What's new

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

Arabs don't have this problem.

Analysis paralysis is typical behavior of how Pakistanis initially entered the faith so tip toeing around insignificant and minor details is to be expected. Yet another reason why religion and state should be kept seperate as this behavior affects governance. Do it on your homes, not in parliament.

Your the one aping west and immediate colonial master!
A mellinnia of same identity with multitudes of rulers... fads came and went away... yet YOU, THE CONVERT, are hung up on that established fact of life. Trying to convince them that your new master and his creed is better though he couldn't deliver it through direct rule.

Huh!
 
Your the one aping west and immediate colonial master!
A mellinnia of same identity with multitudes of rulers... fads came and went away... yet YOU, THE CONVERT, are hung up on that established fact of life. Trying to convince them that your new master and his creed is better though he couldn't deliver it through direct rule.

Huh!

You live in the United States….don’t lecture us about aping.
 
I do!

Who is us?
Who's values are being discussed, western or Islamic.(Mine, ours!)
That guy is a brit, who are you?
Yes, come again.

I wasn’t aware “West” or “Western” was a religion.

Islamic values and “western values” can coexist. It’s the very definition of a modern-Muslim country which Jinnah and the Muslim League sought for and countries like Turkey and Malaysia and a certain extent Indonesia perfected.

Let’s try and keep up here.
 
ye mulla madharchod to pagla gaya hai.
he cannot read/write Urdu, Arbi or farsi, yet you call him a mullah. most likely he is one of your lot.

any half-way decent molvi would know Urdu thus able to read arabic albeit without understanding it though they would have select verses + translation memorized parrot fashion to maintain the facade.

anyhow why did you not get a warning point for your foul language? provoked by a feku or not you should get one.
 
I do!

Who is us?
Who's values are being discussed, western or Islamic.(Mine, ours!)
That guy is a brit, who are you?
Yes, come again.

An Islamic system is for the Arabs as it is part of their culture. It doesn't work when exported. Since the introduction of nation states it's even more incompatible.

Western secular democracy is universal. It's not tied to a faith or a country. It is ambiguous enough to adapt and mesh with any culture and flexible enough to allow the minorities to feel equal. It was the original design of Pakistan. Monotheist values enshrined in a secular capitalist democracy is ideal.

Turkey is a perfect example on how to get it right. When Syria was taken over by ISIS, Turkey was barely affected. Yet when TTP started in Afghanistan, Pakistan suffered 20 years of terrorism and counting. They targeted Pakistan's achilles heel which is a soft spot for religious extremism at state level.
 
Last edited:
Notice this is exactly what the objectives resolution laid out.

“The Constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly,
I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago, Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions ... as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State—to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims Hindus, Christians, and Parsis but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Here is Jinnah on y’all being oh so proud of your ethnic identities and making your ethnicities important. Jinnah trashes ethnic centrism for Muslim identity

You don’t even understand what you’re quoting.

Aren‘t you the same people who get upset when Islamophobes pick up a small quote from the Quran and blow it out of proportion?

So why are you doing the same thing here?

Jinnah was arguing in favour of democracy. He said this because during this period, Pakistan’s political future was still being argued.

The Muslim League and Jinnah were in favour of democracy, while your Ulema and traitors from the JI claimed democracy is against Islam and a haram system.

This isn’t hard to understand.

they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago, Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy.

Here he was basically rejecting the idea that democracy was haram or a foreign concept. He argues that embracing democracy would not be against Islam, since Islamic principles and democracy are compatible!

And here he ends it off clearly…

Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State—to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.



You folks try so desperately to portray Jinnah as some mullah.

Pakistan only exist with Islam.
If Pakistan becomes a secular country I want to separate from Pakistan.
If Pakistan becomes a secular country, there is no such thing as Pakistan for me.
If I want a secular country then I prefer a large united Panjab.
Islam comes first. If Pakistan is an Islamic country it shares the spot at first
Otherwise ethnicity comes second for me. Idc about any other ‘Pakistani’. Only Islam can unite me with others. Without Islam I don’t intend to share my resources or land with anyone.

Your views are irrelevant. You live in Canada….go live In your Brampton and establish your Bhangra republic there chutiye.

This isn’t your daddy’s country. And try to break us up, we’ll hang your pedophiles at every chowk.

Now he doesn’t want to share his resources with anyone….the same clown that says nationalism is haram, now is promoting his Bhangra nationalism. LMFAO.

