Second opinion:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-1-2003_pg3_7
Khaled Ahmed’s Urdu Press Review
A reference to Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni in a recent meeting in Lahore has incensed the Deobandi ulema belonging to the JUI. Unintentionally, a debate has been revived whether the followers of the ulema who opposed the Pakistan Movement before 1947 can now rule Pakistan efficiently or will their vision actually harm its security?
This was the question asked by Allama Iqbal’s son, Justice (Retd) Javid Iqbal, in front of an audience in Lahore recently. The fact that the ulema did not support the Pakistan Movement sets history against them, but today the most powerful claim on the destiny of Pakistan as an Islamic state has been by the very ulema whose organisations were at the forefront of the anti-Pakistan reaction before 1947. Who reformed himself, the makers of Pakistan or the ulema? We can see that, 1949 onwards, it is the makers of Pakistan who “corrected” themselves by suiting their ideology to the expectations of the ulema. In the past fifty years, Pakistan has gradually moved away from the norms of democracy accepted by it in 1947 and has moved closer to the vision of the ulema. Today, our destiny is in their hands.
According to “Nawa-e-Waqt”, (December 10, 2002), during a meeting in Lahore chief editor Majeed Nizami was told by Lahore’s famous cleric Dr Israr Ahmad that he was not a follower of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, upon which Mr Nizami told him that he used to praise Madni in his sermons in his mosque after which he (Mr Nizami) had stopped going to that mosque. Daily “Jang” featured a column by journalist Hamid Mir in which he revealed that in 1937, in the Uttar Pradesh elections, Congress was one short of the majority vote, whereupon Hussain Ahmad Madni persuaded a Muslim Leaguer, Hafiz Ibrahim, to defect to Congress. When the Muslim League objected, Madni got Ibrahim to recontest and win the seat for Congress. Quoted in “Khabrain”, Sahibzada Zahid Mehmood Qasimi, secretary general of JUI and head of Deoband Action Committee in Lahore, stated that a newspaper editor (Mr Nizami) had insulted the memory of Hussain Ahmad Madni and should take back his words. He said Madni studied hadith at the mausoleum of the Prophet (PBUH) for 18 years and today his pupils were active in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Bosnia. He said the followers of Deoband were greatly incensed at the remarks made by the editor.
Hussain Ahmad Madni was the leader of the religious alliance that thought that Muslims could become “one nation” with the Hindus in their struggle against British Raj. His ability to persuade a Muslim Leaguer to desert the Muslim League points to an early influence of the ulema over the Pakistan Movement. 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.) It was after this separation that Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, in one of his addresses condemned the Two-Nation Theory, declaring it against the teachings of Islam. He advised the Muslims to gather under the flag of the Indian National Congress. Allama Iqbal promptly refuted the arguments of the Maulana by quoting from the teachings of Islam and established that this theory was in accordance with the teachings of Islam. But in spite of that, a majority of the Ulema following the instructions of Maulana Madni bitterly opposed the establishment of Pakistan.” 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.
Talking to Tehreek Karkunan Pakistan in Lahore Justice (Retd) Javid Iqbal said in “Jang” (October 17, 2002) that the ulema of the MMA could either give security to Pakistan or destroy it. He said they had gained a political edge for the first time in the latest election but no one knew what Islam they would enforce in a country where Islam had already been enforced. He asked whether this new Islam would be of the Iranian, Taliban, Saudi or the Quaid-e-Azam model. He said under British Raj, the ulema mounted two campaigns, one Wahhabi and the other Khilafat movement, but both damaged the interest of the Muslims. In these two cases the ulema had no political power, but now they have and could actually do more damage because their Islam was not the Islam of Quaid-e-Azam.
Justice Javid Iqbal is obviously referring to the clash that developed between the ulema of Deobandi and Ahle Hadith variety and the Pakistan Movement before 1947. Allama Iqbal had stayed away from the Khilafat Movement spearheaded by the ulema and Congress because he welcomed the new Turkish parliament. The Quaid also did not approve of the Khilafat views as he favoured the setting up of a national government in Turkey under Ataturk. The reference to the Islam of Taliban highlights the nature of the reforms being enforced by the MMA government in the NWFP. His observation about the possibility of the ulema giving security to Pakistan is rhetorical. The reforms in Afghanistan led to civil war and the eventual destruction of the country.