of minorities

But he also wanted to have Islamic principles embedded into the state. He was against a theocracy sure- wasn’t against an Islamic nature of the state.

As I have said previously on this thread, the definition of secularism that is followed in countries like England that Jinnah was referring to include only the following:-

1) freedom of worship for all
2) protection of minorities
3) some degree of institutional separation ie a parliament that passes laws.

Much like England, he wanted to have a state religion and saw no issues with ulema as an advisory role in parliament along with having some representation there.

 

[SaadH]

Which Qadiyani/Ahmadi/Mirzaye wants to be FM of country who declared them heretics?

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.

 

[SaadH]

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

It’s just astounding.

Teri naivete per sadqay jawan...who the hell told you West is secular...

 

[Tamerlane]

As the saying goes: Pakistan has an abundance of laws, British law, Islamic law, Martial law, but no justice. Pakistan isn’t a failed state because of a lack of laws but because no one follows any law, especially the ruling classes.

We need to start enforcing laws, starting with the British Indian Army that is occupying the country.

Before we can progress the military needs to be Pakistanized. British colonial culture of speaking English, drinking whiskey and thinking of themselves as masters needs to be removed. Their present culture is not compatible with Pakistan’s requirements. There needs to be serious reforms of the military.

We need democracy but one in which mega criminals who should be in jail or in the grave don’t get into positions of power. There needs to be a system of vetting political candidates to ensure that.

If there is a proper democracy, and the elected representatives are Muslim, automatically they will be following Islamic principles. E.g. they will pass laws compatible with Islam.

We need to seriously look at switching to a presidential system. The president will be directly elected and can form his cabinet from anyone he wants, not just members of parliament. This will eliminate to a large degree the problem of electables from rural areas always dominating the government.

Pakistan is a failed state because no one is following any law. The constitution is treated like toilet paper by the generals and politicians. This is the main problem at the moment.

 

[Ssan]

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.

Everyone declared everyone else to be a kafir man.

To the point here though, I don’t think Jinnah would have been okay with the way we discriminate against Qadiyanis. Yah sure, declare them non-Muslim but then you ought to treat them like the other minorities that we have in the country.

Ofc it doesn’t help how they sometimes don’t reveal themselves or keep themselves hidden. They shouldn’t be or have been doing that either.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

This thread exemplifies how third world(former direct colonies) starts owning and rationalizing fallacy riddled narratives to implement them on their citizens(plug and play). Ones talking democracy have no idea, no beacon, paragon or ideal to look up to or achieve, neither the ones peddling secularism... a trojan horse and a dog whistle used by an entitled minority to get their way. The accuser then blames Muslims in West as beneficiaries of said largesse, Are they?
Or is it the Blacks, Latinos or Asians? None!
So, stop the act already!
But then perhaps they're probably looking at a textbook definition. Again, nothing to do with reality.

But above only shows how lost the whole bunch is... especially for anyone looking in... everyone seems to have an answer, except they're all wrong. But instead of rectifying the mistakes, learning or enlightening themselves they double down on their respective narratives. The very purpose of freedom is lost when you start endeavoring for another tyranny, imposition of another ideology... hoping two wrongs will make a right. Jinnah's was an attempt, that, he was a trailblazer, knew better than those who followed, true!
However, that doesn't mean he or Iqbal had all the answers but theirs was an attempt, subsequent ones only start splitting hairs on idealism vs counter idealism.

Many here are conflicted on the right answers, rightfully so, which is why history must be studied and in that native being the most significant one. For one to avoid repeating mistakes, of commission and omission, understanding the grounded reality and principled stances, perhaps lost in narratives. And finally where Islam lands in it's midst...
You will not know that if you assume western understanding of nation... they fought wars of language, ethnicity and creed. Islam didn't! It instead had a civil war(s)... ones grounded in understanding or lack thereof, of truth! It was not for a theocracy, Clerical rule or arab dominion... Which lasted till only the Umayyad period. Persians, Turks, Kurds and Slaves ruled Muslims!
Mahmood the son of slave defeated hindu shahi...
This lack of understanding and reading leads to current paradigm where a perennially subjugated hindu jibes a Muslim as a convert!
Western plug and play starts doing it's rounds and Kurds start seeking their own state ...
Isn't Turkiye secular?

When European understanding of secularism, based on language, race and creed is brought in... expect similar results, either lose identity, language, family/tribe or, fence yourself in and be on your face fascist/nationalist.
The rabbit hole...
fragmented and siloed narratives...