Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity

HP,

Precisely. Thank you.

Now that is the difference between Usmani's karachi based jamiat e ulema ...they like their counterparts in India never got a chance to practise militancy under a military regime.

It was the erstwhile pro-congress faction that was responsible for the creation of taliban. This was the faction which till 1947 had in its ranks of legislators Maulana Azad himself representing NWFP in the constituent assembly.

Sadna should stop making a fool of herself.

OK, lemme AGAIN summarize your precious argument which you keep repeating:
The Jamiat ul Ulema mentioned by Cunningham as spreading anti-Congress pro-Pakistan propaganda in NWFP from 1937-1946 was not affiliated to Jamiat ul Ulema in any other part of the country and was of no significance because though it was Deobandi and helped incite mullahs in favor of ML and against Khidmatgars, it was not affiliated to the Congress and hence was not extremist. Same goes for the pro-ML Jamiat ul Ulema Usami faction which Jinnah supported and which campaigned against Khidmatgars in 1946 - it was not pro-Congress and hence was not extremist.

However after independence, these two Jamiat ul Ulemas became extremists because the pro-Congress Jamiat ul Ulema Hind took them over.

I think people get it after you repeated it so many times, HP and Mantolives. According to you pro-ML Deobandi Jamiat ul Ulema and incited mullahs = not extremist while pro-Congress Deobandi Jamiat ul Ulema and Khidmatgars = extremist.

Man..this gets confusing..

Does that mean the British governor "cunning" was paying maulana azad ?. :-)

Maulana's Sanullah's Madrassa in Naushra produced the first group of Taliban.

Corr:
Maulana SAMIULLAH's Madrassa in Naushra produced the first group of Taliban.

The Mufti group under his son Fazal Rehman and a follower Maulan Sami supported the Taliban and Jihad in Afghanistan starting 1980...I believe. Maulana's Sanullah's Madrassa in Naushra produced the first group of Taliban.

HP,

Spot on except that the JUI of today was Mufti Mahmood's JUH which was till 1947 led by Azad who was also its elected representative in ICA and then PCA (which he resigned from).

JUI does not stand for Jamiat e ulema Hind. It stands for Jamiat e ulema Islam which did not exist in NWFP before 1949.

Pathetic. Just to cover up one lie you are coming up with a million new ones.


The president of JUH was Maulana Azad. How would that JUH be campaigning for Pakistan.


The pro-ml JUI was based in UP. Left over JUH merged with JUI in 1949 ... But the pro pakistan faction of Ehteshamul haq thanvi left in 1954.

2.JUI did exist in NWFP pre-independence

1)Again Sadna JUI is just another name for Pre-partition JUH(azad-Madni group)
2)JUI did not exist before Partition. It was known as JUH.
3)JUH or the Mufti group a branch of AZAD and Madni group never supported ML in NWFP in any capacity.

Mufti Mehmood never supported ML after the partition too until 1977 against Bhutto when Wali Khan convinced him to do so.

Sadna,

Where is JUI mentioned? Your entire point was about JUI ...and now it turns out that Cunningham doesn't even mention JUI ...

The point remains that Azad was the president of Jamiat e ulema in NWFP.

And shabbir ahmed usmani's JUI was no where near NWFP ...definitely not in 1942.

The League did break a few mullahs ...did they call themselves Jamiat e ulema sarhad I don't think so. But Sadna's entire nautanki revolved around Congress not being responsible for Jamiat e Ulema despite the fact that Jamiat e ulema's president was Azad.

How is that possible.

If this is vowel parsing that you are not very lit up.

Mantolives, when you have to parse vowels, you are done.

HP
Yeah, JUI might not have taken money directly, but I think Cunningham paid off mullahs through them. The point I am proving with those excerpts is that
1.Khidmatgars cannot be held responsible for JUI which indulged in anti-Khidmatgar pro-ML propaganda at British behest.
2.JUI did exist in NWFP pre-independence

As you wrote, in 1946 the Khidmatgars/Congress did form the provincial govt in NWFP with JUI support, but that does not dismiss the pro-ML activities of JUI in the war years and the campaigning of the Usmani faction against Khidmatgars in favor of Pakistan in 1946.

3. The third point is that to say only one of these JUI factions, the pro-Congress one was extremist, (by virtue of being pro-Congress it appears), is wrong.

No where does Cunningham say JUI.

This repost is obviously based on your inability to read. If you go and read it again you will see that you are wrong.

The President of Jamiat e Ulema was Maulana Azad. Jamiat e Ulema elected Azad to the constituent assembly in 1946.

How can Jamiat e Ulema be involved in propaganda against the Congress if its leader is himself a leading Congressite?
Your evidence actually shows that the British govt was using the Congress and Faqir of Ipi both or atleast had links with them through Jamiat e ulema.

Cunningham records their doings in detail. For instance:
Jamiat-ul-Ulema toured in Kohat district in Jun�42 and in Peshawar and Mardan in July doing intensive propaganda-
a. Anti-Axis, on the Islamic theme generally, and
b. Anti-Congress, particularly on the Pakistan theme.
Mullah in Peshawar and Mardan intensified the anti-Congress propagand during July � August�42.

He was talking about the Pro-Pakistan Usmani group NOT the AZAD or Madni group which was also Mufti group in NWFP. You are just confused!
Mufti Group never supported Pakistan. And in 1942 there was a Pro-Pakistan group in JUH.

"Cunningham writes that he had persuaded the leaders of Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad to go to Faqir Ipi in Waziristan and tell him that his opposing Britain was no longer in the interest of Islam; now Britain was at war with Germany and Italy, and had taken up arms against kufr, which itself was a wholly Islamic objective."

This is very much possible. But that does not mean that JUH's(of Madni and Azad) NWFP group were Muslim League supporters.

This was second world war and some factions of the Congress also supported the British over Germany. This a political issue and this does not mean that they were pro-British. Did congress take money from British for supporting the war effort?

And this is a repost:

Cunningham records their doings in detail. For instance:
Jamiat-ul-Ulema toured in Kohat district in Jun�42 and in Peshawar and Mardan in July doing intensive propaganda-
a. Anti-Axis, on the Islamic theme generally, and
b. Anti-Congress, particularly on the Pakistan theme.
Mullah in Peshawar and Mardan intensified the anti-Congress propagand during July � August�42.

"
Cunningham writes that he had persuaded the leaders of Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad to go to Faqir Ipi in Waziristan and tell him that his opposing Britain was no longer in the interest of Islam; now Britain was at war with Germany and Italy, and had taken up arms against kufr, which itself was a wholly Islamic objective.

This campaign of rallying Islam to Britain�s support through letters, speeches, personal lobbying, etc., was being carried out with extraordinary secrecy so that nobody got a hint that Britain itself was involved in it. Cunningham, however, remained in constant touch. He was told of every bit of progress. When Faqir Ipi�s aide, Mohammad Waris, wrote back to Jamiat-ul-Ulema Sarhad, he quickly learnt about it and was pleased. He noted the friendly tone and the lack of any sign of suspicion that the effort had been undertaken at British behest."

Cunningham should have asked Mantolives, poor guy was confoosed :(