Ulema and Pakistan Movement

10/05/2019 Ulema and Pakistan Movement
    LOG IN  REGISTER
 Menu  Recent Posts
Home  Pakistan Defence Forum  Special Sections  Seniors Cafe 
Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Viber Email More 178
1 2 3 4 Next >
Mar 23, 2014 #1
Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent -- Jamiat

Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami
[1]-- were politically very active during the struggle for
Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the creation
of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of
M. Sarmad
BANNED
Jamiat and Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was
essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the
philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in
Messages: 4,786
character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them
but at the same time they supported the CongressParty's
Joined: Oct 27, 2013
idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political
Ratings: +60 / 7,471 / -14
leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of
Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan
in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema's
concept of nationalism as well as the Muslim League's
demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.
The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is

that its leadership came almost entirely from the Western-
educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and
large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But
during the mass contact campaign, which began around
1943, the Muslim League abandoned its quaint
constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/ulema-and-pakistan-movement.305745/ 1/32
populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild

promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the
future Muslim state. As a consequence, many religious
divines and some respected Ulema were won over.[2]
The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were

not capable of giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims
because of their exclusively traditional education and
complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life. It,
therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their
sphere of activity to religion since they did not understand
the nature of politics of the twentieth century.
It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the

Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily
in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah
remained unchanged, orthodox and traditional in toto and
they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries
ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their
scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought,
barred them from creative thinking and properly
understanding the problems, social or philosophical,
confronting the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They
were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis
Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]
The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of

Muslims -- was virtually a secular campaign led by men of
politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his
lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won Pakistan
despite opposition by most of the Ulema.
Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly

by those with Congress orientation. They stood for status
quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and
regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the
concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification
of Islam through the establishment of Pakistan as
innovations which they were not prepared to accept under
any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah
pointed out to the students of the Muslim University Union:
"What the League has done is to set you free from the
reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion
that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has
certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Molvis
and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class.
There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as
any other, but there is a section of them which is
undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the
British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-
called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our
women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape
the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share
our life not only social but also political." [4]
The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one

of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema
opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the
Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including
Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of
Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful to join the Patriotic
Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community
proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the
political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.
The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim

leadership came to a head during the struggle for Pakistan
when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam
and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of
history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad
before him, faced the opposition of the Ulema.
The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman

Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar -- seldom mentioned the
Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always
distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet Kafir-
i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the
resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-
Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of
Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar
leaders Pakistan was dubbed as "palidistan". The authorship
of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali
Azhar, a leading personality of the Ahrar:
Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora

Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam.[6]
(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman

[7], he is a great leader or a great non-believer)
During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul
abuse on all the leading personalities of the Muslim League
and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was
with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up at
pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a
private affair in their dealings with the Congress and
nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against
the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They
said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam
but an enemy of it.
After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But

before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a
resolution dissolving their organization and advising the
Muslims to accept Maulana Azad as their leader and join the
Congress Party.[8]
The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan

which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure). In none of the
writings of the Jama'at is to be found the remotest reference
in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence
views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the
Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:
"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of

nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in
spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and
worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who
are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims,
but are concerned with the individuality and the political and
economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by
the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because
of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic
viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally
misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not
permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]
Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of

government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into
existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before

partition he said: "Why should we foolishly waste our time in
expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away
our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not
only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an
obstacle in our path." [10]
Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an

important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the
concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims
but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and
contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim
League he replied: "Please do not think that I do not want to
participate in this work because of any differences, my
difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because
partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never
been interested in patch work."[11]
He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he

was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from
Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian
milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims:
because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to
a communal or a national entity but because they believed in
Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that
Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could
be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe
in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he
founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941).[12] However,
Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the
circumstances in which the Muslims were placed [13] at that
critical moment.
The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization

of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its
president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also
Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the
idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims
or Hindus were one nation. He argued that faith was
universal and could not be contained within national
boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography,
and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their
birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana
Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a

democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs,
Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in
accordance with Islam." [14] He was of the view that in the
present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland
and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa
forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of

Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching
it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr.
Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938
started a heated controversy between the so-called
nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism
(Umma).
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National

Congress regrets that he did not accept Congress president
ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give
the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League
for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of
the Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the
provinces and states of the sub-continent with safeguards for
minorities. [17] He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema
that their interests would be better safeguarded under a
united India, and that they should repose full confidence in
Indian nationalism. However, they should make efforts to
secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by
getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that
the Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis
(judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]
In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all

Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its
links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the Ahrars and such
minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups as the
Momins and the Shia Conference.[19]
Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League,
the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in
another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind . It
was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of power. Its
power among the people should be weakened and finally
broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political

leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting the
Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the
leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of
becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu
majority for their rights, even for their continued existence.
This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -- was
organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal
Nehru. [20]
Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim

masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in
the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally
could not promise to solve the real difficulties of the masses,
a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the
Congress. The Molvis and others employed for the work tried
to create a division among the Muslim masses by carrying on
a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the
Muslim League. [21] However, this Muslim mass contact
movement failed.
It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the

Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana
Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of
this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-
1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad
Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years
in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few
other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the
Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the
activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind. However, the bulk of
the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of Maulana
Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the
demand for Pakistan.
Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim

intelligentsia was worried that the end of British domination
should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu
domination. They perceived through the past experience that
the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal
terms within the same political framework. Therefore they
did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity
and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have
served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their

identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if
they had been compelled to accept the political domination of
the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past
and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim
brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the
growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of
Muslims in the sub-continent.[22]
The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and

eventually found themselves completely isolated from the
mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their
opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism
was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities.
[23] They did not realize that majorities can be much more
devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or
religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority
through any election.[24]
The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and

traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for
argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive
alienation from the people, who while paying them the
respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in
national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded
masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs
shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the
traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of
contemporary life.[25]
The conflict between the educated Muslims and the Ulema

was not new. It started in the early years of British rule and
reached its culmination during the struggle for Pakistan.
Since the movement for Pakistan was guided by the
enlightened classes under the leadership of a man who was
brought up with western education, the prestige of the
Ulema had been badly damaged.[26]
The Muslims Renaissance in the sub-continent began with

Shah Waliullah (1702-63) who started probing into the past
and thinking in terms of the future. During the decline of
Muslim power, Shah Waliullah emerged as an outstanding
scholar-reformer who predicted a return to the original purity
of Islam. He was not just a scholar of theology and law, but a

social thinker with a keen sense for economic reforms.
Without economic justice, he asserted, the social purpose of
Islam could not be fulfilled. He emphasized the need for
ijtihad, decrying the convention of closing the gates of
ijtihad. He criticized the contemporary Ulema for their
elaborate rites and rituals, which he believed, were not part
of the Shariah, but un-Islamic innovations.[27]
Then came Sir Syed Ahmed Khan with his message that the
Muslims could not progress without acquiring knowledge of
modern sciences and technology. He asserted the simple
truth that knowledge is not the exclusive preserve of any
nation, it belongs to the whole mankind. Quickly he was
dubbed a kafir (non-believer) by a section of Ulema. But Sir
Syed Ahmed, in spite of all the calumny that was heaped on
him, refused to be browbeaten. He maintained a valiant
posture and succeeded in realizing the intellectual energy of
a nation. As more and more Muslims got educated in the
western sciences the hold of the Ulema over the Muslim
community began to weaken.
The leadership of the Muslim community had passed out of

the hands of the Ulema after the Rebellion of 1857. The
Ulema stood aloof, except for the issuance of a fatwa,
supporting the entry of the Muslims into the Congress, when
Sir Syed Ahmed opposed it. The Muslim nation followed the
political lead of Sir Syed Ahmad, in the nineteenth century
and rejected the Ulema. But in religion they followed the
Ulema and rejected Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Much the same
happened in the 40's of the twentieth century. The Indian
Muslims followed the political lead given to them by Jinnah
(who could have been a knight like Sir Syed but he resolutely
refused both title and office during the British rule) who had
no pretensions to leadership in the sphere of religion. [28]
The Muslim community was wiser than the ostensible
defenders of its faith, culture and existence. It rejected their
advice and followed others who were more realistic, more
wide awake, better informed and more in line with the
history of the community.[29]
After independence the conflict between the intellectuals with

liberal orientation and the Ulema manifested itself in a
judicial enquiry conducted by Justice Mohammad Munir in

Lahore anti-Qadiani riots in 1953. The learned judge said
something which the intellectuals and politicians had for long
refrained to say openly. The enquiry findings, known as the
Munir Report, publicized the fact that the Ulema were not
only unfit to run a modern state but were deplorably unable
under cross-questioning even to give realistic guidance on
elementary matters of Islam. The court of enquiry was
presented with the sorry spectacle that Muslim divines
differed sharply on the definition of a Muslim yet each was
adamant that all who disagreed should be put to death.[30]
At one point the report emphasized: " But we cannot refrain

from saying here that it was a matter of infinite regret to us
that the Ulema whose first duty should be to have settled
views on this subject, were hopelessly disagreed amongst
themselves." [31] The result of this part of the enquiry,
however, has been but satisfactory, and if considerable
confusion exists in the minds of our Ulema on such a simple
matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more
complicated matter will be.
"Keeping in view the several definitions given by the Ulema,

need we make any comment except that no two divines are
agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition
as each learned divine has done and that definition differs
from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the
fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one
of the Ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of
that Alim but Kafirs (unbelievers) according to the definition
of every one else." [32]
"The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor
Deobandis nor Ahl-e-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any
change from one view to the other must be accompanied in
an Islamic state with the penalty of death if the government
of the state is in the hands of the party which considers the
other party to be Kafirs. And it does not require much
imagination to judge the consequences of this doctrine when
it is remembered that no two Ulema have agreed before us
as to the definition of a Muslim."[33]
The creation of Pakistan was the greatest defeat of the
"nationalist" Ulema. But soon after the establishment of

