JUI’s Verdict: Jinnah was Not a “Real Freedom Fighter”

Posted on February 9, 2007
Filed Under >Adil Najam, History, People, Politics
Total Views: 61423

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.”

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.

190 responses to “JUI’s Verdict: Jinnah was Not a “Real Freedom Fighter””

  1. YLH says:

    Adnan Siddiqui

    Now where did I say the speeches were not authentic? I have written in plain English Language…

    Read above. As I told you, the speeches you quoted, whether at Khaliqdina Hall or at Baloch Tribal Jirga, simply show that Jinnah is saying that the concept of democracy is perfectly Islamic. Believe it or not this was a debate then… with Fakir of Ipi raising the banner of revolt against Pakistan for being unislamic…

    In any event, read the speeches quoted above… those and the ones you quoted prove this conclusively:

    Jinnah’s ideology was…

    1. Equality of all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.

    2. Impartiality of the state towards all faiths and groups.

    3. Faith the personal matter between man and god.

    4. Sovereignty resting unconditionally with the people of Pakistan.

    And there wasn’t a more important speech than the 11th August speech, because it was made before the Constituent Assembly:

    Jinnah said:

    Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

    I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

    Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

    Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

    This speech quite clearly puts into perspective all that Jinnah said… he stood for an impartial and neutral state where everyone would have equal rights and where the state would not interfere in the religious beliefs of individuals nor would the state legislate on it. There is no other interpretation you can give it.

    Jinnah is saying: (see the bold parts above)

    1. Complete freedom of religion.

    2. Complete equality of citizenship (hence a Non-muslim should be allowed to hold the highest office even)

    3. Religion playing no part in identity making in Pakistan.

    4. Complete separation of Church and State

    5. Religion as the PERSONAL faith of the individual.

    This is what is known as a SECULAR STATE in modern parlance. Jinnah believed that this secular state was the closest model to true Islamic principles as well. He had fought for Muslim minority in India … but as he said (look at the 15 speeches I quoted in the earlier post) Muslims should not discriminate against non-Muslims in Pakistan.

    Meanwhile the speeches you quote simply prove that Jinnah thought- to an extent justifiably- that this secular state had no contradiction with Islam and Islamic principles… but your inference that he wanted an exclusivist Islamic state cannot be drawn no matter how hard you try.

    I challenge you to produce a single speech by Jinnah that challenges the concept of the state I have mentioned above.
    On the otherhand, we know Jinnah appointed a Hindu Law minister to make it abundantly clear that Pakistan would not be an exclusivist sharia based state.

  2. zahid says:

    This fazlul rehman should thank jinnah because the reason today he can bad mouth him is because he is free to say what he wants and that’s because jinnah decided not to say Allah Akber and jump in battle ground with sword and big beard, his path was more frutiful and sensible.

    When moronic views such as that of this guy exist, Pakistan can never recognize its full potential.

  3. sad,another controversy after Jinnah’s secular status.


  4. dear ylh,

    are you claiming that mentioned speeches are unauthentic?

    Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947

    I didn’t know that khaliqdina hall was part of some baloch tribe. Thanks for updating me.

    [quote post=”566″]The Quaid is invoking the ideals of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to convince the Baloch tribals that Modern democracy was not in any way a contradiction to Islam…[/quote]

    and what is modern democracy? is it secularism? if yes then what’s secularism for you? you said secularism is subset of religion,can you elaborate “your” point? if secularism is part of religion then WHICH religion?

    [quote post=”566″]he was contradicting his own earlier words[/quote]


  5. MU says:

    YLH, you will find that the person you have mentioned lives in blissful ignorance. Let’s leave him there without being dragged into that well of ignorance, not to mention of 8igotry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *