The most recent history tells us that Islamic movements run by the faithful practising Muslims, or (according to the Western terminology) the fundamentalists, do succeed to a certain level, but then the Muslim nationalists, or more correctly the secular groups, capture and dominate them. History of the 20th century is witness to that. How do you explain this failure of Islamic Movement?

This is a basic question. For various reasons and causes, the political defeat at the hands of the Western powers has pushed the Muslim society to the present position. In my view the advent of the national decline is not (totally) attributed to political defeat. No doubt, defeat is bad to certain extent, yet it is essential part of the ups and downs in life. What, however, amounts to death is to accept defeat and get totally passive. Therefore, it is necessary to understand that the defeat is the result and continuity of the varied contradictions prevalent in the Muslim society. That is why, inspite of their highly valuable creative efforts and comprehensive concientization programmes, the Islamic Movements have not been able to bring about complete change in the Muslim society. However, the movements are busy in the struggle with full devotion. In my view, the reason for this painstaking and time-consuming difficult process is that the Movements started their work under highly non-conducive conditions. It was a time when the West had attained comprehensive dominance over the Muslims in the areas of knowledge, thoughts and intellectual and moral progress. The decay reached the extent that in a Muslim country like Egypt (for instance), Sa’ad Zaghlol openly drinks before the masses during the liberation struggle against the(non-Muslim) British rule in the month of Ramadhan, but the people shout wishing him to "live long". Similarly Niaz Fatehpuri, inspite of being well known for his atheistic beliefs, is considered a "hero" in the Muslim University, Aligarh and Jamia Millya, Delhi. For similar situation Iqbal lamented:

"What was bad, turned gradually into good; because the national concience

gets transformed under the slavery".

This is the background in which the Islamic movements the world over, started working under different leaderships, but with very clear thinking. Their work was two-pronged: First, the conceptual, that they were to break the ‘talisman’ of false doctrines, so that people get convinced of the veracity, truth and practicability of Islam. Second, very naturally they were worried and concerned to address the top leadership of the Muslim society that included intellectuals, the writers, the teachers and the rest, responsible for national affairs at various levels. I think, we could not properly realize that working relations between the masses and the leadership have substantially changed. We were in a different situation. In the face of the tremendous challenge, what awesome struggle and great sacrifices the Islamic movements could offer, merit credit because the task accomplished was very basic and extraordinary. We need, however, to see and find reason why a situation was not created in which all the internal opposing forces could be persuaded to join hands in the struggle.

The example is certainly thought-provoking, that when Abuzar Ghafari (R.A.) accepts Islam, his whole tribe follows him. When the headmen submit to Islam, the whole of Ta’if bows in allegiance before Muhammad, the Benefactor of Humanity (p.b.u.h.). Contrary to this, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (R.A.) takes side with you (for Pakistan), but Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind did not come forward. From this angle, the Islamic Movements could not make decisive headway, except providing a social and ideological leadership. They have yet not succeeded in completing transformation of the leadership as a whole. This is the sort of converging paths and dichotomy that our masses love Islam whole-heartedly, but they neither understand what Islam means, nor they are morally ready to transform their lives according to the demands of Islam and the changes it seeks. In other words, our real crisis is that no doubt, the present day Muslim is ready to sacrifice his belongings and life for Islam, but is not ready to follow Islamic way of life. There are many Muslims who will not get ashamed to accept interest (riba), yet the same people hate even to touch the swine. This is an open challenge and complex question before the Islamic movements.

Islamic movements have failed to attract the hearts of elites to their revolutionary call. Is there something wrong with their approach?

I just pointed to the same. We have neither been able to convince the prevailing power structure of our society to act according to the concept and demands of Islam, nor have we been able to move it to cross the hurdle it offers. So this has become a big challenge for us. We had desired that through the electoral process we come to a position where we could convey our message to the people. However, it is felt that the chain of divisions and internal conflicts of the Islamic forces (not the Islamic movements) have become our main constraint. We are learning from these bitter facts and experiences. The Islamic movement will have to follow a more populist policy in future to break this inertia. That means motivation of the people and mass awareness. This comprehensive struggle will help accelerate the change in the power structure. It is possible that in the initial stage of the struggle, the expected communication at the popular level is not attained, but if the target is clear and the organization is strong enough, then God willing the continuous struggle will bring about the desired change.