You couldn’t even make this up….thsee chutiyas are beyond confused. :D :D :D
 
An Islamic system is for the Arabs as it is part of their culture. It doesn't work when exported. Since the introduction of nation states it's even more incompatible.
Fallacy!
How many Arabs?
How long did they have it?
Islam brought people together on different metrics. Pretty much the known world at the time. Britain was a backwater then... however, it does tell you, what one can achieve by controlling trade, labor, goods and services but most importantly method/mode of payment/transaction. All of the above needs no language, ethnicity, culture or religion. They didn't need one either... had people and willing accomplices/mercenaries/collaborators from desired communities/colonies/affiliates. In other words ability to project power, both soft and hard.

Western secular democracy is universal. It's not tied to a faith or a country. It is ambiguous enough to adapt and mesh with any culture and flexible enough to allow the minorities to feel equal. It was the original design of Pakistan. Monotheist values enshrined in a secular capitalist democracy is ideal.
Democracy is not universal, nor it's practice. The story of Britain alone proves that... to this day!
U.S does so in it's founding, in federalist papers!
And finally France, which removed one tyranny to establish another... a left(new/progressive) and right(old/established and conservative).
Capitalist democracy is an oxymoron!
It effectively stratifies the society between classes of have and have nots, unwashed masses and the opulent minority!
It divides family and community on the frivolous, a spectacle and theater wedged on public opinion to gain a popular vote. No constituency remains! Power remains entrenched in few hands... who sway opinion and bankroll both ends of the spectrum. Masses remain engulfed, engaged in the trivial, and the party keeps going unabashed.


Turkey is a perfect example on how to get it right. When Syria was taken over by ISIS, Turkey was barely affected. Yet when TTP started in Afghanistan, Pakistan suffered 20 years of terrorism and counting. They targeted Pakistan's achilles heel which is a soft spot for religious extremism at state level.
Pakistan played on it's own. I'll leave it at that...
 
Last edited:
Turkey is a perfect example on how to get it right. When Syria was taken over by ISIS, Turkey was barely affected. Yet when TTP started in Afghanistan, Pakistan suffered 20 years of terrorism and counting. They targeted Pakistan's achilles heel which is a soft spot for religious extremism at state level.

This is actually a very good point….didn’t think from that perspective before.
 
Or you could just accept the fact that a state with Jinnah's secularist ideology is not what needs to be formed due to the nature of the situation, and instead remove all traits of secularism to properly encompass all aspects of nations through a strictly sharia-based lense
 
Three things that unite Pakistanis are Islam, Urdu and Biryani. Take away any of them and you've got a Yugoslavia on your hands.

That said, I grew up learning history in school from a textbook that included pre-Islamic history. I remember reading about Asoka, Chandragupta Maurya etc. and it didn't lessen my fervor for Islam, nor did it turn me into a Indus Valley ethno-nationalist.

We need to teach actual history, not a fantasy like they're doing in Modi's India. They've rewritten history to suit their Hindu narrative and taken out Muslim rule as if it never happened.

Pakistan's history should include all the information we have about this land before Islam, just like people in Egypt probably learn about ancient Egypt and Iranians may learn about ancient Persia. Keep in mind, though, that people of both Egypt and Iran are quite ethno-nationalistic.

The peak of civilization in South Asia was during the times of the Mughals. Mughal India was the largest economy in the world, along with China. They had culture, art, architecture, textile production, culinary expertise, military force, etc. Why would I not want to be associated with them?

In the case of Indian history, no matter how much I may read about Asoka or Indus Valley, it does not compare with the glory of Islamic history. I am 100 times more proud of the achievements of Muslims from one end of the world to the other. We're going through bad times now but I also believe in a glorious future.

For the best system of governance we can't look at Islamic history to find the right formula. There never was a perfect form of government in any Muslim country in history. It was all kings and tyrants, some good, some bad.

Now we need to create a modern new system. If we're building a car we can't use 100 year old technology; instead we have to innovate. Similarly, we need to develop a better form of government than what we have now based on the best ideas we can find from around the world.
 
Did Zia also make it mandatory to teach the kids that Pakistanis are actually Arabs and different from Indians?

The article indirectly explains why the identity crisis is prevalent in Pakistan.

We are different from Indians. Just because Pakistanis like me reject an imaginary connection to Arabs, we equally reject Indian hegemony on our identity, history and heritage.

Even the name "India" should be accredited to Pakistan's geography.
 