Pakistan power-monger Ulema raised their voice in the
political field with new modulations. They argued that
Pakistan was created to establish an Islamic state based on
traditional Shariah law. However, the irony of the argument
that Pakistan was founded on religious ideology lies in the
fact that practically every Muslim group and organization in
the Indian subcontinent that was specially religious -Islamic -
was hostile to Jinnah and the Muslim League, and strongly
opposed the Pakistan movement. [34] The claim of the
Muslim League to be the sole representative of the entire
Muslim community in India was gravely weakened by the
opposition of the most important group of Indian Ulema.
[35] A great deal of effort was devoted by Muslim League
leaders to winning over the Ulema. Eventually they
succeeded in doing so, but only partially, and only when the
creation of Pakistan was just over the horizon.[36]
A claim that Pakistan was created to fulfill the millenarian

religious aspirations of Indian Muslims is therefore
contradicted by the fact that the principal bearers of the
Islamic religion in India were alienated from the Pakistan
movement. Conversely, the English-educated leaders of the
Pakistan movement, not least Jinnah himself, were
committed to secular politics. [37]
Some zealous religious activists are now attempting to

distort the role of Ulema in the struggle for Pakistan.
[38] As the old generation is gradually vanishing from
the political scene of the country these Ulema are now
being projected as the co-founders of Pakistan. "In
some cases even the name of Quaid-i-Azamhas been
eliminated and all the credit for the establishment of
Pakistan is being bestowed upon these Ulema." [39] In
recent years, there has been a systematic attempt by
Mullahs and the rightist lobby to misrepresent Jinnah on
Islam and they have tried hard to buildup an image of the
father of the nation as a religious bigot. He is being projected
by Mullahs, who once branded him as Kafir, as an Islamic
fundamentalist.
In a TV discussion on Shariah bill in April 1991, two

prominent Molvis of Lahore, Maulana Abdul Qadir and Mufti
Mohammad Hussain Naeemi, implied that the Shariat bill was

"the will of the Quaid. " They claimed that the rule of Quran
and Sunnah was pledged by the Quaid and that Mullahs
never opposed Pakistan since it was to be a religious rather
than a national state. One of them said "was it not said that
Pakistan ka matlab kia: La Ilahah Illallah." [40]
However, the fact is that this oft quoted statement is an

election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet - Asghar Saudai. But
it was never raised by the platform of the Muslim League.
First and the last meeting of All Pakistan Muslim League was
held under the chairmanship of the Quaid-i-Azam at Karachi's
Khaliqdina Hall. During the meeting a man, who called
himself Bihari, put to the Quaid that "we have been telling
the people Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha Illallah." "Sit
down, sit down," the Quaid shouted back. "Neither I nor my
working committee, nor the council of the All India Muslim
League has ever passed such a resolution wherein I was
committed to the people of Pakistan, Pakistan ka matlab.....,
you might have done so to catch a few votes." This incident
is quoted from Daghon ki Barat written by Malik Ghulam
Nabi, who was a member of the Muslim League Council. The
same incident is also quoted by the Raja of Mehmoudabad.
[41]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---
REFERENCES
1. After independence "some of the Ulema decided to stay in India, others
hastened to Pakistan to lend a helping hand. If they had not been able to
save the Muslims from Pakistan they must now save Pakistan from the
Muslims. Among them was Maulana Abul Aala Maududi, head of the Jamat-i-
Islami, who had been bitterly opposed to Pakistan." Mohammad Ayub Khan,
Friends not Masters, P-202
2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State in Pakistan, p-66
3. Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan,
p79-80
4. Speech on Feb. 5, 1938
5 Afzal Iqbal, Islamization of Pakistan, p-28
6. Ibid. p-54
7. Alluding to Quadi-i-Azam's marriage to a Parsi girl.
8. Munir Report, p-256
9. Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25
10. The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37
11. Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi-e-Hind aur Mussalman (Indian

Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23
12. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p-368
13. Ibid., p-368
14. Zamzam 17.7.1938 cited by Pakistan Struggle and Pervez, Tulu-e-Islam

Trust, Lahore, p-614
15. Ibid. p-314
16. Hasan (rose) from Basrah, Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Rome,
Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what monstrosity is this? He chanted

from the pulpit that nations are created by countries, What an ignoramus
regarding the position of Muhammad! Take thyself to Muhammad, because

he is the totality of Faith, And if thou does not reach him, all (thy
knowledge) is Bu Lahaism.
17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes
the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal
Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that "it

would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder
of Indian partition." H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-

162
18. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, op. cit., p-328
19. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p-237
20. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics p-334
21. Justice Sayed Shameem Hussain Kadri - Creation of Pakistan - Army
Book Club, Rawalpindi ,1983 -- p-414
22. Ayub Khan, op. cit., p-200
23. According to Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, the present state of affairs of the
Moslem world. Dr. Iqbal said: "It seems to me that God is slowly bringing
home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a
league of nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial

distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting the social
horizon of its members." (Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p-

159) Dr. Iqbal had apparently in mind the following verse from the Holy
Quran: O Mankind ! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a

female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other.
(49:13)
24. Qureshi, op. cit., p-378
25. Afzal Iqbal, Islamization in Pakistan, p-26
26. Ayub Khan, op. cit.,p-202
27. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Modern Islam in India, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad
Ashraf, 1963, p-173
28. Afzal Iqbal, op. cit., p-29
29. Qureshi, op. cit., p-383
30. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in History, p-215
31. Munir Report, p-205
32. Ibid. p-218
33. Ibid. p-219
34. Anita M. Weiss, Reassertion of Islam in Pakistan, p-2
35. Leonard Binder, Islam and Politics in Pakistan, University of California
Press, 1961, p-29
36. Anita M. Weiss, p-21
37. Ibid. p-21
38. When Pakistan appeared on the map, they (Ulema) found no place for
themselves in India and they all came to Pakistan and brought with them
the curse of Takfir (calling one another infidel). Munir, From Jinnah to Zia, p-
38
39. Prof. Rafi-ullah Shehab - The Quaid-e-Azam and the Ulema - The
Pakistan Times, Islamabad 25.12.1986.
40. Ahmad Bashir, Islam, Shariat and the Holy Ghost, Frontier Post,
Peshawar, 9.5.1991
41. Ibid.
Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
Thanks x 16 Positive Rating x 4
Mar 23, 2014 #2
^^It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the

Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana
Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of
this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-
1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad
M. Sarmad
BANNED
Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years
in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few
other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the
Messages: 4,786
Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the
activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind. However, the bulk
of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of
Ratings: +60 / 7,471 / -14
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in
opposing the demand for Pakistan. Contrary to the plea
of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was
worried that the end of British domination should not become
for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination.
Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed have been trying
their best so construct a bridge between Secular Jinnah &

Deobandi Scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi to Islamize Muhammad
Ali Jinnah and Pakistan, (The fact is Jinnah never met
with Thanvi) and each time Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon
ur Rasheed create/concoct a lie to achieve the desired result
ends up in more confusion. Pakistani Scholars are strange,
they have several version of Ideologies/Islam to concoct
Alleged Islamic Ideologies of Pakistan e.g. on Blasphemy Law
they follow Traditionalists, while executing/implementing the
Blasphemy Law these ideologues target the most
marginalized section of the society i.e. Minorities whereas
spare Blatant Blasphemers within the Mullah Community
(Deobandi, Barelvi, Shia books are riddled with Blasphemy
and their Mullahs often resort to worst kind of Blasphemy in
the name of respective Fiqh), same Ideologues adopt a
criminal silence on the practice of Blatant and Brazen
Apostasy/Disbelief e.g. Practice of Sorcery openly in Pakistan
& Promoted through Pakistani TV Channels. Above mentioned
Alleged Scholars shamelessly quote Apostate Masnoor Hallaj
& Blasphemer Ali Hajweri in their Daily Jang Column without
any check or any threat of use of Blasphemy Law from any
quarter for quoting Blasphemous Sufis. Dr Safdar & Haroon
ur Rasheed & their partners in crime e.g. Mujib ur Rehamn
Shami (Dunya TV) and Irfan Siddiqui (Daily Jang) take one
more giant step they often praise Mawdudi (Founder of
Jamat-e-Islami) whose Blasphemous Views on Prophets
(Peace be upon them) & Companions of Prophet Mohammad
(May Allah be pleased with all of them) are not a secret.
Irony is that Dr Safdar/Haroon ur Rasheed are praising
Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi & Jinnah's alleged connections,
conveniently forget about the Religious Edicts (Fatwas),
Books, even Fatwa of Apostasy issued by the very same
Deobandi Scholars on Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami. It is
requested that Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur
Rasheed would also reveal the Fatwa of Apostasy
against Jinnah and Fellow Alleged Founders of
Pakistan, and Fatwas were issued by Barelvi,
Deobandi, Jamat-e-Islami Scholars.
Thanks x 6
Mar 23, 2014 #3
Azlan Haider said: ↑
It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband

School was against joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali
Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later
Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known
KingMamba
ELITE MEMBER
disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good
repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat
leadership quit it with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the
first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam
Click to expand... established in 1946 to
Messages: 12,325
Joined: May 23, 2012 Strange Barelvis always telling me they supported Pakistan
Ratings: +11 / 19,344 / -3
movement. I didn't know they were actually issuing fatwas
against Muslim league.
Anyway for the rest this needs to be shown to the awam so

that these kutte mulle can be put back into their place.
Thanks x 3
Mar 23, 2014 #4
M. Sarmad
BANNED
Messages: 4,786
Ratings: +60 / 7,471 / -14
The truth is "Pakistan movement was strongly opposed

by extremist Muslims aka Mullahs and their followers ,
supported by moderate Muslims and spearheaded by
Liberal and Secular Muslims"
The Barelvis being moderates mostly did support Pakistan

Movement but they were not politically as active as Deoband
, who overwhelmingly opposed Pakistan Movement
The irony is , today Liberal and secular Muslims are "traitors"

moderate Muslims are "wajib ul Qatl Mushriks" and the
Mullahs are "representatives and protectors of ideology of
Pakistan " !!!
KingMamba said: ↑
Strange Barelvis always telling me they supported Pakistan

movement. I didn't know they were actually issuing fatwas against
Muslim league.
Anyway for the rest this needs to be shown to the awam so that
these kutte mulle can be put back into their place.
Thanks x 12
Mar 23, 2014 #5
@Azlan Haider
thank you for the excellent post my friend
Now I should finish reading it

Chronos
SENIOR MEMBER
Messages: 5,920
Joined: Sep 21, 2013
Ratings: +16 / 9,772 / -1
Mar 23, 2014 #6
The truth is "Pakistan movement was strongly opposed by

extremist Muslims aka Mullahs and their followers ,
supported by moderate Muslims and spearheaded by Liberal

and Secular Muslims"
The Barelvis being moderates mostly did support Pakistan

Movement but they were not politically as active as Deoband , who
Click to expand...
overwhelmingly opposed Pakistan Movement
Oscar
ADVISORS
Hijacking of revolutions is quite common. Especially by those
who are accustomed to following vested interests and
exploiting situation. The so called orthodox religious clergy
Messages: 31,391
and leadership has always been in that frame of mind.
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
One cant help but laugh at certain monikers assigned to our
Ratings: +314 / 58,668 / -0 Mullahs.. such as that of Chameleons... Changing colors to
best suit them.. and in case they are caught.. they dig up
some pointless religious issue much like a Chameleons tail..
and use it as a diversion to escape and live for another day.
Thanks x 6
Mar 24, 2014 #7
@Azlan Haider thanks for providing a detailed exposition of

your position.
I have only scanned it. I do not have time to read it and

respond to it analytically. Will do so shortly. However I note
Chak Bamu
RETIRED MOD
with satisfaction that your assertion that "Mullahs
opposed Pakistan" turns out to be a half truth,
according to material provided by yourself. Thanks for
Messages: 4,260 doing so.
Joined: Jan 3, 2013

So, when can I expect you to say that you were wrong in
Ratings: +64 / 6,406 / -0
making that erroneous assertion? Now would be a good time.
Mar 25, 2014 #8
Chak Bamu said: ↑
@Azlan Haider thanks for providing a detailed exposition of your

position.
I have only scanned it. I do not have time to read it and respond to
it analytically. Will do so shortly. However I note with satisfaction

M. Sarmad
BANNED that your assertion that "Mullahs opposed Pakistan" turns
out to be a half truth, according to material provided by
Click to expand...
Messages: 4,786
Joined: Oct 27, 2013 Don`t jump to conclusions so quickly my friend . Before
Ratings: +60 / 7,471 / -14

noting anything with "satisfaction" , please read it through
."Mullahs opposed Pakistan" , it is a fact ... This was
posted to start a discussion . Now if you could tell us what is
the basis of your "assumption" that Mullahs actually
supported Pakistan Movement , we may discuss it
The universal opposition of virtually every significant religious

group in Undivided India, indeed the entire Muslim religious
establishment to Jinnah`s Pakistan movement and the Muslim
League cannot be reconciled with any idea of religious origins of
Pakistan. This is just one of many paradoxes that anyone
who thinks of that the true reason for the creation of
Pakistan was to establish a religious 'Islamic state', must
unravel.
A few outcast Mullahs like Shabbir Ahmed Usmani do not

count , meray bhai !!!!
Thanks x 1
Mar 25, 2014 #9
Don`t jump to conclusions so quickly my friend . Before noting

anything with "satisfaction" , please read it through ."Mullahs
opposed Pakistan" , it is a fact ... This was posted to start a
discussion . Now if you could tell us what is the basis of your
Chak Bamu
RETIRED MOD
"assumption" that Mullahs actually supported Pakistan Movement ,
we may discuss it
Click to expand...
Messages: 4,260
Joined: Jan 3, 2013 Meray bhai, it is still YOUR opinion that you are parading as a
Ratings: +64 / 6,406 / -0
fact. The opinions that you have quoted do not create facts in
themselves. For example you can not explain away your
inconsistency by saying that a few outcasts do not matter.

Those were not outcasts, they were realists; they were not
few, they were many.
Molana Madni soldiered on with his campaign against

Pakistan even when he knew for sure that Pakistan shall be
created. He had his reasons - and those reasons were good
for Muslims who were to be left behind in India. Broaden
your horizon my friend, Pakistan is not IT. Islam is much
more than Pakistan and if we can not learn to accept some
measure of validity in other people's POVs, then we would be
acting very much like Mullahs. Mullah is a mentality, not a
sect. Your unequivocal rejection of facts (that you have
yourself admitted) is actually a very Mullah-esque behavior.
I have gone through your article, but I do not yet have time
to respond to it. I wanted to brush up my books which are in
storage to make a reasoned reply, but I might just have to
pick off your points from within your post to show
inconsistencies and logical fallacies.
Mar 25, 2014 #10
Chak Bamu said: ↑
Meray bhai, it is still YOUR opinion that you are parading as a fact.
The opinions that you have quoted do not create facts in
themselves. For example you can not explain away your
inconsistency by saying that a few outcasts do not matter. Those
M. Sarmad
BANNED
were not outcasts, they were realists; they were not few, they
were many.
Molana Madni soldiered onClick

withtohis campaign against Pakistan even
expand...
Messages: 4,786
Ratings: +60 / 7,471 / -14

Mere Rhetoric once again !!! you have disappointed me
seriously , I expected better from you ...
Shabbir Ahmed Usmani had left Deoband in 1927 to follow

Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri to Dhabeel , but returned to
Deoband in 1935 as patron of the Darul `Uloom Deoband .
Serious differences soon emerged between him and others at
the school , especially Maulana Madani . Shortly after Madani
was imprisoned , crisis reached a peak . Madani used his

influence and Usmani along with Mufti Muhammad Shafi were
forced to resign in 1942 (for the details of these differences ,
see Maktubat e Madani I , 331-335 , 346-356)
The rising popularity of Muslim League shattered the

confidence of other parties , They became restless , and
Maulana Madani (Rector of Dar ul Uloom Deoband and
president of Jamiat e Ulema e Hind) called a meeting (Sept
1945) . The meeting was attended by over 150
delegates from different parties and they decided to
oppose the League`s Agenda Tooth and Nail and
formed a Muslim Parliamentary Board
(Deoband Ulemas Movement for freedom of India by Dr.

Farhat Tabassum , p.158)
Shabbir Usmani along with a few other outcasts opposed

Madani for obvious reasons !!! But they did not count ,
neither in numbers , nor in influence or status !! Kuch
samjhay bhai ?? Other than this , Majlis e Ahrar , Jamat e
Islami , along with other parties strongly opposed Pakistan
Movement ... The Pro League Mullahs atay mein namak k
barabar bantay hain bhai !!!!
And yes , The reason why Maulana Madani opposed Pakistan

movement is debatable , but what matters is , he strongly
opposed Pakistan Movement . Apparently it was for "Money"
Late Rafiullah Shehab writing in “The Nation” (September 11,

2001) stated: “Mr M. A. H. Ispahani, a close associate of
the Quaid, who was present on the occasion writes about this
important meeting in his famous book ‘The Quaid-e-Azam, as
I Knew Him’ as under: ‘In course of the Parliamentary Board
meeting at Lahore, I remember Mufti Kifayatullah and
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni supporting Mr Jinnah and
welcoming his move to bring the Muslim League in the arena
of live politics but on the last day, one of these men of
learning put forth the suggestion that to ensure success of
the Muslim League as a party in the polls, effective and

relentless propaganda would be necessary and for this
purpose, (the ulema) of Deoband would place their
machinery at the League’s disposal on the condition that the
cost of the propaganda be borne by the League. At that time
League was not in a position to arrange the required funds
which disappointed the Maulanas and they drifted in the
direction of the Hindu Congress.’ (Pages 23, 24.)
Historian Ashiq Hussain Batalvi also notes in his book

“Allama Iqbal Kay Akhri Do Saal”, the inclination of the pro-
Congress religious parties in Punjab to lend support to the
Muslim League only if the funds were forthcoming.
William Gould in his book "Hindu Nationalism and the

Language of Politics in Late Colonial India" writes "Congress
donated Rs. 35000 to Muslim Parliamentary Board for
elections ....."
Mar 25, 2014 #11
The rising popularity of Muslim League shattered the confidence of

other parties , They became restless , and Maulana Madani
(Rector of Dar ul Uloom Deoband and president of Jamiat e Ulema
e Hind) called a meeting (Sept 1945) . The meeting was
attended by over 150 delegates from different parties and
Bratva they decided to oppose the League`s Agenda Tooth and Nail
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST and formed a Muslim Parliamentary Board
Click to expand...
The Third All India Sunni Conference was held on 27-30 April
Messages: 13,123
1946 at Benaras under the presidentship of Syed Jamaat Ali
Joined: Jun 8, 2010
Shah which was attended by five hundred Mashaikh, seven
Ratings: +46 / 20,181 / -1
hundred ulema and some two Iakh people.
There were reports that some Congress agents conspired to

disrupt the meeting. They prepared a resolution according to
which Mr. Jinnah was to be denounced as infidel and apostate
from the platform of AISC. Moreover, it was demanded of
Jamaat Ali Shah to retract his high praise for Mr. Jinnah, or
resign from the presidentship of the conference, It is
important to mention here that many nationalist Muslim

leaders and nationalist Muslim groups such as Ahrar
condemned Muslim League, and denounced its prominent
leaders such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah for his westernized
and un-Islamic way of life. Now denouncing Jinnah from the
platform of AISC and particularly from Syed JammatAli Shah
was planned by pro-Congress leaders within AISC. Since
Jammat Ali had a large following among the Punjabi Muslims,
the ulterior motive behind the move was to discredit Jinnah
among them.
Pir Sahib got wind of the plan but remained cool and calm.
When he stood up to deliver Presidential address, he spoke in
a voice “People dub Jinnah as infidel, but, I call him a saint,
people express their own opinion but I say it in the light of
Quran and Hadiths. Those who believe in their Allah and
obey Him Allah creates love and reverence f or them in the h
earts of people’ (Quran). Now is there anybody other than
Jinnah who is loved and respected bytencrore Muslims of
India. Therefore, you may call him infidel, but in my eyes he
is a Saint”. After these arguments, nobody dared to
pressurize him to change his stance.
In the same meeting, a resolution was also passed, whereby

the leaders of the AISC and other prominent leaders present
in the meeting pledged to support the demand for Pakistan.
http://ameer-e-millat.com/EstAllIndiaSun.htm
Thanks x 2
Mar 25, 2014 #12
ma ya said: ↑
The Third All India Sunni Conference was held on 27-30 April 1946
at Benaras under the presidentship of Syed Jamaat Ali Shah which
was attended by five hundred Mashaikh, seven hundred ulema and
some two Iakh people.
M. Sarmad
BANNED
There were reports that some

ClickCongress agents conspired to disrupt
to expand...
Messages: 4,786 Meray bhai there is a HUGE difference b/w a Mullah and a
Joined: Oct 27, 2013 Pir/saint . Without the support of Moderate Muslims ,
Ratings: +60 / 7,471 / -14 Pakistan would have never come into existence . No one is
denying that .
Mar 25, 2014 #13
Most Mullahs have only read Quran & Sunnah and little else.
That is why anything that has no reference in the 7th
Century is considered as un-Islamic or Kufr. This mind-set is
real cause of decline of the Islamic power. In my opinion
Islam is not a monastic religion and a ‘Momin’ should be
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
successful in this world as well as in the next world.
I have been trying to rationalize as to why otherwise well-

Messages: 4,532
meaning and intelligent aalim such as Maulana Madani was
so much against creation of Pakistan? In my view, Ulema
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
wanted to create a Dark Age Islamic Emirate similar to
Ratings: +172 / 9,059 / -0
Mullah Omer's Afghanistan. Presence of forward looking
leaders such as Allama Iqbal, Quaid e Azam and Sir Syed
Ahmad Khan ensured that this wouldn’t be the case.
Therefore a Hindu dominated secular India was preferable to
a liberal Pakistan. That is why majority of the Ulema
especially of the Deobandi maslak, Majils Ahrar and Mualana
Maudoodi opposed Pakistan.
You can see the mind-set in today’s JI leader Manawwar

Hassan, who calls Taliban butchers, who play football with
the severed heads of Pak Army Jawans, as his brothers and
Pak Army martyrs killed by Taliban as not ‘Shaheed’!
Present day Arab countries have enormous wealth, no

shortage of population but still all the Arab countries
together are unable to defeat Israel l, a small Jewish country!
Mainly because Israelis are a couple of generations ahead of
any Muslim country in Science & Technology.
There have been so many new inventions and changes

during the last century alone that one needs to adopt or be
eliminated. For example, without photograph identification of

a person is virtually impossible, and gov’t work will stop. We
know that drawing of animate objects is haram is Islam. Is a
photo a ‘Drawing’? Muslims badly need to revive Ijtehad to
compete in the modern world.
It is hard for me to explain to anyone in UK that anti- Polio

workers are being shot dead because Taliban who are
supposedly fighting to create an Islamic state consider
vaccination un- Islamic. Nevertheless Munawwar Hassan of JI
calls them his brothers!!
In my humble opinion main reason for the backwardness of

Muslim countries is the Ulema. These are not really Ulema
but in actual fact these are ‘Jahil’ in the modern sciences.
They disagree with DNA as proof, support child marriage
despite the great risk to the heatlh of mother and child in
case of pregnancy.
In my view, Jamaat Islami and majority of the Deobandi

maslak mullahs were, are and will remain ‘Pakistan
Dushman’. Any verbal denial and hanging portrait of the
Quaid is just a proof of their ‘Munafiqat’.
Thanks x 7
Mar 25, 2014 #14
niaz said: ↑
Most Mullahs have only read Quran & Sunnah and little else. That is
why anything that has no reference in the 7th Century is
considered as un-Islamic or Kufr. This mind-set is real cause of
decline of the Islamic power. In my opinion Islam is not a monastic
Bratva
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
religion and a ‘Momin’ should be successful in this world as well as
in the next world.
I have been trying to rationalize

Click toas to why otherwise well-meaning
expand...
Messages: 13,123
Joined: Jun 8, 2010 Niaz Sahab, As often as I give an example of Hazrat Umar
Ratings: +46 / 20,181 / -1
(R.A) era, He was a real mujtahid. His addition of words in
Azan e Fajar, beginning of Namaz e Tarawwi, Banning
Muta'ah (Temporary marriages), Suspending the hand
chopping punishment to thief during a famine. He was able

to do all of this because he was a strict,harsh and
independent administrator. Without such qualities, you can
not discipline and bring unity and harmony among muslims
in the matter of religion
Thanks x 1
Mar 26, 2014 #15
niaz said: ↑
In my humble opinion main reason for the backwardness of Muslim

countries is the Ulema. These are not really Ulema but in actual
fact these are ‘Jahil’ in the modern sciences.
M. Sarmad
BANNED Sir that is exactly what Quran tells us !!!
By knowing Quran , it is easy to figure out who, according to

Messages: 4,786
the Quran, is a knowledgeable person and what the term
Joined: Oct 27, 2013 actually means. The Quran has even explained this fact so
Ratings: +60 / 7,471 / -14 there is no confusion:
“Did you not ponder the rain that Allah caused to fall
from the sky, with which we produce fruit of diverse
colors; and among the mountains there are layers of
red and white which differ in shade and type, some
being dark in color. Similarly, humans and animals are
of different colors and kinds. Among the followers of
Allah and knowledgeable persons (ulema) are those
who are awestruck by the greatness of Allah.”
[35:27,28]
These two verses deal with different parts of the universe,

