Age of madness

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

assalam alaikum

Interesting very interesting

i m a simple person dont belong to any political or religous party nor i think i belong to any sects a simpl muslim.

Supporters and defenders of the status quo are winning the debate not on the basis of a good argument, or normative superiority, or even street power. They are winning the debate because they have framed the question on blasphemy in the public domain in Pakistan. That question is quite simple, and it is very, very potent. No matter what their lips are saying, the question they are asking Pakistanis is this: “Do you want to live in a Pakistan where offensive speech against religious personalities and symbols is a legally protected right?”

May be the supporters of the status quo r good sellers and they know what the masses can tolerate and not, while the so called the opponents of the status quo the notion that they don't belong to this place is right eventhough they r well eductated high profile ppl and the the defenders of the satus quo r less educated and most of the times called fanatics.

The fight to alter the status quo is a fight to protect innocent Pakistanis from being victimised by a social structure, a set of laws, and a state machinery that are to varying degrees, basically broken. Changing the status quo is about the safety, security of all Pakistanis, particularly disadvantaged Pakistanis such as religious minorities. The PPC’s blasphemy provisions represent a law that allows influential locals to demonstrate their muscularity and achieve fame, by egregiously and unnecessarily registering false cases of blasphemy, and then egregiously and unnecessarily threatening (and taking) the lives of those accused. To want to change the current situation is an absolutely reasonable, non-ideological and non-partisan public policy proposition.

Why the oppenents of the status quo r bad sellers can be seen in the above text
There is no law in pakistan that is not abused. The opponents of the status quo should do something with all these laws that effect 170 millions and every year thousands of cases registered falsely. U cant win the sympathy to repeal a law that has been registerd agains 1400 or more and most of the accused r muslims and specially nobody got the punishment.

Instead of calling to change this law or repealing they should come up with the solution how this law can prevent any person to accuse others falsely and give same punishment (hanging or any thing that makes him think deeply before accusing).

the government appointed the JUI (F)’s Maulana Sherani, for political expediency.

Clearly the political govt. is ready to please the masses this is what the democracy is all about.

Instead of dismissing a frivolous and malicious case against Sherry Rehman, and holding the petitioner in contempt of court, a judge accepts a petition against her.

I see a clear direction given to judges ( this is the contempt of the court) while registering a case is the right of any pakistani and the court will dismiss or continue with the case.

Clearly, the Pakistani state lacks not only the will and capacity to solve problems creatively; it lacks the spine and the muscle to stand up to the intimidation of hoodlums in the garb of religious gatekeepers.

Cleary the drawing room intellectuals ( opponents of the status quo ) can call anybody what they please ask the govt. to go against the masses a clear unacceptence of the democracy which they call for day nights.

Lastly these opponents of the status quo tell us how to deal with some one who abuses the Prophet ( PBUH) in a country which came into existence
on the name of Islam.

TARIQ

 

[muse]

I want to caution you about false optimism

I am aware of this - I would bring your attention to the comments posted above by Tariq.

Pakistan is now an arena of a culture war (one which readers in the US may be able to relate with)

Sol, this Pakistan is very different from the one of my childhood and Tariq is really making the same point as you have - the status quo crowd, and the change crowd are generally different social classes representing divergent MEANING - while you caution over optimism, Tariq suggest why blame the status quo for being successful, after all, their success is a result of their hard work within society, it's hard to argue with that - I'm approaching this from the position that what really matters is to be engaged in the conversation - and of course I may be wrong about that as well - and that people who are interested and engage can find themselves thinking about things in a way they had not - it's a small ambition, perhaps, but one that I have some measure of experience, some even positive, with.

 

[Solomon2]

it's a small ambition, perhaps, but one that I have some measure of experience, some even positive, with.

Why keep your ambition small?

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

I am aware of this - I would bring your attention to the comments posted above by Tariq.

Pakistan is now an arena of a culture war (one which readers in the US may be able to relate with)

Sol, this Pakistan is very different from the one of my childhood and Tariq is really making the same point as you have - the status quo crowd, and the change crowd are generally different social classes representing divergent MEANING - while you caution over optimism, Tariq suggest why blame the status quo for being successful, after all, their success is a result of their hard work within society, it's hard to argue with that - I'm approaching this from the position that what really matters is to be engaged in the conversation - and of course I may be wrong about that as well - and that people who are interested and engage can find themselves thinking about things in a way they had not - it's a small ambition, perhaps, but one that I have some measure of experience, some even positive, with.

assalam alaikum

Totally agree with u right or wrong, we need to continue in conversation and may be i m wrong and u r right or vice versa.
The ppl in west dont know that we ppl r very rich in dialogues even when muslims were ruling a vast land and the kings or khalifah had so much power all the sects used to have munzarah's amoung each other when this was unacceptable in west.

Conversation is a way forward.

Note . Not only pakistan i saw the whole word change saw the berlin wall coming down while studying in u.s.a , end of cold war and new world order and earlier the mujahdeen ( which the americans could not find word to praise them and then same mujahdeen ( hikmat yaar ) became extremist).

TARIQ

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: The black law is here to stay

Daily Times
December 31, 2010

In an effort to appease the extreme religious right, the government has taken a regressive step backwards in a move that will cost the nation dearly in terms of extremism, intolerance and the abuse of its citizens, especially its minorities. Religious Affairs Minister Khursheed Shah has categorically stated in the National Assembly that no amendments and no repeal of the dreaded Blasphemy Law are contemplated. After months of heated debate on this issue for the government to dash all hope is an eye-opener. It has opened the nation’s eyes to the blatant disregard the government has for its minorities and it has alerted the citizens to the fact that the intolerant elements of society have gained yet another victory. However, one would like to remind the government of a few sharp facts. If our representatives think that the shutter-down strike called by the Tahafooz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat today will be abandoned just like that and that the JUI-F will be lured into rejoining the federal government, they have another think coming. All they have managed to do by officially stating that the Blasphemy Law will not undergo any repeal or amendment is increase the power of hostile extremists in our society who are baying for the blood of a Christian woman (Aasia Bibi) because of an alleged slight on the person of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Sadly, the government has served to only defend the self-proclaimed guardians of Islam and not Islam itself, which is a religion of tolerance and peace.

Mr Khursheed Shah has also said that the government will ensure the protection of minorities from any abuse of the Blasphemy Law. One begs to ask: will the government continue to protect the minorities like it has done so far, which is by doing nothing at all? The fact that the minister has failed to outline any method or plan to protect the very vulnerable minorities in Pakistan from extremists clearly indicates the lack of any real formulation for minority welfare. All they have succeeded in doing is giving more leeway to the Islamists to wreak further havoc on the minorities they know will never be protected by the state.

The government has also abandoned a rare voice of sanity in this growing cacophony of madness. MNA Sherry Rehman has tabled a private member’s bill to introduce amendments to the black law. However, the government has said that it will not support this effort. Also, as a response to Sherry Rehman’s bill, a committee has been set up to scrutinise any private members’ bills. This is tantamount to preventing any private members’ bills from being moved. To vet all such initiatives is akin to abolishing this inherent right of members of parliament — all this to appease a hate-mongering clergy.

Let us not live within the obscure four walls of fiction. The reality is that the extreme right is going to ride over the wishes of the people. This apprehension is not without substance. The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) has recently struck down four clauses of the Women’s Protection Act. The draconian Hudood Ordinance and the 2nd Constitutional Amendment, which ousted Ahmedis from the Muslim community, are still on the statute books. But even this will seem like a picnic if the misplaced attitude of placating the extremist religious right is not reversed.

It is time we stopped kow-towing to these forces that have done more harm to Islam and this country than all of our other malaises combined. It is time the extremists in society were told that enough is enough and that their attempts to hold the state and society hostage to their narrow views will no longer be tolerated. It is time to abolish the FSC, repeal the Hudood Ordinance and Blasphemy law and revisit the 2nd Amendment so that Pakistanis can live and breathe like free human beings, not as slaves to religious despots.

 

[Solomon2]

In Pakistan can citizens bring suit against the GoP on constitutional grounds? The Constitution's preamble does state, "adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures". Since this demonstrably isn't occurring, the power of the State over such minorities may be considered null and void, yes?

 

[RabzonKhan]

In Pakistan can citizens bring suit against the GoP on constitutional grounds? The Constitution's preamble does state, "adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures". Since this demonstrably isn't occurring, the power of the State over such minorities may be considered null and void, yes?

Ofcourse, a citizen can sue the Government, but I doubt in this case someone will dare to sue the Government and risk being labeled anti-Islam by the Mullah brigade and their supporters.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Analysing Pakistan’s DNA

Dawn
Irfan Husain

AS Pakistan lurches into yet another political crisis, we risk overlooking two important recent developments in the feverish speculation about in-house change now dominating a section of the media.

The first is the decision by the Federal Shariat Court to strike down some provisions of the Women’s Protection Act of 2006. The second is the Lahore High Court’s decision to admit a petition against Sherry Rehman in which she has been accused of the un-Islamic act of seeking an amendment in the blasphemy law through a private member’s bill in Parliament.

Let’s take the second event first. Here is a respected member of the National Assembly acting according to her conscience, and seeking to right a grave wrong inflicted on Pakistan’s minorities in the shape of the blasphemy law. This piece of legislation has taken and blighted hundreds of lives ever since it was inflicted on us by the dictator Ziaul Haq.

The law has been misused mostly against Christians and Hindus, the most vulnerable sections of our society. The latest victim is Aasia Bibi, a Christian mother, who was condemned to death recently because a spat led to an accusation of blasphemy. A local cleric then entered the fray and pressured the local
administration to arrest and then try her.

The point here is that a prominent MNA can be dragged by orthodox elements, seeking her disqualification, before a court because she wants to protect the rights of Pakistan’s minorities.

Ironically, many of Ms Rehman’s supporters are the very people who so bravely and volubly fought for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, and the independence of the judiciary.

In the FSC’s decision to strike down important provisions of the Women’s Protection Act enacted under Musharraf in 2006, we have a parallel judicial system encroaching on parliament’s sovereign right to pass laws. This august body was set up to ensure that Pakistan is governed under Islamic laws. The problem has always been that there is no single definition of Islamic jurisprudence, with several schools advocating their respective versions.

A further point is that out of the vast body of laws in Pakistan — some would say there are far too many — did the FSC have to pick on the one relating to women? The most damaging part of the FSC’s ruling is that appeals against decisions announced by lower courts based on the amended provisions of the Women’s Protection Act will no longer lie with the provincial high courts. Instead, the FSC has arrogated the position of appellate authority to itself.

I have little doubt that this government will meet the FSC deadline of June 2011. I suspect there are very few in the ruling party who see the irony of a relatively liberal law enacted under a military dictator being gutted under an elected government headed by the PPP. Benazir Bhutto will be turning in her grave.

Both pieces of legislation under discussion here target the weakest sections of Pakistani society: the minorities and women. In truth, over the years, they have been the punching bags for an increasingly fundamentalist, patriarchal ruling class. When Zia unleashed his so-called Islamisation laws on us, he was not acting alone. He had the support of many well-placed journalists, generals and judges. And while he might have acted in his political self-interest, his policies resonated deeply with a small but influential section of the population.

One central truth most of us are unwilling to face is that much of the increasing extremism we see around us is deeply embedded in Pakistan’s DNA. When a country is created in the name of a faith, then inevitably, that faith will come to dominate modes of thought and behaviour.

Many of us who represent a dwindling liberal, secular strand in the media are fond of quoting Jinnah’s Aug 11, 1947 speech which remains as eloquent a declaration of secularism as I have read anywhere. But talk to clerics or students today, and they will look at you in disbelief and even anger if you impute secularism to the founder of Pakistan. In their view, he created Pakistan in the name of Islam, and not for the Muslims of the subcontinent. This is too nuanced an argument for most people who prefer to see things only in black and white.

Even though Maulana Maudoodi and his Jamaat-i-Islami opposed the creation of Pakistan tooth and nail before 1947, once it came into being, they began pushing their rigid religious agenda. They still haven’t stopped. This unrelenting campaign created an environment where secularism became a pejorative term. It hasn’t helped that it has been mistranslated into Urdu as ladinyat or irreligiosity. This inaccurate label is enough to send politicians scurrying for cover.

Over time, it has become the safer political option to pay lip service to extremism. So while religious parties might not get many votes or parliamentary seats, their agenda still dominates the political landscape as well as a large section of the media. The result is a noxious atmosphere where there is little space for a meaningful debate on the direction we would like Pakistan to take. Is it to become a modern, vibrant nation where all citizens have equal rights, or a theocracy where women and the minorities are oppressed?

Among the WikiLeaks to have emerged so far was a cable from the previous American ambassador to Islamabad in which she wrote that she expected it would take 10 to 15 years for Pakistan to defeat the Taliban. I fear she was being too optimistic. Until we have achieved a national consensus rejecting extremism, the jihadis will continue to receive moral and material support.

But as the two cases we have studied here indicate, the tide is running in favour of religious extremism. Important sections of the media, the military and the judiciary — to name only three institutions — have no issue with the path the country is on. They might deplore the mayhem the jihadis are causing, but they certainly do not object to the anti-women and anti-minorities policies and rulings that are poisoning the atmosphere. Until they recognise the linkage between the two, extremist violence is here to stay.

 

[Solomon2]

Until we have achieved a national consensus rejecting extremism, the jihadis will continue to receive moral and material support.

And that doesn't mean muse's prescription of lying low and doing nothing, either. Doing nothing is also a choice, a conscious decision not to oppose evils that one comes across in one's personal life.

Egypt has had a number of problems with religious radicals; indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Al Qaeda is only a branch, began there. Here is one Egyptian writer's view:

J’accuse

Hani Shukrallah , Saturday 1 Jan 2011

Hypocrisy and good intentions will not stop the next massacre. Only a good hard look at ourselves and sufficient resolve to face up to the ugliness in our midst will do so


We are to join in a chorus of condemnation. Jointly, Muslims and Christians, government and opposition, Church and Mosque, clerics and laypeople – all of us are going to stand up and with a single voice declare unequivocal denunciation of al-Qaeda, Islamist militants, and Muslim fanatics of every shade, hue and color; some of us will even go the extra mile to denounce salafi Islam, Islamic fundamentalism as a whole, and the Wahabi Islam which, presumably, is a Saudi import wholly alien to our Egyptian national culture.

And once again we’re going to declare the eternal unity of “the twin elements of the nation”, and hearken back the Revolution of 1919, with its hoisted banner showing the crescent embracing the cross, and giving symbolic expression to that unbreakable bond.

Much of it will be sheer hypocrisy; a great deal of it will be variously nuanced so as keep, just below the surface, the heaps of narrow-minded prejudice, flagrant double standard and, indeed, bigotry that holds in its grip so many of the participants in the condemnations.

All of it will be to no avail. We’ve been here before; we’ve done exactly that, yet the massacres continue, each more horrible than the one before it, and the bigotry and intolerance spread deeper and wider into every nook and cranny of our society. It is not easy to empty Egypt of its Christians; they’ve been here for as long as there has been Christianity in the world. Close to a millennium and half of Muslim rule did not eradicate the nation’s Christian community, rather it maintained it sufficiently strong and sufficiently vigorous so as to play a crucial role in shaping the national, political and cultural identity of modern Egypt.

Yet now, two centuries after the birth of the modern Egyptian nation state, and as we embark on the second decade of the 21stcentury, the previously unheard of seems no longer beyond imagining: a Christian-free Egypt, one where the cross will have slipped out of the crescent’s embrace, and off the flag symbolizing our modern national identity. I hope that if and when that day comes I will have been long dead, but dead or alive, this will be an Egypt which I do not recognize and to which I have no desire to belong.

I am no Zola, but I too can accuse. And it’s not the blood thirsty criminals of al-Qaeda or whatever other gang of hoodlums involved in the horror of Alexandria that I am concerned with.

I accuse a government that seems to think that by outbidding the Islamists it will also outflank them.

I accuse the host of MPs and government officials who cannot help but take their own personal bigotries along to the parliament, or to the multitude of government bodies, national and local, from which they exercise unchecked, brutal yet at the same time hopelessly inept authority.

I accuse those state bodies who believe that by bolstering the Salafi trend they are undermining the Muslim Brotherhood, and who like to occasionally play to bigoted anti-Coptic sentiments, presumably as an excellent distraction from other more serious issues of government.

But most of all, I accuse the millions of supposedly moderate Muslims among us; those who’ve been growing more and more prejudiced, inclusive and narrow minded with every passing year.

I accuse those among us who would rise up in fury over a decision to halt construction of a Muslim Center near ground zero in New York, but applaud the Egyptian police when they halt the construction of a staircase in a Coptic church in the Omranya district of Greater Cairo.

I’ve been around, and I have heard you speak, in your offices, in your clubs, at your dinner parties: “The Copts must be taught a lesson,” “the Copts are growing more arrogant,” “the Copts are holding secret conversions of Muslims”, and in the same breath, “the Copts are preventing Christian women from converting to Islam, kidnapping them, and locking them up in monasteries.”

I accuse you all, because in your bigoted blindness you cannot even see the violence to logic and sheer common sense that you commit; that you dare accuse the whole world of using a double standard against us, and are, at the same time, wholly incapable of showing a minimum awareness of your own blatant double standard.

And finally, I accuse the liberal intellectuals, both Muslim and Christian who, whether complicit, afraid, or simply unwilling to do or say anything that may displease “the masses”, have stood aside, finding it sufficient to join in one futile chorus of denunciation following another, even as the massacres spread wider, and grow more horrifying.

A few years ago I wrote in the Arabic daily Al-Hayat, commenting on a columnist in one of the Egyptian papers. The columnist, whose name I’ve since forgotten, wrote lauding the patriotism of an Egyptian Copt who had himself written saying that he would rather be killed at the hands of his Muslim brethren than seek American intervention to save him.

Addressing myself to the patriotic Copt, I simply asked him the question: where does his willingness for self-sacrifice for the sake of the nation stop. Giving his own life may be quite a noble, even laudable endeavor, but is he also willing to give up the lives of his children, wife, mother? How many Egyptian Christians, I asked him, are you willing to sacrifice before you call upon outside intervention, a million, two, three, all of them?

Our options, I said then and continue to say today are not so impoverished and lacking in imagination and resolve that we are obliged to choose between having Egyptian Copts killed, individually or en masse, or run to Uncle Sam. Is it really so difficult to conceive of ourselves as rational human beings with a minimum of backbone so as to act to determine our fate, the fate of our nation?

That, indeed, is the only option we have before us, and we better grasp it, before it’s too late.

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: No, we are not going to be frightened

Daily Times
Yasser Latif Hamdani
January 03, 2011


Our liberal and democratic PPP government has once again taken the road most taken. Instead of standing up to the forces of religious orthodoxy, it has sought to appease them by declaring that no changes shall be made to the blasphemy laws. In the process, the PPP has once again let down those liberal and progressive sections of society that had voted for it, hoping against hope that it would one day miraculously evolve a spine and go about the business of creating a progressive and egalitarian society.

In making compromises with the mullahs, the PPP has stuck to its founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s legacy of appeasement, which ultimately dragged him to the gallows after he scripted Pakistan’s drift into theocracy. Where it will take our current leaders, only time will tell. Here, perhaps, the PPP can for once look for guidance from the founder of Pakistan instead of repeating Bhutto’s mistakes to their detriment. Speaking on September 11, 1929, precisely 18 years before his demise, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah delivered a speech that resonates with progressives and reformers even today.

Speaking on the Child Marriage Bill, Jinnah said “How can there be such a divine sanction to this cruel, horrible, disgraceful, inhuman practice that is prevailing in India?” He was speaking about the practice of marrying off young children, a custom that was prevalent in India. Both Hindu and Muslim divines were up against it. Our Quaid went on to say, “Sir, whether certain practices have any sanction divine or religious or not, and when any social reform is suggested, which goes to destroy the usages and customs to which people are used and upon which they have looked as semi-religious usages and practices, it is always known all over the world that those people who have got deep sentiments, deep convictions, strong opinions, always resent, and they believe that it is destroying the very root of their social life or religion. Always the social reformer is face to face with this orthodox opinion...But are we to be dragged down by this section for whom we have respect, whose feeling we appreciate, whose sentiments we regard, are we to be dragged down and are we to be prevented in the march of progress, in the name of humanity, I ask you?” To read the complete text of this extraordinary speech please consult page 381 of Volume III of The Collected Works of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah 1926-1931.

Today the same choice is before the government and lawmakers of the nation that Jinnah founded. Once again the religious orthodoxy has hindered the march of progress and the choice really is whether we want a humane and civilised country or a theocratic dystopia. In fact, for Messrs Zardari and Gilani the choice is much easier. That they are hugely unpopular and widely mistrusted is no secret. Zardari especially has a rather foul reputation, rightly or wrongly. No matter what Zardari does, the right-leaning public opinion in this country will continue to hold him in disdain. It would be a very cold day in hell before Zardari will be able to convince the mullahs that he is their ameer-ul-momineen (grand leader). The prospect of holding on to power for long is also quite dim. The hidden forces in this country are already whipping into line the fractured right wing of the country. Therefore, this is the right time for Zardari and Gilani to look beyond the politics of today and imagine how history will remember them. If the PPP takes a stand here and now against religious extremism, amends or repeals the Blasphemy Law and other draconian laws of this country and refuses to budge from a liberal and secular agenda, it will galvanise the liberals, progressives and minorities behind it; supposing the government is brought down on this count, the entire world will stand behind it. Politics they say is the art of the possible but in a position that the current government finds itself, anything is possible.

Public opinion is not suitably formed in Pakistan given the biases that are ingrained in Pakistanis from the beginning and reinforced by our newly ‘free’ media, which is not free of bigotry unfortunately. Therefore, our elected representatives have to lead public opinion and not be held hostage by it. Just because the mob wants to burn people at the stake does not mean that it is justified. We saw the ugliest face of our mob (to call it a society is an insult to all societies) in Sialkot. Have we forgotten that? The elected representatives, therefore, have a clear duty as leaders of this country to chart the best and most rational course for it.

If they cannot or if their constituency places fetters in their way, the right path has been clearly laid down by the founding father of this state in the aforesaid speech: “But, Sir, I make bold to say that if my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘You had better ask somebody else to represent you’...if we are going to allow ourselves to be influenced by the public opinion that can be created in the name of religion when we know that religion has nothing whatever to do with the matter, I think we must have the courage to say, ‘No, we are not going to be frightened by that.”

Our leaders must take up the exercise of repeating that golden last line every night before they go to sleep. Pakistan and the people of Pakistan deserve people of courage and vision, not self-absorbed cowards.

The writer is a lawyer.

 

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: Mortals killed to defend God

Daily Times
Gulmina Bilal Ahmad
January 07, 2011

It was not a security lapse. At least not all of it. Neither was it a planned conspiracy. Perhaps not all of it. As investigators, security analysts and armchair activists would undoubtedly discuss each and every angle of it, I remain dumbfounded and scared. For me, it was the death of tolerance. Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.” In Pakistan today, there is no room for dissent. We all have to subscribe to one ideology, one religion, one national identity and one language. It is as if we abhor diversity. Are constantly challenged by it. There is a dichotomy here. We subscribe to a religious belief that urges us to constantly seek God in nature, marvel at His creations of different colours, sizes and shapes. Yet, we kill in the name of a Being and a Prophet (PBUH) whose tales of tolerance are rote learned in every school of this country. If it were not so tragic and dangerous, it would be quite despicable to see what we have become. Self-loathing is what comes to mind at a time like this.

My mailbox is full as I write this. There are those who are outraged at the tragedy and then some who look upon it as another terrorist attack. The lucky ones are those who, as a defence mechanism in my opinion, busy themselves with the details of the particular attack. Was he sitting or standing? Was he hit from behind or from the side? How many bullets? Scared of the implications of the bigger picture, they try to find God in the details. Personal friends urge me to stay muted in my writings. Then there are those who see this as an act of Muslim faith, are congratulating Qadri and warning of other such attacks. When the cleric of Mohabbat Khan Mosque announced rewards for those who kill the so-called blasphemers, I was reminded of the words of Akbar Bugti who asked, “What use have I of a God who needs me to defend him?”

There are two Pakistanis as the Kohsar attack and my mailbox have reiterated. One who is made up of the wishy-washy liberals like myself who have secular and tolerant views but selectively articulate and practice them. Privately, I will express the need for a secular Pakistan, but when I am conducting human rights training for police personnel all over the country, I would not engage directly into a discussion with them on whether Pakistan should be secular or not? I would perhaps write in support of de-radicalisation but when I publicly stand up I would try to measure my words. Rationalising this hypocrisy, I would tell myself that there should be a difference between public and private speaking and hence the choice of words. However, to be honest, is this the only reason?

The other part of Pakistan comprises the majority that seem to be tied to the glorious days of Islam and their perceived place in the world. They announce rewards for people who kill. They organise themselves and then openly declare that anyone who stands up against them will be wajib-ul-qatl (worthy of murder). Widely reported in the media, the Barelvi Jamaat-e-Ahle Sunnat, in a written public statement, has declared, “No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salmaan Taseer or even express any kind of regret or sympathy over the incident.” The statement went on further to state that anyone who expresses grief over the assassination could suffer the same fate. ‘The same fate’ is actually a death threat. Thus, this Pakistan speaks and threatens openly while the part I hail from cowers down in fear. Those of us who do speak out openly are then, in a way, if we were to believe a media militant, actually inviting trouble ourselves for, like Salmaan Taseer, we should not touch upon ‘sensitive topics’. This Pakistan runs website (Welcome to the site of Jamaat -e- Ahlesunnat), operates in Bazm-e-Raza, Memon Masjid Muslehuddin Garden and openly threatens and terrorises. Their public statement has names such as Professor Syed Mazhar Saeed Shah Kazmi, Allama Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Shah Turab-ul-Haq Qadri, Allama Zamir Sajid, Pir Khalid Sultan, Pir Ghulam Siddiq Naqshbandi, Allama Syed Khizr Hussain Shah, Alhaj Amjad Chishti, Allama Ghulam Sarawar Hazarvi, Allama Syed Shamsuddin Bokhari, Pir Syed Ashiq Ali Shah Jilani, Mufti Muhammad Iqbal Chishti, Allama Fazal Jamil Rizvi, Agha Muhammad Ibrahim Naqshbandi Mujaddidi, Maulana Muhammad Riaz Qadri, Maulana Gulzar Naeemi, Allama Syed Ghulam Yaseen Shah, and over 500 other ulema and honourable muftis attached to the Jamaat-e-Ahle Sunnat, Pakistan. Should they not be arrested for issuing written death threats and incitement for violence?

This is the face of another Pakistan. At Kohsar, the two Pakistans met and the more violent one prevailed. Violent and the more rooted. The security guard was the result of the increasing space that the Islamist jiyalas (zealots) occupy in Pakistan. Every day, whether one looks at the drawing room seminars of Al Huda and Farhat Hashmi, the philanthropic service delivery model of militancy adopted by Lashkar-i-Jhangvi or, what is extremely lethal, the teaching and working of the Hizb-ul-Tahrir, one sees their presence. The Hizb-ul-Tahrir has made inroads across every strata of Pakistani society. They are militant in their message and sophisticated in the message delivery tactics. It is, therefore, not surprising that their adherents range from various educated circles of society using the uneducated as cannon fodder. Working with police personnel from all over the country, I frequently find them to be voracious readers of ‘deeni literature’. When probed, it usually transpires that this ‘deeni literature’ is actually free jihadi literature propagating a conservative, militant, myopic worldview where non-Muslim Pakistanis are not really citizens but owe their existence to the magnanimity of the Muslim Pakistani.

