Just when it seems things could not get worse for Pakistan, they do. It is not enough that the country has an economy in crisis or that terrorism remains undefeated. Now, close on the heels of the decision by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) to quit the governing coalition, raising the possibility that it will fall, the governor of the country’s richest and most populous province, Punjab, has been assassinated. This killing of Salman Taseer, a leading figure in the main coalition partner, the Pakistan People’s Party, and a close confidant of President Asif Ali Zardari, is, however, more serious than the political crisis. Prime Minister Yousaf Reza Gilani’s position is relatively safe for the moment — indeed, even safer as a result of the killing. Even before it happened, the MQM indicated that it would not join a vote of no-confidence in Gilani. The main opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N then voiced similar sentiments based, it has to be suspected, on the knowledge that without the MQM’s support, it would lose such a vote. Now, however, none of the main parties are going to want an election in such an emotionally charged atmosphere. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s detractors will use this slaying to try and blacken its name. They will claim that bigotry and extremism have infiltrated every level of society. It will be used too by those who want to pressure the country into pursuing their political and military agendas. They will say it proves it is a chaotic and dangerous state and that if it is not to fall apart completely, it has to take tougher measures against terrorists and extremists — as if it were not already fighting with all its might against them! But that has not stopped the leaders of Germany, France and the UK demanding it do more. There will be those too, who use this killing to flaunt their fear and ignorance of Islam, claiming it as proof, after the church massacres in Baghdad and Alexandria, of growing Muslim extremism and bigotry worldwide. That is demonstrably untrue. There is bigotry in Pakistan but then it exists in every society. Clearly the murder was an act of religious fanaticism. But it was individuals who were responsible, not a mass movement. Taseer was murdered by one or perhaps more bigots who believed that he wanted to repeal the country’s blasphemy law. But he was a Muslim, not his murderer or those who, sickeningly, celebrate this evil deed. He worked for the good of his country trying to promote tolerance and understanding and peace between its different communities. He stood up against extremism and violence. It cost him his life and that makes him a martyr and his heartless, grinning murderer an ignorant instrument of evil. But while Pakistan has lost a bold campaigner for truth and justice, there is comfort for it in the knowledge that Taseer was not alone. There is a host of other activists whose faith is generous and embracing and who refuse to be intimidated by the twisted advocates of hatred. Pakistan is deeply shocked by this murder. This could be a defining moment for its leaders to stand up and rally the country against the deviant forces that would bring darkness to it and Islam. As for those Islamophobes who would see in Taseer’s murder proof of fanaticism, they should look instead to the Islam he stood for — a faith that pursues justice, truth and respect, the real Islam. REFERENCE: Murder in Pakistan - Leaders should stand up and rally the country against the forces of intolerance EDITORIAL Jan 5, 2011 22:38 http://arabnews.com/opinion/article229917.ece
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_VUznzbeI
This kind of Blasphemy is often "Ignored by Mullahs and Judiciary too"
REMARKS made from the bench during the course of legal cases carry no legal weight. Nevertheless, the world over, such remarks give an insight into the thinking of judges. On Monday, during the ongoing hearings on challenges to certain parts of the 18th Amendment, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry posed the question: “Should we accept if tomorrow parliament declares secularism, and not Islam, as the state polity?” That the question was asked in a rhetorical way was relatively clear: several judges indicated that such a move was even beyond contemplation. That is a troubling position. Leave aside the remote possibility of secularism being constitutionally approved as the governing ethos of the Pakistani state. The question is really, should the Supreme Court appropriate for itself the responsibility of determining under what system the Pakistani people want to live, as expressed by their elected representatives? Is the SC the guardian of the document, the constitution, which enshrines how Pakistanis want to organise their state, vertically between state and society and horizontally between the institutions of the state, or is it an institution which determines how the state should be organised? The two are very different matters: the first places the SC as a referee, the second as a determinant of the structural design of the Pakistani state. There is a further issue here: that of secularism itself. Demonised and distorted, the original meaning, and perhaps for reasonable people the only applicable meaning, of the term `secularism` has been lost here in Pakistan. Secularism is not ladeeniat , it is not anti-religion, as has been the claim of religious conservatives since the 1960s. It is one thing for Islamic parties to make that deliberately false claim, quite another for it to have apparently gained traction in the highest court of the land. Secularism is a very specific and narrow concept: the separation of religion and the state. Rather than being anti-religion, secularism is religion neutral. Standing in the way of those claiming that secularism is anti-religion and even vaguely anti-Pakistan at some level is one giant: Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The speech that the Quaid made from the floor of the constituent assembly in 1947 was a clarion defence of secularism, notable both for the occasion and the powerful oratory. Unable to rebuff the straightforwardness of the words — `religion is not the business of the state` — conservatives have resorted to watering it down or ignoring it altogether. Perhaps the SC should ponder this question: would a constitutional amendment passed on the basis of the Quaid`s speech be declared against the `basic structure` of the constitution? REFERENCE: SC`s responsibility? August 18, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/2010/08/18/s-responsibility.html
Non Barelvis Are Kaafir (Apostate) says Pir Syed Irfan Shah
http://youtu.be/FTANZusPICU
Supporters of Mumtaz Qadri chant slogans during a rally outside the Islamabad High Court. The Islamabad High Court stayed the implementation of Qadri's death sentence till a decision on his appeal against the verdict. - LAHORE: The district and sessions judge, who had handed down two death sentences to Mumtaz Qadri for killing Punjab governor Salman Taseer, has left for Saudi Arabia along with his family after receiving death threats from extremists. “The death threats have forced Judge Pervez Ali Shah to leave the country along with his family for Saudi Arabia,” Advocate Saiful Malook, the special prosecutor in the Qadri case, told Dawn on Monday. He said sensing the gravity of the situation the government had arranged the lodging of Mr Shah and members of his family abroad. “Although security was provided to the judge and his family members, the government on the reports of law-enforcement agencies opted for sending him abroad,” he said. There were also unconfirmed reports that extremist elements in religious parties had fixed the head money for the judge. “There were such reports but there was a potential threat to the life of Mr Shah and his family members,” he said. Mr Malook said he also had been receiving threats to his life and urged the government to arrange adequate security. “The government has deployed only two policemen for my security which is not adequate,” he said. Judge Pervez Ali Shah had said in his verdict: “No-one can be given the licence to kill anyone in any condition, therefore, the killer cannot be pardoned as he has committed a heinous crime.” Assassin Qadri, a constable in the Punjab Police Elite Force, tried to justify the murder by stating that he had killed Mr Taseer for supporting Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman who the slain governor had projected as having been wrongly convicted of blasphemy. Qadri, who was on duty to guard Taseer, gunned him down outside a restaurant in Islamabad on Jan 4 this year. The Islamabad High Court stayed the implementation of death sentence till a decision on his appeal against the verdict. Advocate Malook said the judge’s decision was “absolutely according to law” but the reaction of lawyers of the Rawalpindi Bar to the verdict was unfortunate. Judge Shah had been on long leave since sentencing Qadri to death. Earlier, the chief justice had placed services of Mr Shah at the disposal of the Punjab government and transferred him from the anti terrorism court-II, Rawalpindi, to the Child Protection Court, Lahore, but later repatriated him. About three dozen religious parties, including Sunni Tehrik and Jamatud Dawa, have been pressing the government to remove Mr Shah from his post. The clerics termed the decision “un-Islamic” and demanded action against the judge. Police are also investigating the kidnapping of Shahbaz Taseer, son of Salman Taseer, on the lines that Qadri’s sympathisers might be involved in it. Interior Minister Rehman Malik said recently that Shahbaz Taseer was alive and his kidnappers were holding him near the border with Afghanistan. Shahbaz Taseer was kidnapped from Lahore’s Gulberg area in the last week of August. REFERENCE: Qadri case judge sent abroad From the Newspaper | Zulqernain Tahir http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/25/qadri-case-judge-sent-abroad.html
URL: http://youtu.be/kXWAQ7gbSiY
Deobandis says Barelvis are Kaafir (Apostate) - Part - 2
URL: http://youtu.be/dxPluNViVlk
ISLAMABAD: A reported statement by Lahore High Court Chief Justice (CJ) Khawaja Muhammad Sharif that the Hindu community was funding terrorism in Pakistan, irked members of the National Assembly, as many of whom joined minority members and walked out in protest. The lawmakers also demanded Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry take suo motu notice of the CJ’s remarks. Ramesh Lal, a minority lawmaker from the Pakistan People’s Party, raised the issue on a point of order and censured the CJ’s remarks, saying the Hindu community in Pakistan was as patriotic as the rest of the country and the remarks were highly uncalled for. Lal announced a token walkout and was joined by a few other members belonging to different parties, including the Awami National Party. He said the remarks hurt the over three million Hindus in Pakistan, adding the statement was against national unity. Labour and Manpower Minister Khursheed Shah tried to defend the CJ, saying he could not have made such a statement and might have referred to India and not the Hindu community. REFERENCE: LHC CJ’s remarks irk NA members Wednesday, March 17, 2010 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C03%5C17%5Cstory_17-3-2010_pg7_6
ISLAMABAD, March 16: It was a rare, judge’s turn to be judged in the National Assembly on Tuesday as Hindu members staged a walkout to protest at reported remarks by the Lahore High Court (LHC) chief justice alleging Hindu financing of terror attacks in the country. Some members of the Awami National Party too joined the first walkout against the judiciary in Pakistan’s parliament before the protesters were brought back to hear words of sympathy for the injured sentiments and some advice for judges to focus on delivering justice rather than publicity despite a government minister’s statement that the remark by Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif while hearing a case in Lahore on Thursday seemed to be “a slip of the tongue”. The protest was the second raised in the house over press reports in as many days after sharp criticism of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif over his appeal to Taliban in a speech to a seminar in Lahore on Sunday to spare his province terror attacks because of some shared views with his PML-N party. PPP’s Hindu member Romesh Lal, who raised the issue, said sentiments of an estimated four million Pakistani Hindus had been injured by the LHC chief justice’s remarks, as reported in a section of the press, that while terrorist bomb blasts were being carried out by Muslims, “money used for this came from Hindus”. The member said if a country was suspected of sponsoring such attacks it should be named, but blame should not be put on just Hindus who, he said, were as good patriots as other Pakistanis. While drawing attention of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to what he called worry caused to Hindus, he appealed to Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to take suo motu notice of Justice Sharif’s remarks. As Inter-Provincial Coordination Minister Pir Aftab Shah Jilani and some other members of the ruling PPP went out of the chamber to persuade the protesters to return, party chief whip and Labour and Manpower Minister Khurshid Ahmed Shah told the house the judge seemed to be blaming India for financing the Taliban rather Hindus, adding he was sure a clarification would come “by tomorrow”. PML-N’s Rashid Akbar Niwani said judges should devote to dispensation of justice instead of seeking publicity as he also advised the media to exercise “restraint”, particularly blasting unspecified television anchorpersons who, he said, should also be held accountable for their earnings together with “heads of (government) institutions” as often-maligned elected politicians. REFERENCE: A judge is judged in NA, with walkout By Raja Asghar Wednesday, 17 Mar, 2010 http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/19-a-judge-is-judged-in-na,-with-walkout-730-hh-07 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/44079
BARELY days after the Punjab chief minister was caught playing to the Taliban gallery, another high official from the province is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. This time, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif has sparked outrage for reportedly saying that Hindus were responsible for financing acts of terrorism in Pakistan. The remarks came while the judge was hearing two identical petitions against the possible extradition of Afghan Taliban suspects. It may well have been a slip of the tongue by Mr Sharif, who might have mistakenly said ‘Hindu’ instead of ‘India’ — nevertheless it was a tasteless remark to say the least. Although such remarks warrant criticism what makes them worse is the position of the person who makes them. These sort of comments are the last thing one expects to hear from a judge, that too the chief justice of a provincial high court. What sort of message are we sending to our minorities, as well as to the world, when the holder of such a respected public office makes comments that come across as thoughtless? The Hindu members of the National Assembly walked out of the house on Tuesday to protest the remarks. The members said the comments had hurt the feelings of Pakistani Hindus — and there is no doubt that they had. REFERENCE: Tactless remarks Dawn Editorial Thursday, 18 Mar, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/14-tactless-remarks-830-zj-10 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32510
Deobandi Fatwa of Apostasy against Sunni Adult Muslim, Mr. Nawaz Sharif!
ISLAMABAD: Top leaders of an organisation representing Deobandi madrassas across the country have reprimanded PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif for calling members of the Ahmadiyya community as “brothers” of Muslims.“Sharif should be ashamed of calling them brothers of Muslims,” said a statement issued by the Wafaqul Madaris al Arabia (WMA).Sharif said in Lahore on Saturday that Ahmadis were as important citizens of Pakistan as people from other religions and called them an asset.He made the statement to express solidarity with the Ahmadiyya community following last month’s two synchronised attacks on their places of worship in Lahore which claimed more than 80 lives with many more injured.In a statement issued here on Sunday, leaders of the Wafaqul Madaris al Arabia – an umbrella organisation of more than 12,000 Deobandi madrassas – called Ahmadis “traitors”. WMA leaders Maulana Salimullah Khan and Qari Hafeez Jahalindri urged Sharif to retract his statement and advised him not to “defy religion for petty political gains.” The statement termed the Ahmadis as “infidels” and said that they could not be brothers of Muslims until they convert to Islam again. Ahmadis were declared a minority under the 1973 constitution – a move that some people believe intensified hatred against Ahmadis. REFERENCE: Sharif’s statement on Ahmadis angers clerics Published in the Express Tribune, June 7th, 2010. http://tribune.com.pk/story/19379/sharif%E2%80%99s-statement-on-ahmadis-angers-clerics/Barelvi Mullah Shah Turabul Haq & Barelvis support Killing.
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTbzufzijvY
Barelvi Mullah Shah Turabul Haq says that Deobandi and Wahabi are Kaafir
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj5Z7yzzgpI
Barelvi Shah Turab ul Haq Qadri says Ashraf Ali Thanvi & Wahabis are Kaafir.
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iab5Fm0PqzQ
Administering Justice and awarding punishment is the responsibility of the Ruler/State [even in the harshest Islamic State] not of the Masses or Mullahs. A detail view is as under for kind perusal. I guarantee you that those (Non-State Actors) commit murder in the name of Blasphemy Law are also the most ignorant about Islam, Quran and Shariah. "Killing" is the Right of "Judiciary" - Qazi, means Enforcement of Law and Administering "Punishment" is the Responsibility of State not the "Masses" and what Muslims in Pakistanis do is this "they violate very religion they claim to follow" - lets assume that Blasphemy Law is right and Guilty is to be punished through Death Sentence then that "sentence" would be implemented by the State not the "Public".It is not permissible for individuals to carry out this punishment themselves. Rather the matter must be referred to the ruler or his deputy to prove the crime and carry out the punishment, because if individuals carry out hadd punishments, that will lead to a great deal of corruption and evil. Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Furoo’ (6/53): It is haraam for anyone to carry out a hadd punishment except the ruler or his deputy. This is something on which the fuqaha’ of Islam are unanimously agreed, as was stated in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (5/280): The fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that the one who should carry out hadd punishments is the ruler or his deputy, whether the punishment is transgressing one of the limits of Allaah, may He be exalted, such as zina, or a transgression against another person, such as slander. {Further References: Durrul Al Behy by Shawkani, Baloogh Al Maram by Hajar Asqalani - both are in Arabic and available in English and Urdu as well]
The judgement of apostasy and expelling someone from the religion is only appropriate for the people of knowledge who are firmly grounded in knowledge, and they are the judges in the various Sharee’ah law courts, and those who are able of giving legal verdicts. And this is just like the other matters, and it is not the right of every person, or from the right of those who are learning, or those who ascribe themselves to knowledge, but who have deficiency in understanding. It is not appropriate for them to make judgements of apostasy (upon others). Since, mischief will arise from this, and sometimes a Muslim might be judged as an apostate but he is not actually so. And the takfir of a Muslim who has not committed one of the nullifications of Islaam contains great danger. Whoever says to his brother “O Kaafir” or “O Faasiq”, and he is not like that, then the words will fall back upon the one who said them. Hence, the ones who actually judge with apostasy are the legislative judges and those who are able and fit for giving legal verdicts. And as for those who enforce the judgements they are the leaders of the Muslims (wullaat al-amr). As for whatever is other than this, then it is mere confusion.” “Meting out the punishments is only appropriate for the leader of the Muslims and it is not for every person to establish the punishment, since confusion, and corruption necessarily follows from this, and also the cutting off of the society, tribulations and provocations occur. Establishing the punishments is appropriate (i.e. befits only) to the Muslim leader. The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, “Pardon each other for the punishments that are between you, but when the execution of the punishment reaches the [authority of the] Sultaan, then Allaah curses both the one who seeks intercession and the one who grants the intercession [i.e. to revoke the punishment]”. And from the responsibilities of the Sultaan in Islaam, and from those matters that befit him is the establishment of the punishments after they have been established legislatively, via the Sharee’ah law courts, upon the one who fell into the crime for which the legislator has designated a specific punishment, such as for stealing. So what has been said is that establishing the punishments (i.e. meting them out) is from the rights of the Sultaan, and when the Muslims do not have a Sultaan amongst them, then they should just suffice with commanding the good and forbidding the evil, and calling to Allaah, the Might and Majestic, with wisdom, good admonition and arguing with that which is best. And it is not permissible for individuals (in the society) to establish the hudood, since that, as we have mentioned, will bring about chaos, and also provocations, and tribulations will arise, and this contains greater corruption than it contains rectification. And from amongst the Sharee’ah principles that are submitted to is, “Repelling the harmful things takes precedence over bringing about the beneficial things”. FURTHER REFERENCES/READING: The Takfiris make unlicensed Takfeer of Governments and scholars and call the common-folk to bloody revolution as a way to remove such governments and establish Islaamic Law. http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/MSC060006.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment