Dissecting the proponents of ‘Islamic’ Pakistan

Not as Islamic as they appear to be

Religious right in Pakistan, for decades, has vehemently opposed any move or demand to make Pakistan a secular state. So strong is their rhetoric that majority of our population has fallen prey to their agenda of opposing a secular Pakistan.

Religious organisations belonging to Deobandi, Barelvi and Ahle Hadith sects have long opposed such demands and all of them seem to endorse Pakistan.

It is a known fact that most of the mullahs opposed the movement that led to the creation of Pakistan. While many considered Jinnah to be non-Muslim, others had politically motivated reasons.

Going through the text of the prominent religious figures of that time, who are held in high esteem by their followers today, one finds them full of opposition for anything related to Pakistan and its founders.

Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madni, a prominent Deobandi figure decreed Jinnah to be ‘kaafir-e-Azam’ (the biggest of all non-believers). (Khutba Sadarat, Shabir Ahmed Usmani, page 48)

Interestingly, another Deobandi scholar and staunch supporter of Jinnah, Shabir Ahmed Usmani called the statement ‘outright foolishness’. (Makalatus Sadrain, page 32)

Majlis-i-Ahar, another Deobandi organisation working relentlessly against Ahmadis in Pakistan, has a history of openly working against Muslim League and the creation of Pakistan.

After the ’53 anti-Ahmadi riots, a committee under the then Chief Justice Muhammad Munir was formed to investigate into the issue. The main culprit behind the agitation was Majlis-i-Ahrar, about whom Munir wrote:

“Majlis-i-Ahrar met at Delhi on 3^rd March, 1940, disapproved of the Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as ‘Palidistan’.” (Justice Munir Commission Report, 1954, page 11)

‘Ik kafira ke waste Islam ko chhora,

Yeh Quad-i-Azam, hai keh hai kafir-i-azam’

The above couplet is said to be of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading Ahrar personality. He asserted the same views in front of Justice Munir Commission.

In one of the speeches made at Lahore by the Ahrar leader, Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Pakistan was described as a prostitute which the Ahrar had accepted perforce. (Justice Munir Commission Report, page 256)

Ahrar’s Saeed Ahmed Dehalvi said, “Let the dogs bark and caravan of Ahrar move on, for the destinations of Ahrar and (Muslim) League are different.” (Khutbat-e-Ahrar, page 99)

Zafar Ali Khan recounts in his book Chamnistan that Maulana Habib-Ur-Rehman in a gathering said that 10 thousand Jinnahs, Shaukats and Zafar Ali Khans were less worthy than Nehru. (Chamnistan, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, page 101)

Barelvi pir Muhammad Mian Qadri, in his booklet decreed that it was not allowed to call a non-believer like Jinnah with titles such as ‘Quaid-e-Azam’. (Muslim League Ki Zareen Bakhia Dari, page 3)

Calling names on others, blaming anyone remotely against them to be on foreign payroll and ‘agenti-fying’ them are some of the favourite hobbies of the clergy.

Meanwhile, the original text from their elders tell a completely different story about their own character and role during the British rule in subcontinent.

After the 1857 War of Independence failed, British rulers started hunting the ‘rebels’ and news of people being hanged started pouring in on a daily basis. “He knew that his name had been included in the suspected people’s list and he would be arrested anytime but he stood firm and thought that he was obedient to the British government so these false allegations won’t do any harm to him.” (Tazkira Rasheed, Volume 1, page 80)

Maulana Rasheed Gangohi, along with Qasim Nanotvi and Hafiz Zamin were confronted by few rebels, with whom they fought ‘valiantly’. “They were not the ones to run away from the fight scene so they got ready to sacrifice their lives for Sarkar, and fought valiantly.” (Tazkera Tur Rasheed, Volume 1, page 75)

Ashraf Ali Thanvi, when asked how he would treat British if they were his subjects, replied, “We will keep them in comfort because they kept us the same way”. (Malfoozat Hakeem-ul Ummat, Volume 6, page 102)

“He supported the colonial government loudly and vigorously through World War I, and through the Khilafat Movement, when he opposed Mahatma Gandhi, alliance with the nationalist movement and non-cooperation with the British,” writes Francis Robinson about Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi in ‘The Ulama of Farangi Mahall and Islamic Culture in South Asia’. (Page 196)

Barelvi founder Ahmed Raza Khan was famous for giving fatwas in favor of the British government.

“It is not clear where the Breilly School had its strongholds but the Mashriq of Gorakhpur and Al Bashir usually took note of the pro-government fatwas of Ahmed Reza Khan.” (Separatism Among Indian Muslims, Francis Robinson, page 268)

The 1857 War of Independence was denounced by a wide range of people; from Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to clerics like Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

He was of the opinion that only ‘rebels’ were having issues with the Sarkar during the 1857 rebellion, while general population was satisfied. (Tahzeer-ul Ikhwan, page 9)

Shabir Usmani, talking about Thanvi, said, “I have heard some people say that Thanvi received 600 rupees monthly from the government.” (Mukalimatul Sadrain, page 10)

When the people of subcontinent started moving against the British rule, there were several ways to express their resentment. While some boycotted the British products, the others were told subcontinent wasn’t the right place to live so people should migrate to other countries.

Ahle Hadith cleric, Maulvi Nazir Hussain Dehalvi, always called Hindustan as ‘Dar-ul Amaan’ and not ‘Dar-ul Harb’, implying that it was totally fine to live under British rule. (Hayat ba’ad al Mamaat, page 134)

The term ‘Wahhabi’ was used as a derogatory slang while referring to those belonging to Ahle Hadith sect due to their close ideological links with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab of Saudi Arabia. Ahle Hadith scholars requested British government to officially change the name of their sect to Ahle Hadith.

After the British government changed the name of the sect from ‘Wahhabi’ to ‘Ahle Hadith’, Hussain Ahmed Batalvi, a leading Ahle Hadith figure, thanked the Raj in these words: “The sect of Ahle Hadith acknowledges the rights given by British government and we thank dear Lord Dufferin, who is sincere to Muslims and very generous Lt Governor Sir Charles Aitchison from the bottom of our hearts.” (Isha’at Sunnah, Volume 9, Issue 7, page 203)

In the same way, Ahle Hadith clerics considered fighting against British as haram. “We have already said, and will say again, that Maulana Ismail’s jihad was against Sikhs who had issues with our religion and not against British who had no problems. Maulana Ismail explicitly termed jihad against British as haram.” (Isha’at Sunnah, Volume 9, Issue 2, page 29)

The few examples of the text above show that most of the Muslim clerics, no matter which sect, were staunchly pro-British and rabidly anti-Muslim League. While these organisations demand the Islamisation of Pakistan and resist secularism in the country, one must ask their credentials as to what is their relevance in the present day Pakistan when their elders didn’t want Pakistan created in the first place?