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.
For the sanity of everyone, I propose that we just all agree that JUI, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, and Adnan Siddiqui are right. Yeh sab janati log hain, in ki baat sunno, aray gunahgaro.
I think Maulna Fazalur Rehman and his friends are right.
We should make him the baba-i-quom and banish the Quaid – who was afterall a Kafir like Salam and Zafarullah and Liaquat and others – from our history.
India forgets the teachings of Gandhi, we forget Jinnah. They go to Shiv Sena and Pakistan to JUI and JI. At the end of the day both are the same. Neither can tolerate anyone who is different.
Dear Adnan,
You assume so much without verifying things for yourself.
I am afraid the words “Islam” and “Islamic ideals” don’t bother me at all… which is why despite Jinnah’s references to Islamic ideals, I, the secularist, am not bothered by him but actually continue to see him as a fine secularist in the John Locke mould. The concept of a Modern secular state is not anti-religion.. and all secular states in the world have ethics based in morals derived from religion.
Hence I think Islamic ideals of equality fraternity and justice for all regardless of religion caste or creed, the ideals mentioned by Jinnah, are in complete conformity with the modern idea of a democratic nation state which can also be described as a secular state.
As for your accusation about twisting Jinnah’s words … it is sad that you accuse me of all people of this, when it is people like you who have been twisting Jinnah, without much success may I add because history is preserved for everyone to read. Jinnah’s words and ideals … as well as Islam itself.. are twisted by people who use Islam to exclude people… these are the same people who had- when Jinnah was alive- called him kafir-e-azam and called Pakistan Kafiristan. Jinnah’s idea of state and conception of Islam was against theocracy and against exclusion. His understanding of Islam was humanist and progressive… which real Islam truly is.
Mind you this real Islam… Jinnah’s Islam … nay the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)’s Islam … does not stand for exploitation of women unlike Mullah Islam … does not persecute minorities and other faiths unlike the Mullah Islam… does not continually isolate minority sects within Islam unlike the Mullah Islam.
So Islam I have no problem with…I have a problem with this fake Abu-Juhlism that masquerades as Islam… this fake religion that creates Hudood Ordinance, that denies Ahmadis their right to worship and follow their faith, that forces women into Burqahs and that sanctions rigidity and intolerance … that I have a problem with. It is this Abu-Juhlism, that you refer to quite unjustifiably as Islam, is what I have a problem with.
Secular Pakistan Zindabad
Quaid-e-Azam Paindabad
Long Live TRUE Islam
Down with Abu Juhlism
Husain Haqqani on reasons for Jamaat e Islami and Deobandi militancy;
[quote]The fact that Pakistan’s foreign minister at the time, Sir Chaudhry Zafrullah Khan, was an Ahmadi led the anti-Ahmadi protests to become part of a campaign against the fragile government of conservative Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin. The prime minister’s rivals covertly helped the violent agitators, and martial law was imposed in parts of Pakistan in 1953.
Vali Nasr attributes the rise of the Ahmadi issue so soon after Pakistan’s independence to the internal dynamics of the two major Islamist groups, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Deobandis. Neither Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami nor most Deobandi leaders had supported the creation of Pakistan, though they eventually accepted the new country and even migrated to Pakistan. Secular elements within the Muslim League, the dominant Pakistani political party of the era, stigmatized the Islamists as anti-Pakistan for opposing the campaign for a state separate from India. The Deobandis, in particular, needed to deal with the stigma of their pre-independence position, and a sectarian campaign against the Ahmadis helped them carve out a positive political roleâ€
[quote post=”566″]Thus I don’t have a problem with an “Islamicâ€