Ertugrul Osman, who might have ruled the Ottoman empire from a palace in Istanbul, but instead spent most of his life in a walk-up apartment in Manhattan, died Wednesday night in Istanbul. He was 97. The cause was kidney failure, according to his wife, Zeynep, who was visiting Istanbul with him when he died. Mr. Osman was a descendant of Osman I, the Anatolian ruler who in 1299 established the kingdom that eventually controlled parts of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Mr. Osman would have eventually become the Sultan but for the establishment of the Turkish Republic, proclaimed in 1923. For the last 64 years, Mr. Osman — formally His Imperial Highness Prince Ertugrul Osman — lived in a rent-controlled apartment in a four-story building on Lexington Avenue in the East 70s. At one time he kept 12 dogs in his home, a two-bedroom unit up a narrow, dim stairway, and enlisted neighborhood children to walk them. Given the gap between what might have been and what was, Mr. Osman was often asked if he dreamed that the empire would be restored. He always answered, flatly, no. “I’m a very practical person,” he told The New York Times in 2006. “Democracy works well in Turkey.” In an interview for Al Jazeera television in 2008, he refused to say an unkind word about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who led the revolution that deposed his family. Ali Tayar, an architect from Istanbul and a friend, said in 2006 that Mr. Osman had “no ambitions to return, and he doesn’t want anyone to think he does.” “But he’s an incredibly important link to Turkey’s past,” Mr. Tayar added. Born in 1912, Mr. Osman was the last surviving grandson of an Ottoman emperor; his grandfather, Abdul Hamid II, ruled from 1876 to 1909. In 1924, the royal family was expelled by Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. “The men had one day to leave,” Mr. Osman said. “The women were given a week.” Mr. Osman attended school in Vienna and moved to New York in 1939. He returned to Turkey for the first time 53 years later, in August 1992, at the invitation of the prime minister. On that trip, he went to see the 285-room Dolmabahce Palace, which had been his grandfather’s home (and where he had played as a child). He insisted on joining a tour group, despite the summer heat. “I didn’t want a fuss,” he said. “I’m not that kind of person.” As a young man, Mr. Osman ran a mining company, Wells Overseas, which required him to travel frequently to South America. Because he considered himself a citizen of the Ottoman Empire, he refused to carry the passport of any country. Instead, he traveled with a certificate devised by his lawyer. That might have continued to work had security measures not been tightened after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In 2004, he received a Turkish passport for the first time. Mr. Osman married Gulda Twerskoy in 1947. She died in 1985. At a party in 1987, he met Zeynep Tarzi Hanim, an Afghan princess. Nearly 30 years his junior, she had been raised in Istanbul and was living in New York. They married in 1991. He has no other survivors. Mr. Osman often impressed interviewers with his dry wit and knowledge of trends in politics, architecture and pop culture. When Didem Yilmaz, a filmmaker, interviewed Mr. Osman for “Seeking the Sultan,” a short documentary film about him, she expected to find him bitter about his life’s trajectory. Instead, she said, she found him to be “kind, understanding and contemplative.” At one point, she added, he said to her knowingly, “If I had a bad life, it would be better for your film.” This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: October 5, 2009 Because of an editing error, an obituary on Sept. 24 about Ertugrul Osman, a descendant of Turkish royalty, misstated the length of time his second wife, Zeynep, lived with him in a Manhattan apartment and misstated the ownership of 12 dogs that lived there at one time. Ms. Osman has lived there since the couple married in 1991, not “for the last 64 years.” (Mr. Osman had lived in the apartment for that length of time.) And the dogs were owned by Mr. Osman, not by the two of them. A version of this article appeared in print on September 24, 2009, on page A38 of the New York edition. REFERENCES: Ertugrul Osman, Link to Ottoman Dynasty, Dies at 97 By FRED A. BERNSTEIN Published: September 24, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/nyregion/24osman.html 'Last Ottoman' dies in Istanbul By Roger Hardy Page last updated at 15:17 GMT, Thursday, 24 September 2009 16:17 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8273396.stm
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, 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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 21, 1433 A.H.
Barelvism originally emerged as a reaction against the propagation of several new streams of Islamic thought-including, though not limited to, the Deobandis. Ahmed Raza himself painstakingly developed refutations of Deobandism, the Ahl-e-Hadith (whom the Barelvis decry as the "Wahhabis" of South Asia), as well as the minority Ahmadi sect. What has conventionally distinguished the Barelvis from the Deobandis and Ahl-e-Hadith is the latter two's notoriously puritan understanding and austere practice of Islam, which the Barelvis reject as unorthodox. While performing the Hajj in 1906, Ahmed Raza asked the ulemas of Mecca and Medina to endorse his fatwas and refutations of the teachings of Deobandis and other new schools of thought in South Asia. (Mecca and Medina were then under Ottoman rule, and the authority of the religious scholars in these two holy cities was at the time recognized across the Islamic world.) The Arab scholars, according to the Barelvis, agreed fully with Ahmed Raza's propositions, and a total of twenty clerics from Mecca and thirteen from Medina endorsed Hussam al-Harmain, a book of fatwas compiled by Ahmed Raza http://www.nooremadinah.net/UrduBooks/HussamulHaramain/Download/HussamulHaramain.pdf . Most of these fatwas concern what constitutes the proper veneration of the Prophet Muhammad, and by these standards, Ahmed Raza accused the Deobandis of not bestowing sufficient respect upon the Prophet-and thus, found them guilty of heresy. After Ahmed Raza returned from Arabia to India, his anti-Deobandi fatwas began to circulate, and this put the puritan Deobandis on edge. The Deobandi scholars reacted by developing their own refutations of Ahmed Raza's teachings, accusing the Barelvi movement as well of heresy. This launched what came to be known as the "Fatwa War" between the Barelvis and Deobandis. From 1925 until now, it has been claimed, a virtually "uncountable" number of fatwas were issued by Barelvi and Deobandi scholars renouncing the other school of thought for their deviant, "un-Islamic" beliefs and practices. These fatwas have addressed a range of matters-from religion to politics, both great and small-and they have only further divided the two schools of thoughts on nearly every issue. REFERENCE: The Assertion of Barelvi Extremism by Ismail Khan Published on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 ARTICLES Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, Volume 12 http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-assertion-of-barelvi-extremism
Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 5
Hamza Alwi writes, "The Khilafat Movement weakened the Muslim League and gave the ulema an opportunity to carve out a place in politics. The amalgamation of religion and politics badly affected the political mentality of the Muslims of the subcontinent and they lost political vision and the ability to perceive political issues in political perspective. They started to look at every issue from religious angle instead of political point of view. This pushed the Muslims towards political backwardness gradually. Leaders like Chaudhury Khaliquzzaman too had warned against the demerits of the association of the ulema with the Khilafat movement saying " they (the leaders of the Khilafat Movement) are actually playing with fire by working with them. The religious leaders will get swayed alongwith the Muslims of India." It would not be irrelevant to mention here that shortly after the formation of Pakistan Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman used to make regular trips to the middle-east countries with the flag of "Islamistan" in the backdrop of the cold war.
Untill the passing of the resolution of Pakistan in 1940 the politics of the Muslim League basically revolved round the political and constitutional issues of the Muslim community but after declaring the divsion of India its objective the strategy of the Muslim League underwent fundamental changes. On the one hand, Qaid-e-Azam exteded a hand of co-operation towards the Zamindars, a prominent example of which was Sikandar-Jinnah Pact, though Sikandar Hayat had been allowed to retain his independent political identity as a leader of the Unionist Party and on the other, the use of religious jargon became wider in the meetings of the Muslim League.
In 1937, the Congress had run a Muslim public relations campaign which failed to make much impact. The ulema of Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Hind and Majlis-e-Ehrar could only make colourful expositions with a little communal flavour in long conferences but when it came to political leadership, the Muslim masses trusted the educated section the most. Congress instead of removing the constitutional and political apprehensions of the Muslim leadership tried in vain to play the religious card. Secondly, the educated Muslim section and the Zamindars were away from the general Muslims. They also needed to start a Muslim public relations programme which reduced the distance between religion and politics.
Salim M. Qureshi has written in his article titled " Religion and Politics in Pakistan" that people like Nawab Mamdoot Sir Firoz Khan Noon and Sardar Shaukat Hayat (who were in no way religious persons) had been conferred religious titles like Mamdoot Sharif, Darbar Sargodha Sharif etc. to give the impression that great religious leaders were also in their rank and file. Even the owner of the newspaper Paisa was called Darbar Sahab Paisa Akhbar Sharif.
Ghulam Nabi Pathan ( former joint secretary, Pakistan Muslim League and union minister) mentioned a good example of the use of religion with reference to Manzilgah Mosque, Sikhar. He said that the common Sindhi Muslims were not willing to listen to us. Incidentally the idea of retrieving the Manzilgah Mosque, Sikhar occurred to G.M. Syed. It raised such a storm that the Sindhi Muslims became hostile towards the Congress and the Hindus permanently.
It is imperative to ponder over the historical fact that in different areas of India, the Muslims were facing adverse situations due to their numerical proportions on the basis of religion which shaped their collective psychology. In some parts of British India, Muslims were in majority as in the Punjab, Bengal, Balochistan and so on where they were on an equal footing with the non-Muslims in political and economic terms. In some areas, the Muslims were in minority but due to historical reasons, they had an edge over the non-Muslim population socially and politically as in the UP( United Provinces), the CP (Central Provinces)etc. In many parts of the southern India, the Muslims were in minority and were backward. Among the states, one situation was that in Muslim majority states, the rulers were Muslim and in non-Muslim states, there were non-Muslim rulers.
However, in some states the beliefs of the ruler and his subjects were different. For example in Kashmir, the ruler was non-Muslim Dogra wheres as the the majority of the population was Muslim. On the other side, in Hyderabad the majority of the population was non-Muslim while the ruler was a Muslim. The trend of the use of religion was observed in those states where the Muslim minority enjoyed economical and social sepremacy and wanted to protect this privileged status. Especially in Hyderabad Deccan, despite every kind of royal administrative defects, a non-historical, unrealistic and undemocratic
religionism had a special place. It is not without reason that Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was associated with Hyderabad Deccan and he was called Usmani by virtue of his association with Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Usman Ali. Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi's paternal place was also Aurangabad( Hyderabad Deccan). Muslim League's out and out religionist leader Md Bahadur Khan alias Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung belonged to Hyderabad. Bahadur Yar Jung's address to the annual conference of the Muslim League in Karachi on December 26, 1943 was a clear indication of the ever increasing interference of religion in the Muslim League politics.
