Damming Silence

[muse]

As Pakistanis and as Muslims, our silence on this issue is taken as approval, it ought to end - it's an affront to us as Pakistanis and certainly as Muslims, actually to any "faithful".




Not in the name of faith
By Kunwar Idris


LAST week three funerals took place on three successive days. The dead came from different backgrounds, belonged to different places and professions. Common to the three was their faith.

They were Ahmadis — and that was good enough reason for the unknown gunmen to kill them.

The first to be shot dead — on Sept 8 — was Dr Abdul Mannan Siddiqui at Mirpurkhas during a midday round of his hospital wards. Seth Yusuf, a Nawabshah trader, was shot dead the next day as he headed home after saying his prayers. The third funeral was Sheikh Saeed’s who was shot, like the other two during the day while at his pharmacy in a lower middle-class colony of Karachi.

Ahmadis as a community are not new to murder. It is only that more of them are now being murdered than ever before and more brazenly as the murderers enjoy a kind of impunity. None of them has ever been caught and convicted. The tragic irony of it all is that the 1974 amendment to the constitution declaring Ahmadis “not Muslims”, which was intended to settle the ‘problem’ for all times to come, (as the PPP leadership then claimed and still boasts of) had in fact exacerbated it. According to the Ahmadiyya central office since 1974, 105 Ahmadis have been murdered. Among them have been scientists, doctors and educationists. In the 26 years, before the amendment (1947 to 1973) their number was only 18. The destruction of their properties and places of worship increased in even larger proportion.

This month’s gunning spree (three wounded are still struggling for their life) followed soon after a prime-hour discussion on one of the more popular television channels commemorating the 1974 amendment. That programme ended with a verdict by a participating mufti of an extremist school that for deviating from the conventional view of the finality of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) the Ahmadis deserved to be murdered. A condescending compere followed it up with a lyrical oration heaping insults on the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement.

If festering prejudice needed an impetus to murder, the compere of the Sept 7 programme and his chosen scholars provided it. A measure of understanding, perhaps, can be shown to politicians and priests when they are persuaded to whip up religious emotions to the point of violence only to divert the attention of the people from other woes. But the mass media that stands for full freedom of expression with matching social responsibility should not be seen as joining them.

The union of international journalists must have studied the contents and tenor of the broadcast in question before advising its counterpart here to abide by its code of honour and isolate the odd offenders rather than invite intervention by the government. Sensibly, the freedom to project one’s own religious views does not imply the freedom to instigate violence against others. This stipulation must stand at the core of both the ethics of the media and the law of the land.

The three men murdered were peaceable, law-abiding citizens. Those who knew Seth Yusuf, as the people of Nawabshah indeed had for 50 or more years, would not have ever thought of doing him the slightest harm. He was a God-fearing man in his seventies. His murderers were obviously strangers who were either indoctrinated or paid to kill him only because he was the chief of the district’s Ahmadiyya community.

Young Sheikh Saeed’s elder brother and his uncle, a professor of medical sciences at the Jinnah Postgraduate Centre, were gunned down at the same place and for the same reason in the last two years. This is a situation in which even an indifferent investigating agency could get a clue as to the identity of the killers only if it felt concerned, if not about the dead, then about its own credibility.

Most poignant has been the death of Dr Abdul Mannan Siddiqui. Tributes to him flowed freely and generously. To the lawyers of the district he was a benefactor of mankind. The hospital staff looked up to him more as a father than as an employer. The head of the district police thought he was a great man the like of whom are not born everyday. The association of the doctors summed it all up: Mannan’s murder is the murder of humanity.

The treatment of the humblest of mankind often took the deceased doctor to the far end of the desert. Holding frequent and free medical camps at Nagarparkar, the farthest outpost on the border with India, was his wont. The ranas and waderas would swear by his professional integrity and humanitarian concerns.

It is a pity, but should cause no surprise, that no leader of the government had spoken on Mannan’s death — to condemn the killers or to commiserate with the bereaved. The lone and powerful voice has been of Altaf Hussain, the MQM chief. His instant condemnation of the killers and tribute to Dr Mannan for his selfless service to humanity came like a gust of fragrant breeze blowing through a stillness laden with the stench of prejudice.

After specialised studies in America, Mannan was planning to settle down there when his father Abdur Rehman Siddiqui (also a doctor) reminded him that his first duty was to his own people. Mannan hurried back and went on, as if in vengeance, to raise his father’s humble clinic to the standard of a modern hospital that was free for the poor. He was the only son of his late father. It hurts deep inside when the life of a man, who is the age of your son, is cut short. Mannan was just 44 as is my son. It is now up to his admirers and the patients he healed to keep alive the legend of his and his father’s service of 60 years.

As for the devout anchorman and his ponderous scholars, they may have to go to Mirpurkhas and the desert beyond to learn that the worth of a man lies not in schism but in service. After all it is a Dutch and Christian woman who takes care of the lepers here whom the faithful shun.

To kill a man for his belief is inhuman and cannot be Islamic for Islam is a religion of humanity. And it is for our leaders to realise that by employing religion in the service of politics they have made this Islamic Republic into a world metaphor for dictatorship, brutality and terror where the youth are trained to kill and women, by many accounts, are buried alive.

kunwaridris@hotmail.com

Write to Mr. Idris if you think killing a man for his belief is not what Islam is about, is not what you are about - let him know all Pakistanis, regardless of confession, are Pakistanis - and that all men, regardless of confession are the creation of Allah and that no other man or men may murder in the name of Islam nor in our name.

 

[Awesome]

You're talking about silence? The other day Amir Liaqat had a whole program of Alim Online dedicated to dissing them and repeating over n over that they are NOT muslims, not Muslims, not Muslims.

These Mullahs are the real problem. People called on the air and openly dissed the Ahmedis. Why? One guy actually said "These Ahmedis talk very nicely because that is their trick to take our people away to their faith!

What nonsense.

 

[muse]

It's always a mistake to tolerate religious bigots. In Pakistan, unless there is a concerted effort in the media and especially from elected officials condemning such behavior and attitudes and especially from the judiciary handing down stiff sentences without any possibility of pardon, the future for the freedom of conscience and confession seems bleak.

The Saudi imported laws of Qiyas and Diyat, of Zina, must be struck down in their entirety to allow society some senseof relief from these bigots.

 

[Ahmad3002]

Please Check this out too:

Which country?

Sir,

A few months ago you wrote on the plight of women in Pakistan which I read with a lump in my throat “Women and honour” (TFT July 12-18). May I urge you to write in the same refrain on the Ahmadis? Here is a sample run:

In which other country is a man prosecuted, imprisoned and faces the death penalty, or murder on the streets, for reciting “there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his Messenger”? In which other country is a man arrested for living in a house which carries the above inscription (as many houses Pakistan do), then is prosecuted while saying his prayers in a police lock-up, is tried on both counts and convicted after a 11 year long trial. At its end a “merciful” judge orders that his incarceration during the trial should be counted towards his sentence. (Case Details) My friend, and your friend, Ardeshir Cowasjee calculated that in traveling between his home, police station and the court all the while, he went round the world twice. And he is just a peasant-proprietor.

In which other country despite joint electorate in which the religion of voters is of no relevance, are separate lists for Ahmadis maintained just because some ferocious mullahs intimidated a general president into doing it even as he rebuked protesting national leaders to “go to court, do not shout”.

In which other country is a minister accused of blasphemy and tried for it (punishable with death) for receiving an advice on assumption of office from his spiritual mentor: “help ye one another in righteousness and piety but not in sin and transgression” as it is so ordained by the holy Quran.

In which other country do thousands upon thousands of people suffer incarceration, boycott, even lynching on the streets, and discrimination in their professional careers just because of their religious belief? A community which once gave to Pakistan soldiers like Gen.Nazir Ahmad, Gen. Bashir Ahmad, Gen. Iftikhar Janjua (the hero of Runn of Kutch and the only general to die in action on the frontline), Air Marshal Zafar Chaudhry, Gen. Abdul Ali Malik (ask Khalid Hassan more about this hero of Chawinda), Gen. Mahmudul Hassan (one of the country's most skilful surgeons) and then, arguably, the best general the Pakistan Army has produced, Akhtar Maik. Ever since Ziaul Haq let loose his Islamic wave of terror no Ahmadi has risen beyond the rank of brigadier and hardly a youth now enters the armed forces.

In which other country does a prime minister visiting his alma mater (as Nawaz Sharif did Lahore's Government College) recall its distinguished old students failing to name Abdus Salam, Pakistan's only Nobel Laureate and, in addition, the first winner of the Nobel Prize from the Muslim world in physical sciences? Nawaz Sharif didn't mention Zafrulla Khan either. Perhaps he didn't know that in its formative years Pakistan, after Jinnah, was recognized in the world through Zafrulla. Perhaps no statesmen of the world has the distinction of having been the President of the UN and President of the International Court of Justice. He brought great distinction to both offices.

The government of Pakistan has no right to patent a faith as it does a beverage in trade. I wish your remarkable journal greater circulation and influence.

Kunwar Idris,
Karachi

 

[Ahmad3002]

Please Check this out too:

Which country?

Sir,

A few months ago you wrote on the plight of women in Pakistan which I read with a lump in my throat “Women and honour” (TFT July 12-18). May I urge you to write in the same refrain on the Ahmadis? Here is a sample run:

In which other country is a man prosecuted, imprisoned and faces the death penalty, or murder on the streets, for reciting “there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his Messenger”? In which other country is a man arrested for living in a house which carries the above inscription (as many houses Pakistan do), then is prosecuted while saying his prayers in a police lock-up, is tried on both counts and convicted after a 11 year long trial. At its end a “merciful” judge orders that his incarceration during the trial should be counted towards his sentence. (Case Details) My friend, and your friend, Ardeshir Cowasjee calculated that in traveling between his home, police station and the court all the while, he went round the world twice. And he is just a peasant-proprietor.

In which other country despite joint electorate in which the religion of voters is of no relevance, are separate lists for Ahmadis maintained just because some ferocious mullahs intimidated a general president into doing it even as he rebuked protesting national leaders to “go to court, do not shout”.

In which other country is a minister accused of blasphemy and tried for it (punishable with death) for receiving an advice on assumption of office from his spiritual mentor: “help ye one another in righteousness and piety but not in sin and transgression” as it is so ordained by the holy Quran.

In which other country do thousands upon thousands of people suffer incarceration, boycott, even lynching on the streets, and discrimination in their professional careers just because of their religious belief? A community which once gave to Pakistan soldiers like Gen.Nazir Ahmad, Gen. Bashir Ahmad, Gen. Iftikhar Janjua (the hero of Runn of Kutch and the only general to die in action on the frontline), Air Marshal Zafar Chaudhry, Gen. Abdul Ali Malik (ask Khalid Hassan more about this hero of Chawinda), Gen. Mahmudul Hassan (one of the country's most skilful surgeons) and then, arguably, the best general the Pakistan Army has produced, Akhtar Maik. Ever since Ziaul Haq let loose his Islamic wave of terror no Ahmadi has risen beyond the rank of brigadier and hardly a youth now enters the armed forces.

In which other country does a prime minister visiting his alma mater (as Nawaz Sharif did Lahore's Government College) recall its distinguished old students failing to name Abdus Salam, Pakistan's only Nobel Laureate and, in addition, the first winner of the Nobel Prize from the Muslim world in physical sciences? Nawaz Sharif didn't mention Zafrulla Khan either. Perhaps he didn't know that in its formative years Pakistan, after Jinnah, was recognized in the world through Zafrulla. Perhaps no statesmen of the world has the distinction of having been the President of the UN and President of the International Court of Justice. He brought great distinction to both offices.

The government of Pakistan has no right to patent a faith as it does a beverage in trade. I wish your remarkable journal greater circulation and influence.

Kunwar Idris,
Karachi

 

[muse]

It is indeed tragic, immoral and entirely unethical. Pakistan's promise was a home for all - today, it is not just today that Pakistan is hostage to the takfiri mindset -- When the first riots began, the state should have acted forcefully as is it's OBLIGATION and DUTY, to protect it's citizens from this bigotry.

Just today, one will be saddened to read that an individual, God's own creation, was denied burial as a Muslim - persecution in life and persecuion onto death - it is a slur on the conscience of all decent persons and a scar on the soul of all Muslms who Choose to remain silent spectators as their confession is defiled, malaligned and their mooring in Muslim ethics severed.

 

[DarkStar]

The article has just stated, that the Ahmadis accept that around a hundred people have been killed in anti Ahmadi violence, in 34 years...Not really that many considering it is a nation of 160 million, with heightened militancy.

However, it did not provide any proof that these killings were in fact related to their status as Ahmadis. Just because there was a programme on TV a few days before the incident, isn't enough proof to claim that it is.