Last edited:
Islam brought people together on different metrics. Pretty much the known world at the time. Britain was a backwater then... however, it does tell you, what one can achieve by controlling trade, labor, goods and services but most importantly method of payment. All of the above need no language, ethnicity, culture or religion. They didn't need one either... they had people and willing mercenaries. In other words ability to project power, both soft and kinetic.

Oh comon lets be real here. Everything outside of Arabia was colonised and looted and enslaved just like the British Empire and what the Americans did. It was wicked and cruel. Local culture destroyed. You know why you can't make statues? Because it stops you commerarating your culture, nothing to do with idolatry. It was a takeover on every level. Non Muslims literally had to pay jizya tax and a societal and economic system which didn't evolve until it came crashing down. :lol:

You want to regurgitate a system which failed in the 17th century and expect it to deliver in the 21st century? It's a pipe dream. Afghanistan is enough evidence, it's worse than communism. Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, epic failures.

I'm not singling you out, if Indians exported their hindu rashtra it would be the same result.

These western Islamists need to stop watching those weird youtube videos :lol:

They are literally sitting there with high speed internet, 24/7 electricity, hot water, gas, stable and accountable government, welfare safety net, reliable medical care, good schools, comfort, peaceful night sleep and are virtue signally to a poor 3rd world country. I want Pakistan to have what we have, they should be a 1st world developed country.
 
Last edited:
Oh comon lets be real here.
Real‽


Everything outside of Arabia was colonised and looted and enslaved just like the British Empire and what the Americans did.
Where is it?
Just tell how many years direct arab rule lasted for instance?
it centered around which people exactly?
Which dynasties and how long?

It was wicked and cruel. Non Muslims literally had to pay jizya tax and a societal and economic system which didn't evolve until it came crashing down. :lol:
Jizya, Zakat... Either you deliver or you receive. Your issue is you have convinced yourself as loyalist, a true subject of his majesty. You wouldn't bother paying... you obviously can't receive.

Can't beat'em? Join'em!
People ask how come there were so many traitors... look in the mirror!

House negro was/is an apt terminology to describe such phenomenon.

you win, no jizya for you...


You want to regurgitate a system and a value system which failed in the 17th century and expect it to deliver in the 21st century? It's a pipe dream.
Quote me dude and I'll reply. I do not always tag a troll along.

These western Islamists need to stop watching those weird youtube videos :lol:
Share some. It's quite evident the kind of stuff you post has nothing to do with insight, knowledge, scholarship or literature.
 
Last edited:
Meray Bhai, copy/pasting loads of crap won't prove you right

Let's discuss it point-by-point.
You claimed that Jinnah set up a committee (of religious scholars) to draft Objectives Resolution

Now anyone with even basic knowledge about Pakistan History would know that it simply isn't true. Objectives Resolution was introduced by Liaquat Ali, almost 6 months after the death of Jinnah

Please provide primary sources to back up your claim, or admit that you had been wrong about this one, so that we can discuss the remaining points
Here is timeline with references:-



1947:- independence and the first constituent assembly meets (CAP). Tasked with drafting constitution, etc.



Jan 1948:- CAP appoints Usmani elected shaykh Al Islam, head mufti. He will be the main interlocutor on the drafting committee with the ulema and the real author of the objectives resolution.



https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/4235/2/DX087128_2.pdf



Early 1948:- Zafarullah Khan is appointed to head the committee- this caused tension with the more conservative ulema, him being Ahmadi and all.



http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/history/PDF-FILES/17_56_1_19.pdf



Mid 1948:- The JUP draft principles that must be accepted in the constitution. Jinnah accepted the draft of proposal about the Islamic nature of the state that the JUP had drafted and said it would be incorporated into the constitution.



Ahmad, Jam‘iyyat ‘Ulama-i-Pakistan 1948-79, 5.



Date Inferred- Mid 1948:- Zafarullah headed committee to draft the resolution and that it had input from ulema.



https://www.dawn.com/news/1530114



September 1948:- Jinnah dies.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah



March 1949:- Liaquat Ali presents the objectives resolution.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obj...lution proclaimed that the,under Article 2(A).



March 1949:- Zafarullah defends the objectives resolution when it is presented



https://tribune.com.pk/story/1306912/road-not-taken?amp=1

Btw, what is available in public on the internet is heavily biased side of history. And it is confused. They can’t agree who actually drafted the resolution whether it was Liaquat Ali, Usmani or Zafarullah.

The salient thing is that Jinnah chose an Ahmadi to lead the committee and he also had the ulema advise on it. This was intentional on his part because he wanted to get an Islamic republic that protected minorities.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom