Adil Najam
Mohamed Ali Jinnah, it seems, was not a “real freedom fighter” and he did “nothing for Islam.” (On Jinnah, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
So says the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). And by what logic does Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his party come to this conclusion? According to the party spokesman: ““Jinnah was not imprisoned during the independence struggle. That is why he did nothing worth remembering.â€Â?
I am left rather speechless. So, here is the news item from Daily Times (February 9, 2007) that reports on the matter:
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) will celebrate 2007 by paying tribute to the heroes who played an important role in the independence of Pakistan ignoring Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his companions, JUI officials told Daily Times on Thursday. They said that the party would hold conventions in Peshawar and other cities of the NWFP in March to highlight the services of ‘real freedom fighters’.
“The decision to this effect was taken at the meeting of the JUI executive council in Lahore a couple of days ago. National Assembly Opposition Leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman presided over the meeting,� they added. JUI information secretary Maulana Amjad Khan said that Jinnah and his companions would not be commemorated because they had not done anything for Islam. “Jinnah was not imprisoned during the independence struggle. That is why he did nothing worth remembering,� Khan added.
He said the JUI would remember only those leaders who had sacrificed their lives for the creation of Pakistan or who had been imprisoned by the British Raj. JUI leader Qari Nazir Ahmed said the party would remember Hussain Maulana Ahmed Madni, Maulana Qasim Nanotri, Maulana Ubaid Ullah Sindhi, Maulana Mehmoodul Hassan, Syed Ahmed Shaheed, Shah Ismael Shaheed, Mauala Rasheed Ahmed and other leaders, who had rendered great sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan. “Maulana Qasim Nanotri established the Madrasa Darul Uloom Deoband. The institute produced a large number of freedom fighters,� Qari Nazir added. He said a schedule for conventions in the Punjab had not been decided yet. JUI Lahore chapter ameer Maulana Muhibun Nabi said the party would also arrange programmes in Lahore in this connection.
Interesting, by the way, that it seems that to be a “real freedom fighter” you have ‘Maulana’ prefixed before your name or a ‘Shaheed’ as a suffix.
Note: My thank to Watandost for alerting me to this rewriting of history.
famalik, what or who are these ’secular extremist elements in Pakistani society’? Could you please enlighten us? How many of these have burnt or bombed mosques, churches etc or committed suicide bombing against anyone like extremist Mullahs do?
Secularim at its heart is inherrently opposed to religion.
If you are interested, please view this 10-min documentary regarding how the secular elite of Pakistan view the religious masses.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=67186435422 48965092&q=pakistan+secular
Time and time again these secular extremist elements in Pakistani society would argue that secularism is not opposed to any religion. But I would suggest you view the video and come to your own conclusion.
YLH,
I’m not here to make a ‘point’ or argue with you, I’m just here to do dawa’h with the best of my ability.
Juwahir, actually it’s the American conservative media which draws this parallel (liberals = soviets/communists). Their logic is that since liberals believe in a welfare state, they are socialists in their outlook. Since communism is an extreme form of socialism, the right-wing pundits regularly refer to left-wingers as communists.
[quote post="566"] Ataturk punished the criminals. We should do the same[/quote]
what are “crimnals” for ataturk would be friend for others or vice versa. Both liberals and rights consult their own dictionary to impose their rules. Therefore, its pretty nonsense to claim ataturk a saint while he was not.
Pakistani, you are the only person I have heard claiming Soviets and Nazis to be liberals.
PS: Ataturk punished the criminals. We should do the same. You are not suggesting we should let loose all criminals in the name of liberalism? Although this is what we have done so far. In fact many of them are in our National Assembly under the banner MMA.
I really hate to do teh mullahs work for them, but since you insist on making a ridiculous point, let me respond.
Yes, lots of time and throughout history. The Soviets persecuted people of faith for their religious beliefs. The Nazis very much saw themselves as liberals and religiously persecuted Jews. Even Ataturk persecuted people because of their religion, including having religious scholars killed. Religious persecution, including killing is not new. Now you coudl say these people were not liberal and I agree in teh deep sense they are not becasue you cannot be truly liberal and beleiev in violence as a solution. On the other hand one coudl argue that people who kill in teh name of religion are not really religious either.
Violence is not limited to religion, although it is correct that historically it has been widely used in the name of religion. There is plenty of violence even today that is not religious.
It does seem from this discussion that those posing as liberals are as desirous of violent solutions as those posing as religous.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with asking for criminality to be dealt with and dealt with strongly. Whether in the name of religion or not. But when the criminal act of one or a few is used to condemn the many then it is just plain wrong. Irrespective of whether the fanatics in questions are religious or not.
Abdullah,
I am not portraying myself as anything. Everyone can read your post and mine and decide for themselves as to who is biased and who is not.
1. Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah at Srinagar in 1944 said very clearly that those who are spreading propaganda against Ahmadis are conspiring against Islam. As for Ahmadis’ role, I have quoted links to original pieces of work that show the role of Ahmadis in the Pakistan movement. Your claim that they constituted a small number is laughable, when we consider that Jinnah was just one man… and yet he did so much.
2. Your claim that Jinnah supported Ataturk because his views were not clear in the subcontinent is a laughable claim which I have dealt with above. Needless to say, according to you, Jinnah, who was in touch with all major politicians and leaders of his time, was some how ignorant of global politics? This is just too funny a claim to be taken seriously.
3. Khawaja Nazimuddin - like Jinnah- fought hard against Jamaat-e-Islami’s riots against Ahmadis. This is also on the record. His government fell but he continued to fight for their rights.
4. Most MSF people recall that Jamaat-e-Islami and MSF used to clash during British rule over the question of Pakistan.
5. Maududi’s role against Jinnah, his abuse against Muslim League and Pakistan and his opposition to Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan is well known. No amount of lying will change that. To say that he did not take out a rally in support of Congress does not mean anything… when you consider that nobody took Maududi seriously when Jinnah was still alive.
So you can say whatever you want but truth will remain the truth. Now you can go on praising Maududi and fighting for your Islamist utopia… but must you lie about Quaid-e-Azam?