| Reply to Thread New Thread |
10-13-2008, 12:45 PM
|
#1 |
|
|
 Muhammad Ali Jinnah - Did he make tawbah???
 I heard from someone that Muhammad Ali Jinnah made tawbah before his death (i.e. became regular Sunni Muslim). Is there any evidence for that?  
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 12:52 PM
|
#2 |
|
|
Wa alaykum as-salam.
His funeral was led by Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, who I think is related to Mufti Taqi Usmani? He would not have led the funeral prayer had he thought Muhammad Ali Jinnah (r) was other than Sunni. The Pakistani court ruled in 1984 that "the Quaid (Jinnah) was definitely not a Shia". ( http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/may/09jinnah.htm ) Fi Aman Allah |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 12:58 PM
|
#3 |
|
|
Wa alaykum as-salam. Why is he often thought of as Shia then?
|
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 01:50 PM
|
#4 |
|
|
He asked Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (ra) to raise Pakistan's flag on independence day, and I believe that it was in his will to have him lead his Janazah, so that's as clear proof as any that he was Sunni by the end of his life. Nowadays on the internet, Shi'ites intensely campaign and spread propaganda about his Shi'ite links. |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 03:08 PM
|
#5 |
|
|
Allamah Zafar Ahmad Uthamni mentions that he and few other Ulama went to meet Muhammad Ali Jinnah in December of 1938 at the order of Hakim al-Ummat Mawlana Thanvi and also attened a meeting of Muslim League. Main purpose of their visit was to do give dawah to Muhammad Ali Jinnah and other leaders of Muslim League. In this meeting we urged Muhammad Ali Jinnah to be punctual about his salat. After this meeting, he joined us in Zhuar salat. Before this meeting, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was of the view that state and religion should be kept seperate. But after this meeting, he changed his views and next day he declared that Islam is collection of aqaid, ibadaat, muamalaat, ikhlaq and siasat [politics]. (may Allah have mercy on them) [Maqalat-i-Uthmani, p.22-23] Also refer to this thread: Jinnah and scholars |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 04:16 PM
|
#6 |
|
|
Can you please tell us more about what our view should be towards Muhammad Ali Jinnah [r] ? My personal view is that we should respect him; he was not without fault, even great faults. But he did a great thing, and we love him for that. What you think? |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 04:44 PM
|
#7 |
|
|
Asslamo Allaikum,
Muhammad Ali Jinnah (RA)'s speeches of later life (1946 onwards on) have many references about the vision for Pakistan (being a Khilafah) and taking from Qur'aan, Hadeeth and Shariat. Moreover, also read the first words of Objectives Resolution (drafted by him but passed by Liqat Ali Khan) and this can no way come from someone with a dodgy Aqeedah and not only that someone saying this MUST have been a Sunni Muslim but also suitably advised by Sunni Scholars! You have to admire whoever said these thing in 1946 (while the rest of Islamic was in deep chaos) and it also makes very clear about the direction he (RA) wanted Pakistan to take! Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a Constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan; Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people; Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed; Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah; Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed; Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality; Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes; Wherein the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured; Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded; So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity. So what happened to this preamble to the constitution? Thats another discussion but he did lay the foundation of a Sunnah state! |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 05:15 PM
|
#8 |
|
|
Personaly from what I have read about him, he is no example to us muslims. Unfortunatley many Pakistanis idol worship him (I am of Pakistani origin). Allah knows best in the condition he died, but as far as I know he was not a shia.
|
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 05:22 PM
|
#9 |
|
|
repost of khanbaba's post from the other thread:
It is true that he was born Ismaili but there is enough proofs that he was on beliefs of Ahle Sunnah later on. |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 05:40 PM
|
#10 |
|
|
Prophet Muhammad (saw) has said "Do not speak ill of the dead."
