Why did Mullahs oppose creation of Pakistan?

[somebozo]

Mullahs have a habbit of opposing anything which pulls humans out of their medival dens (madrassas) and into the civilization. As medical science will advance, people will realize that Mullah geeri is a mental disease and these people need to be put into gulags!

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Mullah's opposed it because they wanted to spread Islam all over India...
They wished to get back to the days of muslim rules back centuries....

 

[somebozo]

Mullah's opposed it because they wanted to spread Islam all over India...
They wished to get back to the days of muslim rules back centuries....

Congressi moulvis like Moulana Azad were more in favour of accecpting a second class status over freedom!

 

[jetti]

Congressi moulvis like Moulana Azad were more in favour of accecpting a second class status over freedom!

The premise here is that Muslims will become second class citizens. I believe that the premise is wrong. The premise that hindu majority india means will of the hindu people has been proved incorrect. And thats because Jinnah and other muslims' understanding of the indian hindu was flawed.
India was created and is still secular and democratic.

Now I think division to make pakistan was good. if there was no division there would have been a bloody civil war maximum by 1970. So in that sense this was a relief. However I think that the Muslims who created Pakistan displayed a rather stunning lack of foresight. Hear me out. Today the population of Ind + Pk +Bd is 1.54 Bil (1.2+180+160)Add on indias 160 mulims to Pak+Bd and you have 500mil muslims. In a country of 1.5 B they would be 33% of a unified people. Now come to think of this, there is no community in current india that form 33% of the population. hindus have never been united under 1 religion as can be seen in the fractured vote bank politics in the country. hindutva parties, however good for the countrys prosperity have been voted out because india genuinely has followed its commitment to secularism. under this scenario, the muslims would have been consistently voted to power or form the most important coalition like what congress is today. america probably would not have come into the area. and kashmir problem would not have been there. So I think the rich muslims who formed Pakistan basically ditched their poorer brethren in india and hence I think the concept of nation under 1 religion is flawed (vindicated by exit of BD). comments?

 

[theboat]

jetti, I really appreciate your goodwill.

But the reality is that one of Jinnah's demands was that in the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one third. Congress refused. So Muslims being 30% of a united India would seldom have benefitted them.

The Hindu cultural nationalist Congress of the 1940s used to behave pretty much like today's BJP, and was not ready to concede to the Muslims just demands.

The premise here is that Muslims will become second class citizens. I believe that the premise is wrong. The premise that hindu majority india means will of the hindu people has been proved incorrect. And thats because Jinnah and other muslims' understanding of the indian hindu was flawed.
India was created and is still secular and democratic.

Now I think division to make pakistan was good. if there was no division there would have been a bloody civil war maximum by 1970. So in that sense this was a relief. However I think that the Muslims who created Pakistan displayed a rather stunning lack of foresight. Hear me out. Today the population of Ind + Pk +Bd is 1.54 Bil (1.2+180+160)Add on indias 160 mulims to Pak+Bd and you have 500mil muslims. In a country of 1.5 B they would be 33% of a unified people. Now come to think of this, there is no community in current india that form 33% of the population. hindus have never been united under 1 religion as can be seen in the fractured vote bank politics in the country. hindutva parties, however good for the countrys prosperity have been voted out because india genuinely has followed its commitment to secularism. under this scenario, the muslims would have been consistently voted to power or form the most important coalition like what congress is today. america probably would not have come into the area. and kashmir problem would not have been there. So I think the rich muslims who formed Pakistan basically ditched their poorer brethren in india and hence I think the concept of nation under 1 religion is flawed (vindicated by exit of BD). comments?

 

[jetti]

jetti, I really appreciate your goodwill.

But the reality is that one of Jinnah's demands was that in the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one third. Congress refused. So Muslims being 30% of a united India would seldom have benefitted them.

The Hindu cultural nationalist Congress of the 1940s used to behave pretty much like today's BJP, and was not ready to concede to the Muslims just demands.

In india there is no guaranteed representation for ANY community. And that is why I am saying that if muslims were united then they could have easily been the largest minority which is the essence of coalistion politics. The smaller minorities will coalesce into the larger minorities to for m the govt. Right now the congress govt is the leader of the UPA group. Congress did not get majority but they are ruling because they have the support of some other minorities making them the largest minority.
So my theory is that if muslims stayed as India, then they would be largest minority.
When you talk of a guaranteed representation then you are polarising the country. This problem is there in India today, with the reservation policy. Thats causing a havoc because of the vote banks and divisions its creating. So a guaranteed reservation for anything is bad. If muslims had 1/3 population, I think democracy will ensure appropriate representation.

Now in india there are 2 factors against muslims 1 - Critical mass is not there. only 12.5%. which is large but not large enough, 2 - the more educated and affluent muslims from india migrated to Pakistan leaving behind the muslim communtiy lower on the human development index. india has not done a good job in this front and that is across the board and unlike many here would like to believe the muslims are comparatively backward not because of it being targetted. Let me tell you that there is about 15% Dalit hindu population in the country . They were backward in 1947 and are still backward now. So I blame an incompetent govt for the state of dalits and muslims and in the general realm of reducing poverty and lifting the human development index.

 

[Bang Galore]

Congressi moulvis like Moulana Azad were more in favour of accecpting a second class status over freedom!

Do not speak derogatorily of one of India's most respected freedom fighters & leader unless you want to drag your heroes to the gutters as well.

 

[Gentle Typhoon]

Because Islam teaches its followers to spread message of peace not alienating yourself from other religions for Politician gains, Which is haraam (attachment to all earthly things). Islam arrived in India via sea route in Southern part, there was no forced conversion. Then Aurangzeb etc arrived and imposed their version of Islam.

 

[somebozo]

The premise here is that Muslims will become second class citizens. I believe that the premise is wrong. The premise that hindu majority india means will of the hindu people has been proved incorrect. And thats because Jinnah and other muslims' understanding of the indian hindu was flawed.
India was created and is still secular and democratic.?

Secular in what? Imagination?? There is a shadow of hindu culture on everything in India from culture to social system. Not critisizing it as good or bad but obvious reality should be accecpted.

 

[Leader]

I will answer your querry only for the purpose of debate and information. I will not indulge in any mudslinging.
In my view the arguments put forward by the religious parties of undivided India were based on logical conclusions based on the prevailing situation of the times. You need to understand that just as Mr Nehru changed his stance , in some ways the mullahs also realized the problems to be faced by the muslims in india, and became a part of the movement.
Their objections were as follows:
1)If Pakistan is being demanded in the name of Islam, a natural consequence of this is so that the muslims could lie their lives as muslims in an Islamic state. The leadership of the time(Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the muslijm League) do not know the ABC of islam . So how are they going to establish an Islamic state. If on the other hand we want a democracy, what do we gain by dividing the muslims into 2 groups (ie India and Pakistan) when as minority in thew countryforming about 40% of the population and probably casting a block vate, they will alwyas be a power to reckon with in Undivided India.
2) the solution to the division required Pakistan to be formed of Areas of muslim Majority. Most of the literate muslims of India(with the exception Of Lahore ) resided i n areas which were not to form a part of pakistan. In the case of such a division, what will happen to these muslims who may face the wrath of the Hindu population when their numbers would be depleted.
As you can see the arguments were sound and Mr Jinnah did not have any answer to the querry. To be fair even Mr jinnah till 36-37 was hoping for some form of autonomy for Muslims within the frame work of a combined India. it was only the vibes that he got from nehru, that made him realize that this was not going to be possible, and muslims will remain second class citizens in undivided india( an impression whether true or not i still do not know)that made him change his mind. The Mullahs reached the same conclusions and to be fair the support of the muslims from the minority areas of undivided india was instrumental in gaining momentum towards the formation of pakistan. Second factor , which no one knew at the time was Mr jinnah's own health condition which was deteriorating rapidly. he probably realized that without him Muslim league would flounder. This led to a certain urgency on his part and probably left a few loose ends which have festered and led to conflicts with in the region.
Araz

more accurate view is that Jinnah/AIML offered them to interpret the system of governance in Pakistan according to their sublime understanding of Islam, as to their objection on AIML leadership not knowing the ABC of Islam... I hope now you know that mr. Jinnah did answer to their "solid arguments",

and also recall in 37 elections deoband school (moulana madani gave a speech in favour of AIML and Jinnah at the plateforum of AIML and their he asked for 50,000 to buy deoband's full support to AIML in elections) and Tawana in punjab did support the AIML initially, because he thought this is the party of elite muslims and they must have loads of funds and also one rumour that Jinnah had been funded by the Rich class of Bombay, was the reason these two groups supported AIML, but when AIML asked to campaign at their own, they turned away...

however, the main reason of difference was they were not ready to accept the leadership of Musalmaan falls in the hands of other than themselves, though later the world witnessed that the musalmaan gave their trust and leadership to the man in suit who spoke in English...but truly represented them...

 

[nescafe]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/members/133288theboat.html

^^^^ this is an amazing guy. thanks

 

[nescafe]

this is not that simple,

when you use the word Mullah, please be more precise as the deobandi mullahs were the worst. the barelvi mullahs were just fine and as soft as normal human beings. the ahle sunnah wal jamat , which has taken more of a name now , was also more or less a softer image of islam.

now, the deobandis had their issue. they were funded even in 1900. they were well connected and well structured. there are books which says that the deobandi movement was the one who organised the 1857 mutiny. then the silken letters, then other countless political movements had originated from deobandis.

so the point is not all that simple. it were the deobandi who recruited so much of punjabi taliban and ultimately brought russia to their knees. and by the way liaquat ali khan also had his 1938 election not for muslim league. he ran for some agricultural party...so he also was a moron?? what about maududi....now he was surely against pakistan and he even mentioned in his book that following jinnah would be liek performing a kuffar.


and now, what an almost shame it was. the ending of jinnah. his daughter says good bye to islam and join a parsi family. he couldnt even logically guide his own daughter?? now that is almost alarming and why didnt he compromise his love. why marry a converted parsi women. he should have married a local muslim women to gain more social cohesions. i am sure punjabs are as beautiful!!

there was some thing wrong. i have strange theory. i beleive jinnah was almost mind controlled by the iqbal and shah shams tabrezi... he was just a tool used at that time to implement a strategic plan wished by all mighty Allah. Allah knows the best.

