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

[S.Y.A]

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

However, since it is clear that you are on a crusade, there is no point in discussing history or historical events with you.

you claims are self-contradictory and laughable. waht an idiot. coupling maudoodi with JUI of shabbir usmani is enough to expose your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. waht a jahil. and people have claimed this since the beginning, not a later day creation jackass.

the involvement and also their role in moblizing masses is easily proved from vol3 of the book of sharifuddin pirzada, pg 286, containing resolutions of muslim league, which called form ulema to issue fatwas in its favor and deliver speeches in masajid on fridays in its favor.

you are an intellectually dishonest person. who tries to look a sophisticated well read man, with no knowledge.

Right through, from all existing accounts, except those that are being posited today by Islamicists

i am the only one who is saying that all accounts should be considered. you are asking to exclude some. this is what intellectual dishonesty is.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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

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

you claims are self-contradictory and laughable. waht an idiot. coupling maudoodi with JUI of shabbir usmani is enough to expose your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. waht a jahil. and people have claimed this since the beginning, not a later day creation jackass.

Nobody of serious weight has claimed this, other than the Mullahs or their representatives who have the most to gain by creating a retrospective role for themselves, one that never existed.

 

[El Sidd]

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

The contribution is across the spectrum of society. It would be unfair to disregard any of their contributions.

Tragedy of the fall of Dhaka in 2nd Indo-Pak war is a silent echo of grief for us.

 

[M. Sarmad]

the true ideological figures like Ashraf Thanwi, Mufti Shafi, Shabbir Usmani, Zafar Usmani and yusuf binnori really are dismissed,

The reason for dismissing these Mullahs is not based on their identity as Mullahs, but rather due to the fact that they represented a tiny and insignificant minority compared to the vast majority of Mullahs who were opposed to Jinnah and his Pakistan movement.

The number of notable pro-Pakistan Mullahs could be counted on one's fingers, whereas there were literally thousands of notable and well-known Mullahs who were against Pakistan.

As for the tiny Pro-Jinnah Deoband group that you guys like to mention, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1887-1949) became the leader. Jinnah never met Thanvi. 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, the crisis reached a peak. Madani used his influence and Usmani along with Mufti Muhammad Shafi were forced to resign in 1942 (for details, read Maktubat e Madani I , 331-335 , 346-356)

These outcast Mullahs had their own personal beef with the main group of Mullahs and that was the primary reason behind their support of Jinnah and his Pakistan movement

As for the vast majority of anti-Pakistan Mullahs, read this:

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

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...

defence.pk

 

[S.Y.A]

The reason for dismissing these Mullahs is not based on their identity as Mullahs, but rather due to the fact that they represented a tiny and insignificant minority compared to the vast majority of Mullahs who were opposed to Jinnah and his Pakistan movement.

The number of notable pro-Pakistan Mullahs could be counted on one's fingers, whereas there were literally thousands of notable and well-known Mullahs who were against Pakistan.

As for the tiny Pro-Jinnah Deoband group that you guys like to mention, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1887-1949) became the leader. Jinnah never met Thanvi. 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, the crisis reached a peak. Madani used his influence and Usmani along with Mufti Muhammad Shafi were forced to resign in 1942 (for details, read Maktubat e Madani I , 331-335 , 346-356)

These outcast Mullahs had their own personal beef with the main group of Mullahs and that was the primary reason behind their support of Jinnah and his Pakistan movement

As for the vast majority of anti-Pakistan Mullahs, read this:

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

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...

defence.pk

the personal beef you cite, what was it?

and the claim that they were an insignificant minority, can you prove that as well? all the leading, notable ones were in this group. each and every one reveres molana ashraf thanvi, various accounts mention him writing to the Quaid, and instructing the usmanis to set up support for ML and the Quaid. whether he met him or not is irrelevant. what is important is that is following and standing was more than molana madani.

Nobody of serious weight has claimed this, other than the Mullahs or their representatives who have the most to gain by creating a retrospective role for themselves, one that never existed.

and who are people of serious weight? munir? chagla? you? or those that had no constituency to call their own?

As for the vast majority of anti-Pakistan Mullahs, read this:

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

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...

defence.pk

this contains nothing but claims by the author which he doesnt prove, and only cites a sentence or two, after a paragraph of own claims.

 

[Joe Shearer]

the involvement and also their role in moblizing masses is easily proved from vol3 of the book of sharifuddin pirzada, pg 286, containing resolutions of muslim league, which called form ulema to issue fatwas in its favor and deliver speeches in masajid on fridays in its favor.

What is this proving? A resolution asking the ulema to issue fatwas in its favour is precisely that, an effort by the Muslim League to enlist support that clearly did not exist. If it existed, it would not have been necessary to pass resolutions asking for it to be done.

Do you not read what you yourself write? Or are you transfixed by the majesty of your ulema's self-certification?

and who are people of serious weight? munir? chagla? you? or those that had no constituency to call their own?

Any historian; any commentator or analyst of Jinnah's life, with credibility, other than self-certifying Mullahs who have only themselves to rely on, only themselves as witnesses.

i am the only one who is saying that all accounts should be considered. you are asking to exclude some. this is what intellectual dishonesty is.

All accounts means verifiable accounts, not self-praise by an interested party.

 

[Joe Shearer]

i am the only one who is saying that all accounts should be considered. you are asking to exclude some. this is what intellectual dishonesty is.

All accounts means verifiable accounts, not self-praise by an interested party.

The reason for dismissing these Mullahs is not based on their identity as Mullahs, but rather due to the fact that they represented a tiny and insignificant minority compared to the vast majority of Mullahs who were opposed to Jinnah and his Pakistan movement.

The number of notable pro-Pakistan Mullahs could be counted on one's fingers, whereas there were literally thousands of notable and well-known Mullahs who were against Pakistan.