If he had done anything wrong, surely he's more acutely aware of it now than any of us could be. And if he hasn't, then we'd be guilty of lies and slander. That said, there are politics involved with his life. Muslim League initially was a rival to the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, which wanted a one-state solution. So these two, Jinnah, and Iqbal might have been seen as outsiders to the Ulema unless you take into account Allama Iqbal's (ra) own involvement with Qadiyanis and the like and his repentance at the hands of Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri (ra). You could consider Jinnah's personal road similar in that regard. The Muslim League bickered with Congress Party until it became clear that traditional subcontinental unity between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims could not be maintained, then the JUH sent Ulema to help the ML and their quest for Pakistan so those Muslims would not be without guidance. It is a shame that the Muslim League distracts so much attention from the efforts of the JUH, which if it were not for, then Congress Party would have never gotten the Brits to agree on independence, much less given opportunity to the ML to ask for Pakistan. |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 06:18 PM
|
#11 |
|
|
Asalama O Alikum,
Beside every thing He(r) was a very great leader.... MashaAllah People love talking & making propagandas Asalam O Alikum.. |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 06:21 PM
|
#12 |
|
|
From my understanding, the Ulema were wrong. And this sounds really blasphemous to say that, but honestly, the Ulema of all time have been known historically to be politically unaware. Politics takes wiliness and shrewdness, which are qualities that our beloved scholars do not usually possess.
I know you guys will jump on me because you think I'm being hizbi since you think I'm Salafi, but in fact, I say it is INCREDIBLY true of the Salafi scholars. For example, Shaykh Ibn Baz [ra] thought that his fatwa would save the region from Baathism/secularism, not knowing that his fatwa would be used to justify America's colonialism. Shaykh Al-Albani [ra] made a pretty ill-advised fatwa about Palestine, which was correct from a fiqh aspect but which was not politically realistic or appropriate. You see, religious scholars should stick to religious matters. They are not experts in politics. Politics should be left to those who excel in that, i.e. politicians. Just because a person is very religious and has a lot of religious knowledge does NOT mean that such a person could run a country or make political decisions. I think that the Ulema of Hind made a ruling which was fine fiqh-wise, because it was based on the belief that the Muslims would rule over all of Hind. But it was not realistic at all. The politicians knew that the Hindus would take over, and that the Muslims far from being rulers of all of hind would be nothing but second and third class citizens. The hindus would even slaughter the muslims. So the Ulema had this pie-in-the-sky image that they could rule all of India, but it was just distanced from the political reality. I mean, seriously, the ulema were supporting the one state solution because they thought that the Muslims could rule over all of India, and continue the mughal empire. But cmon seriously, that's just unrealistic. The hindus were the majority, long gone were the days of muslim power...forget about ruling over hindus, but just be happy if you can protect your OWN rights from the revenge-oriented hindus, who planned on taking vengeance on the muslims for their long rule. I love and respect the Ulema. Take your religion from the religious scholars, but take your politics from politicians. I am just repeating what a senior student of knowledge told me: the ulema have been known to make blunders when it comes to politics. In a way, it is praise of them since politics is a dirty game, and perhaps it shows their innocence that they can't play it. |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 06:22 PM
|
#13 |
|
|
well i know a very big mufti who was student of moulana ahmed hussain madani (ra) and he said jinnah was not good. he had lied to the ulema many times. also he wasnt a muslim from day one. he was a zorastian. his parents come from iran
|
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 06:26 PM
|
#14 |
|
|
well i know a very big mufti who was student of moulana ahmed hussain madani (ra) and he said jinnah was not good. he had lied to the ulema many times. also he wasnt a muslim from day one. he was a zorastian. his parents come from iran 
|
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 06:47 PM
|
#15 |
|
|
From my understanding, the Ulema were wrong. And this sounds really blasphemous to say that, but honestly, the Ulema of all time have been known historically to be politically unaware. Politics takes wiliness and shrewdness, which are qualities that our beloved scholars do not usually possess. The reality is that Jinnah [r] did more for Islam than any of the Muftis. As for the Ulema in JUH: http://maarifah0.blogspot.com/2008/0...ith-south.html That said, it is true that generally speaking, Ulema aren't always naturally suited to politics. The JUI-F in Pakistan had a hard time and made several blunders dealing with Musharraf. However, just a few decades ago under the leadership of Mufti Mahmud (ra), the father of the current leader, Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman, the story was completely different. And he was just a Mufti too. If he were alive today, he'd sweep the elections in Balochistan and NWFP. He is that legendary. But that doesn't mean we should take our politics from politicians. Politics is a dirty game, it should be taken from NO ONE. That is the Western idea, to force that corrupt system on other countries, then wind up influencing them by proxy. In fact, the very idea should be to elect trustworthy people to political posts in this 'dirty game', they will get knocked down if they are in the lower posts, but that's to be expected. The goal is to get the honest, trustworthy (probably 'naive' in your eyes) people into the highest levels of government. Have you seen an election anywhere in the Western world? The candidates spend all their time trying to portray themselves as such. Politics is a game of compromising and ensuring trusts between people. Just as how we should put economists into posts in charge of the Treasury, and military experts in charge of Defense, we should people in charge of politics itself who are basically good people. If you recall, Prophet Muhammad (saw)'s reputation was essentially that of a trustworthy politician before prophethood. People came to him to resolve disputes and represent them. That is the pinnacle of real politics. And these were some of the most religiously corrupt people of any time, and even they came to love and honor him for his noble qualities (before betraying him when he called them to Islam). The fact he never desired or campaigned for power during this time is the best quality for a politician to have. Why do most people love Jinnah? Because he represents us. Not because he was better than us (i.e, that he was some awesome Islamic scholar or a great politician to look up to), but because he is a microcosm of the experience of a Pakistani and the state of Pakistan itself. His roots in modern, educated, Western lifestyles, and how he rediscovered himself and helped his people in the emerging new world order (don't mean the conspiracy here). According to all the accounts above, it seems the Quaid himself would disagree with you, and the average Pakistani would now be lucky if their life paralleled his personal journey. Basically, while Pakistan may have been the dream of Allama Iqbal (ra), Jinnah was a walking Pakistan. And of course, that's not exactly a good thing... but it makes him a very sympathetic character for Pakistanis. Being a walking Pakistan isn't nearly as desirable as being a walking Qur'an, and the Ulema are much closer to the latter, to emulate the Walking Qur'an (saw) is their career and life. And on an anecdotal note, look at the US politicians. You need nothing, no former experience or formal education of any sort to run a country apparently. If you want a guy who is a master of politics, then you have him now in President Zardari. |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 07:32 PM
|
#16 |
|
|
As-Salam Alaykum.
Bismillah. There is no need for this attitude here: You are not a politician, just another poster on SunniForum. You can talk all day about what you think, or what you read, or what you heard, and still be on a completely different page from just another poster here. Your views mostly reflect the opinions of the lay Pakistani. I believe you have misunderstood my post, although the fault may be mine in not properly articulating myself. So a few clarifications: 1) I am not saying that ALL Ulema make blunders when it comes to political realities. I am just saying that our Ulema have been known for that, and they should be forgiven for that. But this does not mean that there are exceptions; indeed, exceptions abound. 2) I am familiar with the fact that there were ulema who supported partition. I was only talking about those ulema who were against it, who I believe were in the majority. 3) I know I am a layperson. And I'm not even really pakistani. And I barely know anything. I was just talking off the top of my head, wondering what others more knowledgeable than myself think about my assessment. Therefore, I do not think your attitude is necessary. 4) As for Maulana Fazlur ur-Rahman, I *do* know about him, and I do not think he is a stellar example to give. As for his father, I don't know about him. 5) When I said that religious scholars should teach religion, and politicains should teach politics, by this I did not mean that we learn our politics from the corrupt politicians. Rather, I meant that we get those who are good at politics AND honest to go into politics. IN other words, we let those go into politics who are more suited for that field, i.e. have studied history, politics, etc., as opposed to those who have studied mostly religion, theology, etc. Fi Aman Allah |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 08:58 PM
|
#17 |
|
|
As-Salam Alaykum. Regarding partition, you should read the link I pasted. Being against partition was a sensible position to take. While relations between the Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs were peaceful, the JUH's political views towards Indian unity were agreeable. Naturally, some clung to one position or the other or wavered inbetween when relations soured and the violence started. The JUH wanted a representative democracy sort of government. Some members had previously set up (democratic) governments in exile in Afghanistan or wherever with Sikhs and Hindus as members. The Ulema were the backbone of the sepoy mutiny and independence struggle for a long time. Why wouldn't Muslims have fared well under a united India under those circumstances? Compared to the British, the Indians had a mostly favorable outlook on their past under Muslim theocratic rule, and we weren't talking about theocracy here for a newly independent India but a democracy. In fact, the Muslims helped kick-start the independence movement before the Hindus, so the united-India plan and the India-Pakistan plan were BOTH our ideas. In fact, it was partly Muslim League which played into the British' hands and helped polarize the Hindus and Muslims on opposite ends of the independence struggle. Why? Due to the aforementioned Western-style politics. They were good politicians. By being sensational, they rallied popular Muslim support away from the JUH who had been doing all the work and despite remaining true to Islam which many think would have made it impossible for them to do so, the JUH were displaying incredible political acumen and skill in synchronizing their efforts with Congress Party. They needed Jinnah to come in and rescue and revitalize ML before it could officially surpass JUH as representing South Asian Muslims. There are many reasons to consider partition illogical, not the least of which were the logistics involved in the actual partition which both the JUH and members of both sides of the Pakistan/India movement, as well as some of the British rightly recognized as paving the way for humanitarian disaster. In hindsight, it is easy to say partition and all that horror was 'worth it' because the memory is far removed, but in the JUH's position, I don't see how anyone could have endorsed the idea, knowing what was about to happen (of course, some believed that partition would play out as Iqbal dreamt, with Pakistan getting all of Punjab and proper borders being drawn so the exodus could've caused less strife). There's also the fact that not even 100 years earlier, Muslims were living rather peacefully under Emperor Ranjit Singh's secularly run Sikh Empire, which reached all the way into Afghanistan. The Pashtun tribes helped him fight the British until they finally lost and were chased out of Punjab (which was heavily populated by Pashtun and Pathan populations). It's unfortunate what happened to the Sikhs after that, they became lapdogs for the British. Definitely no longer lions of the Punjab. If I were in that position, I would have sided with JUH on the side of morality and common sense, and accepted the Will of Allah when Pakistan was created. But why rush in to set your own souls up for disaster? I'm pretty sure the blame for the disastrous partition falls on the British and the elements fomenting violence, but to those making the decisions, I don't understand how they could have looked at it and not worried about whether they would be held accountable by Allah. They should have been scared. I wouldn't be surprised if this was what weighed heavily on the Quaid's heart after partition (re: reports of his increased religious observance and turning towards Islam). Did Jinnah blame himself for all those deaths? I suspect he might have to an extent, but Allah knows best. Regardless, that is what the JUH did. When the Muslim League got going, Maulana Thanawi (ra) and others from the JUH wholeheartedly supported both movements because there'd be massive Muslim populations in both countries and they needed to represent both. Just read the material pasted earlier. In fact, the elements from the JUH which would later form Pakistan's JUI, heavily lobbied Jinnah to turn Pakistan into a literal Deobandi state. They were completely behind the movement once they realized it was necessary and a reality, and the formerly-practical plans of Indian unity became a pipe dream. |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 09:32 PM
|
#18 |
|
|
Shaykh Al-Albani [ra] made a pretty ill-advised fatwa about Palestine, which was correct from a fiqh aspect but which was not politically realistic or appropriate. IT would be nice if you write me in private how sh.albani´s(rh) fatwa regarding palestine was correct in fiqh aspect. jazakallah |
|
|
|
10-13-2008, 11:20 PM
|
#19 |
|
|
The ulama are the best people suited for politics. When politics are left for laypeople, then they ruin everything, like they have right now. Imagine, if ulama make mistakes, then how many more mistakes would laypeople do?! Of course, you can't ignore people well versed in history, etc, but you absolutely cannot take out the ulama from politics. In Islam, there's no separation of church and state. Maulana Ilyas  used to say that ever since the Ummah has left the effort of Da'wah, they have lost the isti'daad (anyone translate?) for politics. How true...Walahu a'lam
|
|
|
|
10-14-2008, 06:12 AM
|
#20 |
|
|
Shaykh al-Islam Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani and Shaykh al-Islam Zaffar Ahmad Uthmani met with Muhammad Ali Jinnah on many occasions. One of this meeting was held on 11th June, 1947 at the home of Jinnah. In this meeting Jinnah was worried that N.W.F.P and Sylhet might not become part of Pakistan as Congress had strong hold in those areas. Both scholars assured Jinnah that they would visit these areas and urge people to vote for Muslim League in the referendum. They asked Jinnah to announce that after the creation of Pakistan, its constitution would be Islamic. On this occassion Jinnah told both scholars to annouce on his behalf that Pakistan's constitution would be Islam. Later on Muslim League won in both provinces. (may Allah have mercy on them) [Maqalat-i-Uthmani, p.33-35] |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
