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.
Adnan
[quote post=”566″]”You better decide one thing, Is secularism promoted by every religion or it’s parallel to a religion. If its promoted by every religion then which religion is credible here? if you say that all religion promotes equal teachings then you are certainly going to conflict Surah 5:3 of Quran in which Allah declared Islam its favorite religion. Read Old and New Testament,they also reject other religions”[/quote]
Boss ! U r absolutely 100% correct
[quote post=”566″]Is the US not based on Christian ethics, even though it has a completely secular constitution. Is India not based on Hindu values, even though it has a secular constitution?[/quote]
that is my point which actually supports my point that secularism is a fictitious ideology or I say only in papers which you mentioned as constitution. It means secularism is brainchild of a religious authority[any XYZ religion] of a state that means there would be certain inclination towards particular religion. FOr instance secular india has Hindu influence and this is why anti-Muslim riots are common over there. If I agree your ‘glorious’ definition of secularism then world wouldnt have experienced incident like Babri Masjid Destruction. It means secularism exist only in papers not in reality and state affairs would certainly have religious factor.
[quote post=”566″]Your issue is that you don’t even try and understand what the other person is saying.[/quote]
no the issue is that you are keep changing your definitions. You are confused but since you always prefer to be a last man standing that’s why you make every attempt to prove your points by rejecting your own previous statment.
You better decide one thing, Is secularism promoted by every religion or it’s parallel to a religion. If its promoted by every religion then which religion is credible here? if you say that all religion promotes equal teachings then you are certainly going to conflict Surah 5:3 of Quran in which Allah declared Islam its favorite religion. Read Old and New Testament,they also reject other religions.
If it’s parallel then your first statement is wrong,if not then you refute your own previous statment by agreeing upon:
[quote post=”566″]Secularism… asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people [/quote]
I am not sure but is it not true that everyone who is in states enjoy XMas vacations regardless of belief? do Muslim holidays have similar status like Xmas in USA? if Yes then i would consider secularism credible but what I often here that muslims do even work on festival days. If yes then it’s not freedom of religion.
Since we re talking about vacations etc, May I ask why US residents enjoy week holidays on saturday and sunday? Everyone knows that Saturday is the holyday for Jews ,also called Shabbath and Sunday for Christians. If secularism gives equal rights to ALL religions then they should have set holidays to some other days otherwise this secularism is baised towards christianity and judaism so that they can offer their prayers. Even in Pakistan such baised secularism was imposed by forcing us to stay at home on Sunday and Saturday. Unlike Bible,Quran never forced to stay at home for whole day and just asked to take a break for Jumma prayers, its sign of moderation which is entirely different from christianity and Judaism who asks to pray for the whole day and do nothing else which is the sign of extreemism and fundamentalism.
[quote post=”566″]Stop your personal attacks and try and stick to the content of the debate[/quote]
Look who’s talking here. I am not making any personal attacks but certainly I am attacking your hollow knowledge. :-). Let’s see what our inhouse ‘Last man standing gonna say now. *grin*.
Dear ATP, I am disgusted at how these two trolls have highjacked this site. How many time do they have to keep repeating teh same point, same point, same point, same point, same point (get the point!) before they realize that no one is getting convinced! CAN YOU PLEASE STOP THEM!
From what I can tell, both Adnan Siddiqui and YLH have their own websites, can they PLEEEEEASE take this sophmoric debate there and spare us the bother.
Adnan mian,
I am afraid there is no contradiction in what I said.
I meant that states that are constitutionally secular have some sort of religion in them… for example the oath on Bible in the US and the christian traditions quite common there. Your issue is that you don’t even try and understand what the other person is saying.
Is the US not based on Christian ethics, even though it has a completely secular constitution. Is India not based on Hindu values, even though it has a secular constitution?
Intresting,very Intresting!
Few lines above our vetran expert Ylh said:
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.
and I had asked him,Which religion?
and now he’s saying:
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
Self contradicting eheh but not surprising :-)
Yasser,it would be good for your own sake that you decide first that whether a reliigon plays any role in secularism ideology or not,once you decide, let me know so that I learn things from you accordingly.