Ulema and Pakistan Movement

[M. Sarmad]

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 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 character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they supported the CongressParty's idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political 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 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]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R E F E R E N C E S

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.

 

[M. Sarmad]

^^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.

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.

 

[KingMamba]

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.

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.

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.

 

[M. Sarmad]

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 " !!!

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.

 

[Chronos]

@Azlan Haider

thank you for the excellent post my friend

Now I should finish reading it

 

[SQ8]

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 " !!!

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 and leadership has always been in that frame of mind.
One cant help but laugh at certain monikers assigned to our 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.

 

[Chak Bamu]

@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 that your assertion that "Mullahs opposed Pakistan" turns out to be a half truth, according to material provided by yourself. Thanks for doing so.

So, when can I expect you to say that you were wrong in making that erroneous assertion? Now would be a good time.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@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 that your assertion that "Mullahs opposed Pakistan" turns out to be a half truth, according to material provided by yourself. Thanks for doing so.

So, when can I expect you to say that you were wrong in making that erroneous assertion? Now would be a good time.

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 "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 !!!!

 

[Chak Bamu]

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 "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 !!!!

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 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.

 

[M. Sarmad]

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 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.

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 ....."

 

[Bratva]

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 !!!!

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.


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

 

[M. Sarmad]

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.


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

Meray bhai there is a HUGE difference b/w a Mullah and a Pir/saint . Without the support of Moderate Muslims , Pakistan would have never come into existence . No one is denying that .

 

[niaz]

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 successful in this world as well as in the next world.

I have been trying to rationalize as to why otherwise well-meaning and intelligent aalim such as Maulana Madani was so much against creation of Pakistan? In my view, Ulema wanted to create a Dark Age Islamic Emirate similar to 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’.

 

[Bratva]

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 successful in this world as well as in the next world.

I have been trying to rationalize as to why otherwise well-meaning and intelligent aalim such as Maulana Madani was so much against creation of Pakistan? In my view, Ulema wanted to create a Dark Age Islamic Emirate similar to 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’.

Niaz Sahab, As often as I give an example of Hazrat Umar (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

 

[M. Sarmad]

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.

Sir that is exactly what Quran tells us !!!

By knowing Quran , it is easy to figure out who, according to the Quran, is a knowledgeable person and what the term actually means. The Quran has even explained this fact so 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.