It may be recalled that on August 12 1983 in his address to the meeting of the Majlis-e-shoora appointed by him, Gen. Ziyaul Haque had read out the excerpts from the speech of Bahadur Yar Jung with great fervour. Bahadur Yar Jung said, "The political system to be prepared for you by the Planning Committee will be based on the Book of Allah and the sunnah of the Holy Prophet. Please listen and be aware that the politics which is not based on the Book of Allah and the sunnah of the Prophet is satanic and we seek protection of Allah from this kind of politics ( to which Qaid-e-Azam banged his fist on the desk approvingly and said, " you are right"). Look gentlemen! Qaid-e-Azam has put the seal of his approval on my statement (he said). Those people who lay the foundation of their economic system on Atheism, those who want to mislead the Muslims by making omissions and commissions in the self-explanatory and unchangeable instructions of the Quran and those who want to buy the faith and conscience of the Muslims in lieu of bread and butter, should leave this place." After this, Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung turned to Qaid-e-Azam and said."Qaid-e-Azam, This is how I have understood Pakistan. If that is not your Pakistan, then we do not want Pakistan." Qaid-e-Azam smiled and said, "Why are you giving me a challenge before time?"(Translated by Sohail Arshad ). REFERENCE: OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM-PART V By Wajahat Masood http://newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2641
Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 6
On February 22, 1946, the governor of Punjab Sir Burtrand Glency wrote in his fortnightly confidential report to the Vice-roy Wavell:"The leaders of the Muslim League are gradually turning towards extremism in their speeches. The maulvis, peers (spiritual guides) and students are touring across the state telling people that if they did not vote the Muslim League candidates, they would be out of the purview of Islam and their nikahs would automatically become null and void. Irrespective of what the results of the elections are going to be, the aggressive campaign run by the Muslim League is sure to increase the number of their seats in the forthcoming elections." The question what games were played by the Muslim League After 1940 and particularly before the elections of 1946,to gain the votes of the religious community and what the Muslim League's image was in that section has been answered by Sardar Shaukat Hayat in his book titled " A nation that lost its soul" in detail. Sardar Shaukat Hayat who was a close associate of Qaid-e-Azam and a representative of the feudal section of the Punjab writes:
"Only the ulema who belonged to Firangi Mahal and were friends of Nawab Sahab of Mahmoodabad were on our side. Maulana Ghulam Murshid (Preacher, Shahi Masjid,Lahore) and Mualana Abdul Hamid Badauni started supporting the Muslim League around 1945. Some lesser known ulema also supported us. Barring these ulema no prominent religious scholar participated in Tehrik-e-Paksitan.
About the sajjada nashin group of the Punjab (whom Gen,Ziaul Haque preferred to call them 'mashaikh-e-Uzzaam'),Shaukat Hayat writes:
" A handful of the Peers(spiritual guides) of Pakistan supported the movement for Pakistan. Peer sahab of Tonsa Sharif who was a relative of Nawab Mamdoot, his disciple, Peer Qamruddin of Sial Sharif and Peer Sahab of Golra Sharif joined the movement. Peer Jalalpur who was a relative of Raja Ghazanfar Ali also joined the movement. The names which I can recall apart from these three peers are Peer Jamat Ali Shah, Peer Manki Sharif and Peer Sahab of Zakori Sharif. The latter two belonged to the Frontier Province.
The stoy of Peer Manki Sharif joining the Muslim League has many twists and turns. Erland Jansson, in his doctorate thesis titled " Pakistan:India or Pakhtoonistan?" has written:
"Peer Manki Sharif had formed his own organisation called Anjuman Asafia which promised the Muslim League its support on the condition that Shariah will be imposed in Pakistan. Jinnah agreed. Peer Manki Sharif immediately declared jihad for the establishment of Pakistan and instructed the members of his organisation to support the Muslim League in the elections of 1946."
Qaid-e-Azam's letter to Peer Manki Sharif in which he had accepted the Peer's demand is not a myth. Qaid-e-Azam had indeed written the letter which is mentioned in the debates of the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan (Vol. V). Complications, if any , were caused by the legal language used by Mr Jinnah. He wrote:
"Shariah will be applied to the affairs of the Muslim community". Application of Shariah to the affairs of the Muslims and imposing Sharia in Pakistan are two different things. In the affairs of the Muslims, the application of Islamic rules and principles cannot be denied. But imposing Shariah in Pakistan would mean declaring it a theocratic state. After Jinnah, Bhutto would also save his skin by the use of legal jargon. In the amendment to the 1973 Constitution relating to the Ahmadis, he wrote:
"The Ahmadis will be considered non-Muslims in the eyes of law and the constitution." It meant that (the Ahamdis) would be considered non-Muslims on purely legal basis not on the basis of religious edicts( fatwas). Unfortunately, the general impression among the common people, not the legal complexities, holds significance. Mr Jinnah could not point out the difference between a Muslim majority state and an Islamic state, and Mr Bhutto has been accused of violating his Parliamentary protocol by making a constitutional interference in a purely religious issue.