As for the tiny Pro-Jinnah Deoband group that you guys like to mention, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1887-1949) became the leader. Jinnah never met Thanvi. 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, the crisis reached a peak. Madani used his influence and Usmani along with Mufti Muhammad Shafi were forced to resign in 1942 (for details, read Maktubat e Madani I , 331-335 , 346-356)

These outcast Mullahs had their own personal beef with the main group of Mullahs and that was the primary reason behind their support of Jinnah and his Pakistan movement

As for the vast majority of anti-Pakistan Mullahs, read this:

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

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...

defence.pk

Where do you dig up these creatures?

No, don't answer, I can sense that your answer will be bruising, and that I will be told that they come from the same cesspool as Hindutvavadi distortion artists, who are bent on a mirror-image campaign of composing their own history.

How I wish it were possible to lock up this assortment of foul-mouthed bottom-feeders from both sides into an enclosed space for them to kill each other, so that there would be a sharply limited number left at the end to euthanise.

 

[Ssan]

Noted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

all seems contrary to logic.

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

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

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

I was planning to discuss these topics on other threads attached to this main one.

 

[Ssan]

Regardless, we are definitely disagreed on their importance. Certainly, the breakaway faction was extremely important in NWFP vote and so were other pirs and local sufis like Pir of Manki.

But anyways, let’s save that for a separate thread.

 

[Ssan]

What is this proving? A resolution asking the ulema to issue fatwas in its favour is precisely that, an effort by the Muslim League to enlist support that clearly did not exist. If it existed, it would not have been necessary to pass resolutions asking for it to be done.

Do you not read what you yourself write? Or are you transfixed by the majesty of your ulema's self-certification?


Any historian; any commentator or analyst of Jinnah's life, with credibility, other than self-certifying Mullahs who have only themselves to rely on, only themselves as witnesses.


All accounts means verifiable accounts, not self-praise by an interested party.

I quoted Professor Leonard Binder in the beginning too. He has all the relevant information in his blurb.

Anyhow, I think we are disagreed upon the first hand testimony of three separate individuals to establish the existence of a body. And Professor Binders recalling of the event too.

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

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

The letter in the British archives is independently verified by two separate individuals, Ayesha Jalal and Dr Ishtiaq. It is public access . Anyone can go schedule time and go in and see it. Or pay $10 to get a copy for themselves. And I have attached the link to the British archives document number.

So your assertion is baseless. Your feedback here is also extraneous given that I have already suggested we should make a digital copy in post # 3.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I was planning to discuss these topics on other threads attached to this main one.

That will be much better, dear Sir. Here you will be held back by foul-mouthed gutter elements.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The letter in the British archives is independently verified by two separate individuals, Ayesha Jalal and Dr Ishtiaq. It is public access . Anyone can go schedule time and go in and see it. Or pay $10 to get a copy for themselves. And I have attached the link to the British archives document number.

So your assertion is baseless. Your feedback here is also extraneous given that I have already suggested we should make a digital copy in post # 3.

Allow me to reiterate that it is you, not me, who is making assertions in this conversation. I am simply asking you to provide evidence to support your claim. Merely stating that a copy of the letter exists in the British archives is insufficient to establish its existence and authenticity, particularly when you acknowledge that you have not personally seen the letter and are relying on hearsay.

So far what we know is that Dr. Ayesha unearthed this highly significant 1948 letter in 2017. However, she has failed to produce the original letter and has not asserted its presence in the British archives. Three years later, one Ishtiaq Lahori makes a similar claim in his book but has also not presented the original letter. These accounts fall short of providing sufficient evidence to establish even the existence, let alone the authenticity, of the letter in question.

There are several lingering questions that require answers in this matter. Firstly, the whereabouts of this letter for the past 70 years are unknown, and it raises the question of why it was not mentioned earlier. If we assume that it was part of secret British documents declassified in 2017, then its authenticity becomes inherently questionable, warranting a separate debate. Moreover, the language in which the letter was purportedly written raises doubts about its authenticity. It is possible that it could be feedback from British diplomats in Cairo to their government regarding Jinnah's relationship with Banna, but in that case, it may not qualify as a letter per se. Until these questions are adequately addressed and answered, this discussion will remain purely speculative rather than an academic discourse.

 

[Joe Shearer]

All accounts means verifiable accounts, not self-praise by an interested party.

Where do you dig up these creatures?

No, don't answer, I can sense that your answer will be bruising, and that I will be told that they come from the same cesspool as Hindutvavadi distortion artists, who are bent on a mirror-image campaign of composing their own history.

How I wish it were possible to lock up this assortment of foul-mouthed bottom-feeders from both sides into an enclosed space for them to kill each other, so that there would be a sharply limited number left at the end to euthanise.

I am increasingly coming to the view that we would in both countries be better off with different constitutions than we have now. Not possible to discuss here. Perhaps at an appropriate time and place.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Regardless, we are definitely disagreed on their importance. Certainly, the breakaway faction was extremely important in NWFP vote and so were other pirs and local sufis like Pir of Manki.

But anyways, let’s save that for a separate thread.

So, you're suggesting that without the influence of the Mullahs, the people of KP would have overwhelmingly chosen India over Pakistan in the referendum? Such a statement appears to be an extreme exaggeration.

As for Pirs, they do not qualify as Mullahs

 

[El Sidd]

So, you're suggesting that without the influence of the Mullahs, the people of KP would have overwhelmingly chosen India over Pakistan in the referendum? Such a statement appears to be an extreme exaggeration

Frontier Gandhi would have succeeded without the interference of Pir, Peernis, Ayatollahs and Imams.

As for Pirs, they do not qualify as Mullahs

Convenient. Ayatullahs don't either right?