Now if the authorities have investigated these crimes, and it has been proven that they were killed by bigots, that is another thing, otherwise it is quite possible that these were victims of general crime, robbery or even a personal vendetta. Such things are not uncommon in Pakistan.

When someone is murdered who happens to be an Ahmadi, the blame is immediately proportioned to Mullah's and extremists, and the real reason behind a death may be masked for religio-political reasons.

I personally know many so called victims who have claimed asylum in Europe, who openly admit to have lied about persecutions to get their cases accepted. I'm attatching no blame to them, the same thing is done by other Pakistanis, who all make up various stories about political or religious victimhood to improve their chances of staying in Europe.

But these claims by the ahmadiya jamat should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As for calling one another muslim or not, well it works both ways. It is well known and documented that Sir Zafrullah Khan (a world renowned jurist and leader of pakistan movement) did not attend the funeral prayers of Qaid Muhammad Ali Jinnah, saying and I quote "I am either the non muslim foreign minister of a Muslim Repuplic, or the muslim foreign minister of a non muslim one."

This was due to him following in the footsepts of Bani Silsila Ahmadia, Janab Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani Sahab (who is revered as maseeh maood and mahdi mahood among Ahmadi community), who did not read the funeral prayer of his eldest son who did not believe in his prophet hood.

So if these precendents were there before the 1974 declaration, one should not fault the wider muslim community in taking a leaf from their own book.

Most Pakistanis appreciate the efforts and sacrifices that Ahmadis have made for Pakistan, and nothing can take that away from them.

It is true that in teh 80's due to certain geo political and religio political considerations General Zia ul haq changed the policy of the state in some ways in relation to Ahmadis, but a part of the blame must also lie with the Ahmadi establishment, who fled the country and left for Germany/UK. I am of course talking about Mirza Tahir sahab and top Ahmadi scholars and prominent personalities.

If they had stayed to fight for their rights, things may have been different.

Now, the Ahmadia community is looking to make Qadian, in PUnjab india, as the center of its operations, after having their first jalsa there in maybe more than 60 years. I would see that this cosying up with the INdians might be a potential threat to Pakistan, especially considering their missions which have been set up in Israel for a long time. But that is just speculation.

p.s you better change the thread name as their won't be silence on this anymore

REgards,

An Ex-Ahmadi

 

[T-Rex]

You're talking about silence? The other day Amir Liaqat had a whole program of Alim Online dedicated to dissing them and repeating over n over that they are NOT muslims, not Muslims, not Muslims.

These Mullahs are the real problem. People called on the air and openly dissed the Ahmedis. Why? One guy actually said "These Ahmedis talk very nicely because that is their trick to take our people away to their faith!

What nonsense.

There are two types of bigots: the religious ones and the non-religious ones. You are in the second category, that's why you like to say "Mullahs are the real problem". The problems created by the mullahs are minor compared to the problems created by non-mullahs like Ayub Khan, Yahia Khan, Zulfiqar Bhutto and lastly Mr. Ten Percent. Of course, dumping every dirty deed on the "mullahs" is very convenient as it always enjoys the blessings of the champions of human rights and democracy and who doesn't know that it is the favourite past time of the champions of secularism in the Muslim World. I can see that you people are pretty confident that you won't have any problem convincing the Almighty on the Day of Judgement as you have convinced many with your wicked statements. What could be more foolish ?

 

[muse]

There are two types of bigots: the religious ones and the non-religious ones

Possibly, however; there is just one plain "stupid" and you fit that bill. Specialization is an important feature, had Mullah and Maulana and Maulvi, and Mufti been content to specialize with regard to conscience, they would not today be the object of diresion and ridicule among Muslims; however; it was not enough for them, they now want to include governance in their scope as well and if it is any group that has brought disrepute and has desacralized, secularized religion, it is these mad mullahs - after all, how can it be that they will engage in the most secular of endeavours, politics and governance and argue that they do so to ensure the sacral is not secularized??

 

[DarkStar]

Possibly, however; there is just one plain "stupid" and you fit that bill. Specialization is an important feature, had Mullah and Maulana and Maulvi, and Mufti been content to specialize with regard to conscience, they would not today be the object of diresion and ridicule among Muslims; however; it was not enough for them, they now want to include governance in their scope as well and if it is any group that has brought disrepute and has desacralized, secularized religion, it is these mad mullahs - after all, how can it be that they will engage in the most secular of endeavours, politics and governance and argue that they do so to ensure the sacral is secularized??

There are certain historical reasons as to why Mullahs and MOlvis are object of ridicule and derision, as you say. This is especially true in the subcontinent.

One of the defining characteristics of "nobility" is a self sufficiency in terms of income and livelihood. During the classical era of Islam, as in teh subcontinent, the Molvis and Scholars did not rely upon the general populace for their day to day living needs.

They were usually people of independant means, or attatched to a seminary and mosque which had a source of income that was waqf to it. i.e. it had been endowed with revenue from land, trade, or some other source. There were also countless of examples of state, ruler and merchant patrony of distinguished scholars.

AS they did not have to put their hand out to beg, they were free to follow pursuits of knowledge and exhorting the populace according to their ideology and conscience.

In the subcontinent, this changed drammatically after the cataclysmic events of 1857. All state endowments and waqfs were cancelled, state pensions and renumeration of major Imams of mosques, cancelled. And a substantial number of schoalrs and molvis, especially those of "independant" thinking, were slaughtered. Delhi witnessed a great culling of both islamic scholars, and influential, rich families.

This dramatic change in financial circumstances forced the molvis and scholars to look for alternative funding. The general populace was the obvious choice. So the molvis started to engage in activities which would "fleece" their congregation of their money. It was an issue of survival. The begging bowl ruled the day. The rotis from congregants kept coming in. The profession lost its allure and respect among the populace. While before, prominent families and merchants had at least one scholar among them, they were now dissuaded from becoming molvis and scholars.

Soon, the only people who became molvis were those who chose it as their "profession". That is, people who were failures in most other trades, or the handicapped, mentally slow, members of peoples famlies were encouraged to become a molvi. And that young student had one thing onhis mind. If i study, I will eat. That was the be all and end all of their ambitions.

While there had always been superstitions and molvis who fed on innovated rituals, this increased exponentially in the 19th century, as the rot had already set during the Sikh rule of punjab and frontier, and the diminishing of mughal power from the late 18th century. Molvis now embraced this superstitions in droves, and devised new means to eat. The origins of the qul, teeja, saata, dassa, chaleeswan, and a number of other rituals relating to the dead can be directly linked to the economic circumstances that the molvis faced.

With people from uneducated backgrounds, and those of little intellect joining the ranks of "scholars" and molvis, their understanding of Islam became dogmatic, ritualistic, unbending, sectarian and intollerant. Movlis resorted to pleasing the masses that fed them, with amazing stories and recounting of myths, ignoring the "boring" sermons that lead to spiritual upliftment and bettering of the self.

If all that you will give to islamic semenaries are people who are backward, handicapped and mentally deficient, who will get an islam that is backward, handicapped and deficient. There was a time when imams and scholars were considred part o the elite, and the academic intelligentsia. Those days can only come back if we revisit the old ways, and try to encourage scholarship in our own middle class/upper class families.

When that happens, the derision and ridicule that the movlis face will start to diminish.

 

[BATMAN]

There should not be a discrimination against any one, on the basis of religion but we must not forget that in a society people must not offence others by distorting or mocking each other's religion.
Ahmadis in Pakistan are running missionary style of outfits, well this may not be an offence but this is an example of an extremely tolerant and liberal society.
Pakistan is the only (Islami state) home land of Ahmadis. Which should not be portrayed with propaganda of falsification. Which infect present an opposite image of Ahmadis.
I wonder what are Ahmadi beliefs about non Ahmadis! and how would they treat minorities if they were a majority!
Ahmadis are always spreading anti-Pakistan propaganda against Pakistan in foreign countries. This is for FACT.
All such news are inflated to pave way to seek asylum in non-Muslim countries. This is FACT.
Once Ahmadi from Pakistan gets foreign passport, India become Mecca for them. And they go there for pilgrimage regularly. This is also a FACT.
In today's Pakistan no one is safe and anti-Pakistan elements are trying their best to ignite any sort of riots. Ahmadis should not act as the only victims.
Ahmadis first prove their contribution to Pakistani society and not vice versa.
BTW, why only quote Zial ul Haq! simply because he belonged to army?
Infect Zia was the one who hanged the bigot who constitionalised Ahmadi as un Islamic! On the other hand, Ahmadis never showed that they share anything historically with main stream non Ahmadi Muslims! Hell they never care if other Muslims live or die! There is little more to it but let’s leave it to self exploration.
I personally have nothing against being Ahmadi or being non believer or being anything (it's like private bussiness) but I personally doubt the sincerity of Ahmadis towards Pakistan.
Well, that's my personal opinion and I would think twice before entrusting them over matters of national security but I would not support any discrimination based on religion to any minority of Pakistan.
I apologies if it hurts someone but I cannot cheat myself.

 

[muse]

darkstar

If all that you will give to islamic semenaries are people who are backward, handicapped and mentally deficient, who will get an islam that is backward, handicapped and deficient

This is perhaps one of the most incredible statements I have run across - I am sure that you did not mean this the way it is written.

Madaris create enlightened and curious and active persons because of the ideas that inform what instruction is imparted in Madaris, that is to say it arises from what madaris believe to be "knowledge" and "it's nature" - if the ideas that inform the instruction arise from an undrstanding that knowledge is "static", that it's nature is that it does not evolve, then of course you will have instruction that is Utopian and seeks to arrest change and it's agents.

On the other hand if instruction is informed by ideas that suggest that Knowledge and it's nature is that it evolves and that it grows and that one of the implications of this is that we have to continually see or evaluated propositions in the light of new knowledge - but a caveat here, just as knowledge can grow and evolve, we must acknowledge that there have been and continue to be periods of time where it actually lessens, like the waves of the ocean as they spread o te lands and then withdraw in to the oceans - and of course this has implications too, one of them being the kinds of anti-knowledge points of view that are being transmitted in many Madaris.

Batman

You seem to know a great deal about Ahmadi muslims, not much positive though -

apologies if it hurts someone but I cannot cheat myself

, indeed, is it then that one must consider oneself before others? Is that a positive?

So many facts - I wonder what one can make of the suggestion that history is that collection of facs we choose to recall.

All the best and keep challenging - challenge, dissent and constructive criticism

 

[T-Rex]

Possibly, however; there is just one plain "stupid" and you fit that bill. Specialization is an important feature, had Mullah and Maulana and Maulvi, and Mufti been content to specialize with regard to conscience, they would not today be the object of diresion and ridicule among Muslims; however; it was not enough for them, they now want to include governance in their scope as well and if it is any group that has brought disrepute and has desacralized, secularized religion, it is these mad mullahs - after all, how can it be that they will engage in the most secular of endeavours, politics and governance and argue that they do so to ensure the sacral is not secularized??

If there is a moron here it is the one who took a month to come up with a stupid reply to my response. As I said the troubles casused by the non-mullahs like Mr. Ten Percent are the real problems, that is if you have the brain to understand that and a character to be able to face the truth. Congratulations for at least coming up with a reply, better late than never. BTW you must be another secular bigot like the one who blames everything on the "mullahs" .

 

[DarkStar]

i wrote

If all that you will give to islamic semenaries are people who are backward, handicapped and mentally deficient, who will get an islam that is backward, handicapped and deficient

you wrote

This is perhaps one of the most incredible statements I have run across - I am sure that you did not mean this the way it is written.

dear muse

I'm not sure which way you have taken it. I wrote a whole piece, arguing for the historical reasons of the clergy's loss of standing within the muslim community. That you described as their being "the object of derision and ridicule among Muslims" and "Mad Mullahs".

Although my statement was rhetorical, it holds true. Most of us in the middle and upper classes strive to make our children doctors, engineers, lawyers, civil servants, and countless other occupations. Seldom do we think of making religious scholars of our children.

 

[muse]

Though I seriously wanted to study to be a "Mullah", though in a University.

What I meant by "incredible" was that while I understood what you meant, the way you wrote it suggested that you proposed that it was people and not the scholars who had made a hash of the Madaris - you wrote:

If all that you will give to islamic semenaries are people who are backward, handicapped and mentally deficient, who will get an islam that is backward, handicapped and deficient

See, it seems as if you are saying that the students of the seminaries are backward, handicapped and mentally deficient, whereas as it is the scholars who are to blame -- all schools build/create, train, implant instruction into students -- it is the scholars and the ideas that they implant/train students with that is to blame - we cannot be in a situation where we blame readers if we are unappreciated in our style of writing or the substance of the ideas we present.