Now talking about the Ahmadis, here's a very meaningful excerpt from Sardar Shaukat Hayat:
"Qaid-e-Azam sent me a message saying 'Shaukat, I have come to know that you're going to Qadian which is only five miles from Qadian. Please go there and convey my request to the leader of the Ahmadi community , Mirza Bashirudding to extend his support and blessings for the establishment of Pakistan'." I reached Qadian at 12 noon and was told that Mirza sahab was taking rest. I informed him I had come with a message from Qaid-e-Azam. He came down at once and asked me what Qaid-e-Azam's instructions were. I replied that Qaid-e-Azam had sought his blessings and co-operation. He said that he himself was praying for the success of his mission and so far as the support of his followers was concerned, no Ahmadi would contest elections against the Muslim League and if any one defied this decision, he would not get the support of his community. As a result of the meeting, Mumtaz Daulatana of the Muslim League defeated an Ahmadi Nawab Mohammad Deen from Sialkot constituency by huge margin."
Now let's have a look at what Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi had to say in support of Paksitan as told by Sardar Shaukat Hayat:
"Reaching Pathankot, I met Maulana Maudoodi at Qaid-e-Azam's behest. He was staying at the garden adjacent to the village of Chaudhry Niaz. When I conveyed Qaid-e-Azam's message to him asking for his blessings and support, he replied he could never pray for Napak-istan ( unholy state) adding that Pakistan could not come into existence until the entire population in India did not become Muslim. That was the vision and point of view of the leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami.(Translated by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM-PART VI By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2646
Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 7
Sardar Shaukat Hayat has narrated and incident relating tothe inclusion of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani in the Muslim League. The readers may draw their own inferences based on their own understanding. The narrative runs thus: "One night the renowned Deobandi scholar Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani had a vision of his teacher who told him that he (the teacher) saw the Holy prophet (PBUH) emerge from his house in Medina. All the ulema of India, of Deoband in particular, were waiting there with folded hands. The Prophet (PBUH) saw a lean and tall aged man in western attire waiting on the other side of the queue. The people said that he was Jinnah. The Holy Prophet turned his face away from the ulema and walking up straight to Jinnah, embraced him. In the dream, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's teacher instructed him to go to Qaid-e-Azam at once and become his political disciple. Therefore, the maulana expressed his desire to meet Qaid-e-Azam. Qaid-e-Azam gave instructions to the office secretary of the Muslim League to take care of Maulana's comfort and needs during his stay in Delhi.
Sardar Shaukat Hayat writes about Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's connections with the Objectives Resolution after the formation of Pakistan.
"Under pressures from Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Liaqat Ali Khan gave him an opportunity to get a foothold by accepting his demands. Liaqat Ali Khan got the Objectives Resolution introduced which later proved to be a tool for the so called Islamisation of Pakistan which Qaid-e-Azam had very tactfully avoided because Pakistan was inhabited by many non-Muslims too."
In my opinion, Sardar Shaukat Hayat went wrong here. Qaid-e-Azam avoided Islamisation not because Pakistan was inhabited also by non-Muslims but because he was aware of the characteristic features of a modern state. He knew that the interference of Shariah in political affairs could not only harm the Hindus but inevitably affect the civic and democratic rights of the Pakistani Muslims as well.
Sardar Shaukat Hayat's opinion on making Pakistan an Islamic state is clear:
"To say that Pakistan was established with the purpose of promoting fundamentalism would tantamount to putting false allegation against Jinnah because the majority of the religious leaders did not favour the establishment of Pakistan. If they regarded the movement for Pakistan an Islamic movement, as they say today, why did they not support Pakistan then? The truth is that they were all ( be it a religious leader or spiritual guide) opposing the movement tooth and nail. Today they would like to have us believe that the poem sung by children, 'Pakistan ka matlab kya, la ilaha illallah, is the slogan of Pakistan. The fact is that neither Qaid-e-Azam nor anyone of us ever owned up to the slogan."
