were Iqbal & Jinnah Pro-British?

were Iqbal & Jinnah Pro-British? 

Some of our over smart intellectuals love to comment on it, i can give examples from their writings where they launch such questions e-g Was Jinnah a British Agent? Jinnah was western? Allama Iqbal was pro British etc. here in this piece there r two references from authentic sources which will show their reservations regarding new Europe ( post 18th century ) and new world scenario ( post WW1) . Iqbal reference is from allahbad address while Jinnah refrence is from Verdict of India, a book, i first time heard from Zim Bhadur (Zafar Iqbal Mirza) pen name Lhori yet now a days his long time association with DAWN has been broken by the Karachi owners, a bad taste.
Point of view of both Iqbal & Jinnah will prove their grip on international political scene in 1930s & 1940s.

Just read Allahbad address piece yourself:
[1b]] The ideas set free by European political thinking, however, are now rapidly changing the outlook of the present generation of Muslims both in India and outside India. Our younger men, inspired by these ideas, are anxious to see them as living forces in their own countries, without any critical appreciation of the facts which have determined their evolution in Europe. In Europe Christianity was understood to be a purely monastic order which gradually developed into a vast church organisation. The protest of Luther was directed against this church organisation, not against any system of polity of a secular nature, for the obvious reason that there was no such polity associated with Christianity. And Luther was perfectly justified in rising in revolt against this organisation; though, I think, he did not realise that in the peculiar conditions which obtained in Europe, his revolt would eventually mean the complete displacement of [the] universal ethics of Jesus by the growth of a plurality of national and hence narrower systems of ethics.
[[1c]] Thus the upshot of the intellectual movement initiated by such men as Rousseau and Luther was the break-up of the one into [the] mutually ill-adjusted many, the transformation of a human into a national outlook, requiring a more realistic foundation, such as the notion of country, and finding expression through varying systems of polity evolved on national lines, i.e. on lines which recognise territory as the only principle of political solidarity. If you begin with the conception of religion as complete other-worldliness, then what has happened to Christianity in Europe is perfectly natural. The universal ethics of Jesus is displaced by national systems of ethics and polity. The conclusion to which Europe is consequently driven is that religion is a private affair of the individual and has nothing to do with what is called man's temporal life.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html

In his book verdict of India, Beverly Nicholas give statement of Jinnah where in front of that English writer Jinnah openly criticized post WW1 political scene in which British and France divided austro hangerian empire, Ottoman empire and Prussian Germany and created many new nation states. they neither thought about common language, common economic interests, common geography but they divided empire under their own economic interests.  They divided middle east who had same Arabic language , they divided German empire who had common geography & economics.
http://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2013-07-24&edition=LHR&id=496696_61738360