Public space for such organisations, networks, literature and their followers is growing. No, it was not a security lapse. It was a triumph. Yet another victory for the militant, Islamic jiyala who enjoys the freedom to exercise his/her intolerant view and label anyone wajib-ul-qatl. It is ironic that they play God every day, yet they are against blasphemy. They declare people to be liable to live or die, which are Godly decisions. According to them, anyone who expressed sympathy over the death of a blasphemer was also committing blasphemy. Let me commit it then. Salmaan Taseer, may you rest in peace. Aasia Bibi may you count me as one of your supporters.

The writer is a development consultant.


My hats off to her for her courage!

 

[RabzonKhan]

ANALYSIS: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

Daily Times
Farhat Taj
January 08, 2011

A recent book, Combating Terrorism, Saudi Arabia’s Role in the War on Terror, has been authored by Ali S Awadh Asseri, a former Saudi ambassador in Pakistan. The idea of writing this book occurred to him when he saw the rising wave of terrorism in Pakistan during his long ambassadorial stay from 2001 to 2009 in Islamabad. The writer urges: “for Pakistan, there is a lot to learn from the Saudi counter-terrorism model”. I am afraid the writer may be projecting a misleading picture in regards to Pakistan.

It is true that Pakistan has to learn some lessons from Saudi Arabia to defeat terrorism and neutralise religious extremism. For example, the writer says that the Saudi government has implemented several legislative and regulatory measures to exert strict oversight over charitable organisations in the country. Pakistan too needs to regulate its large charitable sector — the madrassas — including those funded by Saudi Arabia, to neutralise and ultimately eliminate the extremist mindset that these madrassas are producing annually in the thousands. The author also highlights that to prevent the misuse of charity, the Saudi government removed all cash collection boxes from mosques and shopping centres. The Pakistani government too needs to do exactly the same with the cash collection boxes of madrassas, mosques and religious organisations, including the banned organisations that can be found in every part of Pakistan.

It is true that the Saudi government has established a National Saudi Society for Relief and Charitable Work Abroad to regulate charitable activities. But the fact remains that Saudi Arabia remains a key source of terror financing around the Muslim world, especially Pakistan. A recent WikiLeaks memo describes Saudi Arabia as a “cash machine” for al Qaeda’s terrorism worldwide. In Pakistan, it is widely believed that Saudi donors finance the religious organisations that indoctrinate Pakistanis with hatred for Shias and non-Muslims and a disdain for democracy, human rights and pluralism.

The Saudi government seems to have taken stringent measures to ensure the security of its own citizens. But this government it seems has little respect for the lives of fellow Muslim in other countries like Pakistan. The Saudi government as well as private charity organisations are actively engaged in exporting and financing a jihadi Wahabi ideology to Pakistan. This Saudi funding has certainly contributed to emboldening extremist and militant organisations in Pakistan. They show no respect for the law of this land. Even powerful people like Benazir Bhutto and Salmaan Taseer are not safe at the hands of the extremists. Saudi Arabia, thus, shoulders the responsibility for extremism and terrorism in Pakistan. For now the Saudis seem to be strengthening the hands of the killers of the innocent people of Pakistan in the name of Islam. The Saudi government needs to do a lot more to be seen as a well-wisher of the people of Pakistan. This means the termination of Saudi financial and ideological resources for religious organisations in Pakistan.

Referring to the Pakhtun area of Pakistan, Ambassador Asseri claims that “poverty and illiteracy are promoting terrorism” in this area. As a person from that area, I strongly disagree with the ambassador. There has always been poverty and illiteracy in these areas but never terrorism and extremism. Today there is terrorism and extremism in the area because external forces, including Saudi Arabia, have worked for decades to spread religious extremism and terrorism. The Pakistani establishment uses the area as a strategic space in pursuit of jihadi goals in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as a breeding ground for Wahabism. Both the establishment and Saudi hands are stained with the blood of innocent Pakhtuns on both sides of the Durand Line.

Pakistan, despite all its shortcomings and weaknesses, is a much more free and pluralist society than Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, there would never have been an al Qaeda if there had been a little democracy and pluralism in Saudi Arabia. No decent Saudi would dare to challenge the medieval dictatorship that Saudi Arabia is. Only the savage among the Saudis could have the determination to challenge the Saudi monarchy. Those savage Saudis are members of al Qaeda. They are against the Saudi monarchy and look determined to replace the monarchy with an even harsher dictatorship in the name of Islam. There would have been a softer and more civilised opposition to the Saudi monarchy if the Saudi polity had allowed some democratic and pluralistic norms. Perhaps, here, Saudi Arabia needs to learn a little bit of pluralism and democracy from Pakistan.

The writer is a PhD Research Fellow with the University of Oslo and currently writing a book, Taliban and Anti-Taliban

 

[RabzonKhan]

Blaming the victim


Dawn
Irfan Husain
Jan 08 2011

SOMETIMES, it takes a friend`s murder to put things in perspective, and to show us exactly where the battle lines are. Salman Taseer`s brutal killing, apart from causing deep pain and grief to his family, friends and supporters, has again underlined the yawning rift in Pakistani society.

More than the assassination itself, the proud smirk on the killer`s face, and the vocal support he has been receiving from a significant section of the media, lawyers as well as religious parties, shows us where Pakistan stands today. It is this hate-filled environment that has made rational discourse virtually impossible.

