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.
fyi
http://statusquo.muslimways.com/2007/01/05/the-tro uble-with-atheism-rod-liddle/
Havent’ been able to read the whole thread, but I agree with Anwar early on that we don’t acknowledge enough people.
However, on the JUI, I am actually relieved that they are being honest, finally, about what they think of the Quaid. It’s better than them trying to coopt them for their Islamist (as opposed to Muslim Ummah-focused) aims. Now if they and the JI will just tell us what they really think of Iqbal, we’d be much better off, I say. [On Faiz, I wouldn’t even bother to ask ;)]
Also, for all our faults, I salute Pakistan as a country where a major political party can say something like that and not be in legal jeopardy or lynched. In that regard, I think we are better off than a lot of places.
Dear Aqil,
Thank you for the link
From the link you posted:
Secularism… asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of beliefand gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state; see also Laïcité.)
This is a definition that I am arguing for. I have made it clear repeatedly. Unfortunately some here wish to use Holyoke’s version of secularism even though he is just one person and one does not necessarily share his view of secularism per se. I am a believing Muslim and not anti-religion from any angle…
For those debating secularism and claiming that they know the meaning and connotation of the term better than others, the following wikipedia link might be interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism#Definition s
There are several interesting things in this wikipedia article, and the above ‘hot’ debaters should probably read the whole thing.
But for now, let me just give one interesting quote:
“Holyoake’ s 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as follows:
= Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.
“Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.”
Dear FAMALIK, can you please explain what atheism has to do with JUI and Fazlur Rehman saying that Jinnah is not a real freedom fighter?
Did you even bother to read what the post is about!