Let's go through the veiw of Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, the central leader of the Muslim League and close associate of Qaid-e-Azam about the Islamic system and the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan. In a television interview in the last stage of his life, he said, “The basic purpose of the movement for Pakistan was to get rid of the economic dominance of and exploitations by the Hindus, it did not have anything to do with Islam, except the emotional preoccupations."
During the last days of his stay in India, Md Ali Jinnah attended a personal meeting at the residence of Lieutenant Col. (later Maj. Gen.) Shahid Hamid, the ADC to the Chief of Indian Army Awkin Lake on August 3, 1947. In his book titled 'Dunya Badal Gayi' (The world has changed) he writes that while replying to a question on that occasion, Qaid-e-Azam said, "The elected government of Pakistan will be a civil government and whoever thinks contrary to the democratic principles should not opt for Pakistan".
The former chief justice of Pakistan, Md Munir has also expressed his views about the relation or the lack of it between Qaid-e-Azam's political thinking and the Objectives Resolution. On page 26 of his book,"Jinnah se Zia tak (From Jinnah to Zia) he writes:
"If the Objectives Resolution had been presented during the life of Qaid-e-Azam, there would have been no ambiguity about it. But Liaqat Ali Khan knew only too well that Qaid-e-Azam would not agree on any resolution of this nature because it was in direct confrontation with his oft-repeated public statements. The resolution does not conform to Qaid-e-Azam's perception of a modern democratic and secular state."
Prominent journalist Ahmad Bashir in his book 'Khoon-e-jigar hone tak has referred to a statement made by Mian Mumtaz Daulatana: "Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan hatched the plan in Marri that to divert the attention of the people from the basic problems the Objectives Resolution should be made the preface to the Constitution."
In his memoirs, the first President of Pakistan, Sikander Mirza has written about the making of the Objectives Resolution: "I asked the Prime Minister(Liaqat Ali Khan) why he had brougt this resolution, he replied that he did it only to strengthen his position because some people considered him an outsider".
From among the Indian Muslims, the opposition of the Objectives Resolution by Maulana Hasrat Mohani is a part of history. Ahmad Bashir writes that when he asked Hasrat Mohani in 1951 why he was opposing the Objectives Resolution as it testified to the authority of Allah, Maulana Mohani replied," The Objectives Resolution or La hakam ill-Allah ( no authority but Allah) was the slogan of the Khawarijs. Do you know what Hadhrat Ali had said to them? He had said," Well, it is a great ideal but it is being used to strengthen the evil. Liaqat Khan wants to rule with the help of the feudal lords and maulvis but I am afraid he will not be able to."
The religious scholars of Pakistan were demanding the imposition of such a shariah which could neither be imposed in Baghdad nor in the Fatimid or Spanish caliphate. Ottoman empire lasted for seven hundred years. The religious peshwas did not ask for the imposition of the Shariah nor were they allowed to. In India, Muslim dynasties ruled for eight and half centuries but no religious leader could ever muster courage to demand the imposition of sahriah laws. (Translated by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution and Secularism-7 By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/urdu-section/objectives-resolution-and-secularism-7/d/2660
Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 8
In Muslim sultanates many a anti-Shariah step would be taken in the presence of ulama and oppressive orders and instructions used to be issued. But except some bright examples, the ulama never dared to oppose them. During the kingdoms after the fall of the Abbasid caliphate the ulama had enjoyed the status of advisors ( and of course, declared jihad as and when required.)but they did not have the courage to demand that the reigns of the kingdom be handed over to them so that they could run the government according to the Islamic sharia system. This is a historical fact that in Muslim governments the army enjoyed greater powers and influence than the religious peshwas. in fact, the demand for the Islamic laws by the religious peshwas after the formation of Pakistan got a fillip from some specific conditions and circumstances which arose accidentally and which had no relation with the original plan of the division of the country. Before going into the detail, let's have a look on the demands for forming the government of Pakistan on the basis of Islamic shariah. -- Wajahat Masood
In Februrary 1948, Maulvi Shabbir Ahmad Usmani gave a notice to the speaker of the Legislative Assembly to present two resolutions. The first resolution said," Since the Muslims had demanded Pakistan with the purpose to establish an independent state where they could live according to Islamic laws and shariah and shape their society based on them and since the citizens of Pakistan have been waiting to achieve these noble objectives anxiously and the constitution will be based on Islamic shariah, the Assembly presents this resolution that an advisory committee should be constituted comprising prominent ulama and Islamic thinkers which will make recommendations for the preparation of the constitution according to Islamic Shariah."
It should be mentioned that February 1948 was the time when the serious differences on the question of the national language had come to the fore and Qaid-e-Azam had faced harsh criticism on this issue during his visit to the East Pakistan in the first week of February.
It is interesting to note that the resolution presented by Shabbir Ahmad Usmani did not mention federal units, economy, education and the foreign policy because the understanding of these complexities was not expected from an imam of Hyderabad Deccan. This is to put the historical records straight that the proposal to include Qaid-e-Azam's name in the address of Friday prayers also occurred to Maulana's mind. Maulana's second proposal was also in direct accordance with the interests of the religious peshwas. Please have a look at the text:
"To take the first immediate step towards the fulfilment of the desire of the people of Pakistan to mould their life according to the Islamic shariah, the Legislature presents the resolution that a legislative body be constituted which will perform duties relating to the functioning of Islamic religious institutions and Awkaaf, the advancement and propagation of Islamic education and other affairs."
Please pay attention to the term 'legislative body'. People wrongly pull Maulvi Zafar Ahmad Ansari's leg. Maulana did not think it necessary to explain when and where the people of Pakistan expressed their 'desire' to Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. Today the TV channels are unjustifiably criticised for presenting their own 'desires' as the people's demands.
On March 29, 1948, a resolution was passed in a conference at Jama Masjid Kalan Wazirabad, presided by Maulvi Bahaul Haque Qasmi Amritsari (famous columninst Ataul Haque Qasmi's father) in which it was demanded that foremost it should accept this basic principle that Pakistan was an Islamic state, its official religion will be Islam and the Quran will be its law.
It was a surprising demand. Faith is something which belongs to human conscience and understanding. Inanimate objects and living beings other than human beings cannot be blessed with faith. State is only the name of a collective arrangement and within the confines of a state, citizens having different beliefs live. The establishment of a state comes into existence with the help of a social agreement of individuals, groups and logics inhabiting within a particular geographical limit. In this social agreement, the followers of different beliefs have the status of constituents. The official religion of a state is synonymous with discriminatory treatment of citizens having beliefs in religions other than the official religion.
The other angle of this issue is that in every ancient and organised religion in the world internal differences in beliefs are found. This gives birth to sects. These sectarian differences cannot be ignored as superficial. These sects come into existence because one sect considers the beliefs of the other wrong and against its own beliefs. In Christian history the Catholics and the Protestants fought with each other for centuries. In Muslim history, different Muslim groups have shed each other’s blood without blinking an eye due to the differences in beliefs. It's not surprising then that in a meeting under the Jafri Conference in Lyallpur in March 1948, it was demanded that "While working on the Constitution of Pakistan, the Shia fiqh( jurisprudence) should also be kept in mind and two Shia ulama should be included in the Legislative body."
On this occasion the leader of the Jama'at-e-Islami, Abul Ala Maududi also thought it necessary to revise his stand that "Pakistan will necessarily be formed as a democratic secular state". His view was that after the evacuation of non-Muslims from West Pakistan, an Islamic government based on his concept of the government of Allah could be established. Later when the committee investigating the Punjab riots in 1953 asked him the reasons of his political somersault, he replied, "In 1946 the percentage of the non-Muslim population was 26 (in Punjab it was 44--W. Masood).Now these non-Muslims have gone from here. Moreover, in East Pakistan too, the proportion of non-Muslims has come down. If a separate state was established out of the East Pakistan, it would be difficult to impose Islamic system because the non-Muslim population is still 25%." (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad). REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution and secularism—Part VIII By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2672