different branches of nature, and different fields of science.
Physics, botany, zoology, and the humanities are all touched
upon. The knowledgeable persons are awestruck because
their insight has convinced them of His power and Wisdom in
controlling the universe perfectly. The Quran has referred to
those people as ulema, and in modern terminology they are
called scientists. These are the people who study nature and
after observation and consistent experimentation, conquer
the forces of nature. Allah has put the forces of nature under
our control, but only those who know the laws can
manipulate these forces. The only way to become one of the
ulema is to acquire this knowledge.
After learning the Quranic definition of ulema, it is an

interesting exercise to compare our current ulema with it.
They do not know the fundamentals of natural sciences, and
their knowledge is limited to theoretical discussions and
verbal emendations. These discussions are mostly related to
issues that have no bearing on the universe or the practical
life of people. The curriculum of religious schools is spread
over ten years during which students study logic, philosophy,
rhetoric, grammar, literature, etc, most of which is outdated.
They also learn about astronomy, geometry, and arithmetic,
which are also outdated. It is curious to note that the study
of the Quran is not included in the curriculum. A certain
exegesis (Jilalain) is taught that consists of only synonyms of
the Quranic words. In the last year of study an exegesis of
the second chapter of the Quran is taught (Bazadi). This is
the education upon completion of which they receive
certification for becoming an aalim (knowledgeable person).
Here is a case in point to illustrate just how much knowledge
these people have:
When the use of loudspeakers was introduced in India before

1947, a fatwa was sought on their use for religious purposes.
Mufti Mohammad Shafee, a senior teacher in the religious

academy of Deoband, published a verdict in a magazine in
which the use of the devices for prayer was declared
unlawful. He wrote that he did not know the nature of the
device and how it worked. He sought information from the
science teacher, Mr. Brij Nandan Lal of Alexander High School
of Bhopal, and the teacher said, “Because of the use of
electrical power I am hesitant to believe that the sound is
original, and find it hard to deny it either because to prove
otherwise is equally difficult.” After this “exhaustive
research” and on the basis on conjecture from a non-
Muslim, a Muslim aalim decided that it was the decree
of Allah and His prophet to forbid the use of

loudspeakers. This illustrates nicely how ignorant the ulema
are in matters natural and modern science; it is ironic that
they still retain the ability to issue verdicts (fatwas) on them,
however. In Pakistan not only is the expression of personal
opinions a target, but law making has fallen victim to the
same ignorant judgments.
Thanks x 1
1 2 3 4 Next > (You must log in or sign up to reply here.)
SIMILAR THREADS
Afghan Ulema Council blames Pakistan for Faryab bombing

A.Rafay, Oct 31, 2012, in forum: Strategic & Foreign A airs
Replies: 0 Oct 31, 2012
Pakistan Ulema Council declare Daesh 'Khawarij'

Devil Soul, Feb 11, 2016, in forum: Social & Current Events
Replies: 24 Feb 12, 2016
Ulema most loyal to Constitution of Pakistan: Siraj

Apprentice, Jun 7, 2016, in forum: Social & Current Events
Replies: 1 Jun 7, 2016
Pakistan Ulema Council to contest 2018 general elections

Zibago, Dec 28, 2016, in forum: Pakistani Siasat
Replies: 6 Dec 28, 2016
Pakistan movement and the role of Ulema (Religous scholars) - Answering a

propaganda
CriticalThought, May 3, 2017, in forum: Social & Current Events
Replies: 15 May 8, 2017
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (Users: 0, Guests: 1)
Home  Pakistan Defence Forum  Special Sections  Seniors Cafe 
 Contact Us  Help  Terms and Rules  Privacy Policy

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10/05/2019 Ulema and Pakistan Movement

 Menu  Recent Posts

Home  Pakistan Defence Forum  Special Sections  Seniors Cafe 

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Mar 23, 2014 #1

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent -- Jamiat

The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is

populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild

The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were

It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the

The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of

Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly

The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one

The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim

The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman

Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora

(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman

After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But

The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan

"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of

Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of

existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before

Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an

He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he

The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization

Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National

In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all

broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political

Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim

It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the

Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim

served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their

The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and

The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and

The conflict between the educated Muslims and the Ulema

The Muslims Renaissance in the sub-continent began with

of Islam. He was not just a scholar of theology and law, but a

The leadership of the Muslim community had passed out of

After independence the conflict between the intellectuals with

judicial enquiry conducted by Justice Mohammad Munir in

At one point the report emphasized: " But we cannot refrain

"Keeping in view the several definitions given by the Ulema,

The creation of Pakistan was the greatest defeat of the

"nationalist" Ulema. But soon after the establishment of

A claim that Pakistan was created to fulfill the millenarian

Some zealous religious activists are now attempting to

In a TV discussion on Shariah bill in April 1991, two

Mohammad Hussain Naeemi, implied that the Shariat bill was

However, the fact is that this oft quoted statement is an

1. After independence "some of the Ulema decided to stay in India, others

Friends not Masters, P-202

2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State in Pakistan, p-66

4. Speech on Feb. 5, 1938

5 Afzal Iqbal, Islamization of Pakistan, p-28

7. Alluding to Quadi-i-Azam's marriage to a Parsi girl.

8. Munir Report, p-256

9. Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25

11. Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi-e-Hind aur Mussalman (Indian

12. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p-368

13. Ibid., p-368

14. Zamzam 17.7.1938 cited by Pakistan Struggle and Pervez, Tulu-e-Islam

15. Ibid. p-314