Lacking the intellectual tools to conduct a reasoned debate on the issues of the day, religious elements in our society cling to their rigid dogma, using threats to make their point instead of logic. For anybody who disagrees with them, murder is the automatic, default response. The fact that ideological killers are seldom punished encourages them further.

Salman refused to be cowed down by these bullies, and paid the price for his courage. But how many are willing to take a similar stand? Certainly none from the PPP. The ruling party has usually rolled over when it comes to taking on the religious right. Indeed, apart from Salman Taseer and Sherry Rehman, other senior members of the ruling PPP have ducked for cover whenever the controversial blasphemy laws have come under discussion. When Sherry Rehman moved a private member`s bill to make these laws a little less iniquitous for the minorities, she received no support from her own party.

And while Nawaz Sharif, Altaf Hussain and Maulana Fazlur Rahman play politics to destabilise an already unstable government, they do not seem to realise that the enemy, represented by Mumtaz Qadri, Salman Taseer`s assassin, is already within the ramparts of the state. No doubt Nawaz Sharif and the maulana think they can strike a deal with the likes of Qadri, but they should remember the fate of other politicians elsewhere who thought they could share power with extremists.

Much is being made of the fact that a fanatic like Qadri could be assigned to a VIP security team. But in today`s Pakistan, this is the norm, not the exception. Our state schools as well as our madressahs have become breeding grounds for extremism. These ideas are then amplified across much of our media. This kind of constant brainwashing makes it hard for people to think independently and rationally.

Successive governments, both civilian and military, have shut their eyes to what is being taught at our educational institutions. Ditto for the sermons in many mosques that are in reality little more than incitement to violence. Ditto again for the retrogressive, anti-West propaganda that passes for informed debate on many of our private TV channels.

These are the real issues of our times, but given the growing street and media power of religious parties, few politicians are willing to even talk about them. It seems they have already conceded virtually all political space to the fundamentalists. Elected governments have been too ineffectual and too unsure of themselves to take on the religious right, while military dictators have sought to use them in a bid to gain legitimacy.

The result is the rapid growth of a hydra-headed monster that seems to have become too powerful for state institutions to decapitate. Another reason for this weak response to an expanding threat is the lack of a political consensus. Far too many politicians fear being labelled secularists — a pejorative term in our political lexicon — and thus do not want to appear opposing groups who claim to be motivated by faith. In reality, of course, they want power as much as all politicians do.

After Salman`s murder, the blogosphere has been full of angry and anguished postings from people who were appalled by this evil act. Well-meaning people, they are trying to connect with like-minded bloggers to formulate a response to the tragedy. They were particularly indignant over a major Urdu newspaper`s seeming support for the killer, as well as the religious groups who appeared to be threatening those mourning Salman`s death.

The reality is that civil society is hopelessly outgunned by the forces of darkness. Abandoned by the state, and opposed by an implacable, well-armed foe, ordinary, peaceful citizens of Pakistan have few allies in this unequal battle. While people like Qadri, impatient to be in paradise, are positively itching to be killed, normal people would prefer to live out their allotted years in relative peace and security.

This difference in approach to life and death is one reason the jihadis have the wind in their sails. If even hand-picked cops can turn their guns on the people they are supposed to be guarding, what protection do ordinary citizens have? Another factor that multiplies the right`s street power is that most of the angry, bearded faces you see on your TV screen demonstrating against virtually everything belong to people who don`t really do anything. Whereas most members of civil society have real jobs, the rank and file of religious groups get stipends, or employment with local mosques that does not interfere with their activities as political agitators. Guardian

Declan Walsh, reporting on Salman Taseer`s funeral for the , wrote: “As graveyard workers shovelled sticky winter clay onto the coffin, many Pakistanis wondered what was disappearing into the grave with the outspoken politician.” Guardian

Tolerance of any difference of opinion, for one. In the same issue of the , Mohammed Hanif wrote about a TV discussion in which both the presenter and a guest seemed to agree that the Punjab governor had been killed for his open criticism of the blasphemy laws. The implication was that somehow, Salman`s views justified his murder. The same school of thought holds that Benazir Bhutto could have avoided her fate had she not stood up in her bullet-proof vehicle.

Both are typical instances of blaming the victim. By absolving the killers of their guilt, even mainstream media figures help to create an environment where murder is justified.

I first met Benazir Bhutto after her return from exile in 1986 at Salman`s home where, at her request, he had invited PPP women workers who had suffered under Zia`s martial law. Salman had also asked a few friends over to meet Ms Bhutto. Reflecting on that evening, I thought that two qualities the host and the guest of honour shared were courage, and an abiding respect for other points of view. May both of them rest in peace.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Smokers’ Corner: What casualties these are

Dawn
Nadeem F. Paracha
Jan 09 2011

In the 1970s former prime minister Z A Bhutto once described Pakistan as a social lab to conduct various ‘Islamic experiments’. I don’t know whether Bhutto was being cynical or enthusiastic about this, but yes, it most certainly seems that this is exactly what this unfortunate republic has been all the while.

Forget about secular societies in the West that just can’t make head or tail about the way many Pakistanis behave and react in the name of religion; I have also seen people belonging to various Muslim countries sometimes scratch their heads when contemplating the behaviour of Pakistanis in this context. Are we as a Muslim majority nation really all that unique? For example, why only in Pakistan do people rise up to demand that a particular sect be declared non-Muslim — as if considering everyone else as heretics makes us feel and look more pious?

Why only in Pakistan do people remain quiet when certain man-made ‘Islamic laws’ are openly exploited to conduct personal vendettas against minorities?

Why only in Pakistan do people go on strike when a government even hints at amending such laws, despite the fact that the more sober Islamic scholars have over and over again termed such laws as having few, if any, historical and theological precedents or justification? Are such laws yet another way for us to loudly mask the glaring social, political and economic hypocrisy that has become a way of life us?

Then, why only in Pakistan do people come out to destroy their own cities and properties for an act of blasphemy taking place thousands of miles away? And anyway, in this respect, how seriously should the Almighty take a nation that won’t even bother to manage its own garbage dumps or dare speak up against the many gross acts of violence and injustice that take place in their Islamic republic and for which many are ready to burn buses and shoot people?

Why only in Pakistan do many people still consider violent extremists and terrorists to be some kind of gung-ho mujahids fighting nefarious infidels and superpowers, even when on most occasions it is the common Pakistanis that are being slaughtered in their own markets, schools and mosques by these romanticised renegades? Why only in Pakistan, as more and more people now pack mosques, wear hijab, grow beards and lace their sentences with assorted Arabic vocabulary, society, instead of reaping the social and cultural benefits of this show of piety continues to tumble down the spiral as perhaps the most confused and contradictory bunch of people?

Of course, we always have a handy set of excuses for all this. We lash out at ‘Islam’s enemies’ (most of whom exist only in our heads and in our history books); we scorn our politicians and ulema, but at the same time we are ever ready to kill, loot, plunder and go on strikes on the call of these very people. We blame western and Indian cultural influences, but have no clue what to exchange these with. So, unable (rather unwilling) to appreciate the fact that we share an ancient, rich and regal culture with the rest of the subcontinent, we look towards the Middle East.

We reject our own culture but adopt a half-baked understanding of Arabian culture as our own. No wonder a Pakistani continues to smile and keep quiet about the insults he constantly faces in various oil-rich countries, but he would make a huge hue and cry if and when he faces the same in a European or American city. After all, we are Arabs, and so what if our Arabic is not up to the mark, we’re getting there. But unfortunately, that’s all we’re getting at.

I pity myself and my nation. Each one is now a serious causality of all the brazen experiments that have taken place on us by those who wanted to impose their own concept of Islam in our governments, schools, streets and homes. So the next time you meet a hip, young Pakistani dude quoting a religious text, or a Pakistani who stops you from jogging at a park because he wants you to join him for prayers (you can’t ask him to join you for jogging, though), or a burqa-clad woman claiming she is a better woman than the one who does not wear a burqa, or watch a cooking show host talking more about God than the biryani she is cooking, or a bearded barber advising you not to shave, just forgive them all.

Treat us as causalities of the faith which we ourselves have distorted beyond recognition. A faith that was supposed to make us a vibrant, progressive and tolerant set of people, has, instead, and due to our own warped understanding of it, turned us into a horde of very ripe looking vegetables.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Madness in the ‘land of the pure’

Daily Times
January 10, 2011

A large group of civil society activists have lodged a complaint against Sultan Mosque cleric Munir Ahmed Shakir at the Darakhshan Police Station in Karachi. The said cleric issued a fatwa (edict) against PPP parliamentarian, Sherry Rehman, because she tabled a bill to amend the flawed blasphemy laws. The complainants said that the cleric’s fatwa will provoke people’s sentiments and incite violence. There is a serious threat to Ms Rehman’s life following the recent furore over the issue of blasphemy laws. Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer lost his life at the hands of a religious zealot because the governor took up a principled stand against the misuse of the blasphemy laws. Following Governor Taseer’s assassination, the threat to Ms Rehman is now more real and palpable. What is worse is that Interior Minister Rehman Malik told her to leave the country for the time being due to the security threat. Ms Rehman has refused to leave Pakistan. It is a matter of great shame that instead of providing adequate security to Ms Rehman, the PPP is trying to abandon her. The PPP isolated Governor Taseer but he refused to cow down before the right-wing forces because he was a man of principles. In the end, he was martyred. At a time when the PPP has lost its sitting governor due to religious fanaticism and another leading PPP member’s life is in danger, the interior minister of our country ‘advises’ the latter to flee Pakistan. On the other hand, civil society and other concerned citizens of Karachi have taken up Ms Rehman’s cause, which is commendable.

Yesterday, at the call of Tanzeem-e-Islami (TI), thousands of people gathered in Karachi to protest against any changes in the blasphemy laws. It is all but obvious what kind of hate speeches were delivered at the rally. JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman addressed the rally and said that Governor Taseer “was responsible for his own murder” because of his criticism of the blasphemy laws. The maulana’s justification of a horrid murder is revolting and should serve as a wake-up call for the PPP. It has been mollycoddling the Maulana for quite some time now but his statement vis-à-vis Mr Taseer should put a stop to all such attempts.

In the meanwhile, authorities are looking for a cleric who instigated Mumtaz Qadri to assassinate Governor Taseer. It is imperative that the cleric be found as soon as possible and given exemplary punishment. Other clerics should be rounded up as well who gave fatwas against the late governor and cases against them should be filed under the law. Incitement to murder and hate speech is strictly forbidden under our laws. There should be no exceptions to this rule. Apart from the clerics, all those media persons and politicians who played a role in Mr Taseer’s murder by inciting hatred against him should be held responsible for this gruesome tragedy. Many television anchors gave airtime to illiterate mullahs on their programmes who spewed venom against Mr Taseer and Ms Rehman. In the print media, too, a lot of space was given to provoke the sentiments of religious zealots on the blasphemy laws. It would be a disservice to Mr Taseer if such people are left unpunished.

Pakistan’s tragedy is that the religious right has organised itself so well while the liberal voices are disunited. It is time for the progressive voices to unite and launch a campaign to counter religious extremism. Too many innocent lives have been lost in this madness. It is time to stand up and be heard!