Fazl snubs JI amir’s alliance proposal

Asks Sirajul Haq why he didn’t consider the idea in 2013


Izhar Ullah May 08, 2017
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman. PHOTO: PPI

PESHAWAR: Jamiat Ulama-e-Islami (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has given a cold shoulder to Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) leader Sirajul Haq’s idea of forming an alliance of religious parties.
Addressing a news conference after a meeting of the party’s central council on Sunday, he asked JI amir Sirajul Haq why he did not consider forming an alliance in 2013.

“JI rejected us in 2013 and is now offering an alliance after realising their mistake,” Fazl said. He also announced that his party has formed a committee, headed by Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haidri, to look into matters of alliances for the 2018 elections.

Talking about the committee, Fazl said that the committee has been mandated to meet with all parties – religious and political – to form a grand alliance, seat adjustments or party-to-party alliances.

Dawn Leaks: Fazl says state institutions' reservations not 'unwarranted'

To a question on an alliance with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, he said, “The central council has not asked the committee nor restricted it to approach any particular party.”

The JUI-F chief also condemned the clashes at the Pak-Afghan border in Chaman and offered condolences to those who embraced ‘martyrdom’ in the attack.

“Bombing on innocent locals in Chaman by Afghan forces is condemnable and they [Afghan forces] should respect international borders,” Fazl urged.

What counter-narrative? Ulema already rejected extremist narrative, says Fazl

He also reiterated the party's stance over the blasphemy law, saying “No one should be given permission to abolish the blasphemy law based on a few incidents.” However he added that no one should be allowed to take the law in their own hands.

COMMENTS (1)

Lolz | 7 years ago | Reply Diesel
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