 

[MastanKhan]

this is not that simple,






and now, what an almost shame it was. the ending of jinnah. his daughter says good bye to islam and join a parsi family. he couldnt even logically guide his own daughter?? now that is almost alarming and why didnt he compromise his love. why marry a converted parsi women. he should have married a local muslim women to gain more social cohesions. i am sure punjabs are as beautiful!!

there was some thing wrong. i have strange theory. i beleive jinnah was almost mind controlled by the iqbal and shah shams tabrezi... he was just a tool used at that time to implement a strategic plan wished by all mighty Allah. Allah knows the best.

Sir,

Why must there be shame for Jinnah's daughter not following the footsteps of his father---or his wife----or for Jinnah----for those who wanted pakistan---Jinnah got it for them---and in the process he lost his family----. You can't satisfy all the GODS when you are in a position that Jinnah was----.

If you ever find yourself in that position of responsibility---you might be facing similiar consequences---just like Maudoodis family---please learn to appreciate the man for what he has done for you---they made a choice for their religion only---the didnot rip any body off---.

So Jinnah gave his life for the nation and his daughter and family chose different belief----but tell me one thing---what has stopped the nation of pakistan to practise the religion islam in its very simplest and basic form---.

Whatever happened to basic human rights and respect of an individual in pakistan---why is every pakistani language full of profanity and vulgarity----why are the mothers of pakistani muslims are always molested in every other sentence uttered by a pakistani male in anger----how about the sisters and daughters of every pakistani are threatened of rape and molestation in every sentence uttered in anger.

You should have been more interested in how mentally sick of a nation the pakistani people are.

 

[jamal18]

The creation of Pakistan was the most beautiful event that happened in centuries.

But why did the mullah's oppose it?

To top it off, these are the same mullahs who are running around exploding themselves in the cities of Pakistan.

The question is, why?

Are these mullah's anti-national? If so, what should be done about them?

1. How about divisive? It divides the muslims of hindustan into two, weakening them.

2. There is no basis for muslims establishing their own state in Islam, Islam allows for muslims to live as a minority, as they do in many countries.

3. Pakistan as the homeland for the muslims of the sub-continent? So if all indian muslims turned up at Pakistan's door tomorrow, they will have a home there? I think that idea was never realistic.

Doesn't seem too difficult to figure out.

Perhaps your just driven by your hatred of anybody who bats for Islam, and your looking for a reason to hate them.

 

[asad71]

1. Allama Mashriqi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, G M Syed of Sind, Kitchlew, Punjab CM Khizar Hayat, Dr Zakir Hussain, Maulana Azad, Maulana Maududi and many Muslim leaders and intellectuals had opposed the creation of Pakistan on personal convictions they held. Some argued against Muslim nationalism limited to geographical borders.

2. But the strongest argument was that the division of SA would divide and weaken the Muslims. They feared this was a step towards gradual ethnic cleansing of the Muslims from SA. If we had remained together we would have emerged as the largest community as the Hindus have various division which they hide. Islam is a revolution bound to attract others for its message of equality, love, peace,tolerance and economic justice. Being a superior culture, we had nothing to fear. They contended that the real adversary of the Muslims was not the Hindus but International Christianity who were pulling the strings from behind.

3. The other point that has caught my attention was regarding Jinnah. Born into Punja sub-sub sect of Ismaili sub-sect of the Shia sect, Jinnah was thoroughly Anglicized in his youth spent in England. We must remember he was an exceptionally brilliant man who could pick up things fast. During that period in SA, only two leaders were available with impeccable personal character, honesty and patriotism - Jinnah and Netaji Subash. None other.

4. The transformation in Jinnah began when he came in close touch with Muslim leaders and scholars of the time. Soon he was a converted true Muslim devoid of any sectarian feeling. He married a Parsi whom he converted to Islam. She is buried in a Muslim graveyard in Mumbai. When his daughter decided to marry a non-Muslim he had her banished from his life. If you read his speeches post-14 Aug 1947 particularly, you will note that he had decided to guide Pakistan into a true Islamic polity. His speech at the opening of SBP, perhaps his last speech, leaves one speechless at the clear concept Jinnah had on Islamic financial system.