Religious holidays in the country are fast becoming marked by violence. Over the weekend, processions celebrating Eid Miladun Nabi in Faisalabad and D.I. Khan were attacked causing death, injuries and mayhem. - Thankfully, the violence was quickly contained and did not rise to the level of terribleness that the country has unfortunately witnessed in recent times. Pakistanis hardly need reminding that the country is in the grip of religious intolerance and violence the war against militancy has touched every corner of the country inflicting a terrible toll, and for a while certain areas were virtually ceded to the militants without a fight. But there is another, more insidious, religious poison that is spreading, largely unnoticed, across the country, and it is not quite as easy to explain as the territorial ambitions of the Taliban. That poison has pit Sunni against Shia, Deobandi against Barelvi, Muslim against religious minorities — and it defies easy categorisation. The only thing its various strands seem to have in common is a hatred for everything that is `different`, where `different` is inevitably judged as an unacceptable deviation and therefore deserving of punishment, even death, in many instances. Invariably — perhaps suggesting where the cure must first begin — a steady diet of dogmatic preaching is to be found wherever such violence occurs. In Faisalabad, the khatib of a local mosque was arrested on charges of inciting people to violence. It will take great political will but such violent elements need to be purged from the mosques and madressahs, for without that it will not be possible to roll back the tide of hate that is threatening to engulf the country. Nor should it be viewed as some-thing that is impossible to do. After all, only a few years ago, processions such as those witnessed on Saturday were low-key and passed off peacefully. What is new is the sense of one-upmanship each group wants to have a bigger and louder affair and is ever keen to rattle or taunt rival groups. In the event, the police and local administrations largely manage to do a good job and keep tensions to a minimum. But that is mere fire-fighting and ends up dealing with only the symptom and not the disease. The infrastructure of hate that has slowly taken hold at the grass-roots level is really what needs to be dismantled. Further delay in initiating that process will only cause the problem to grow in magnitude. Reference: Religious violence Dawn Editorial March 1, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32519
Barelvi Mullah Says that Shias are Kaafir (Apostate)
KARACHI, Oct 19: A religious organisation called the Ulema Millat-i-Jafria has demanded that former home minister Dr Zulfikar Mirza offer repentance to Allah and apologise to the Ummah for his alleged blasphemous remarks made at a press conference. Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, the ulema said Dr Mirza had hurt the sentiments of the entire Millat-i-Islamia by his insulting utterances and had made an attempt to vitiate the atmosphere of peace and unity. They said the former home minister had wrongly quoted the events of the Prophet (PBUH) and Imam Hussain (AS) which amounted to blasphemy and a cause of resentment in the Millat-i-Islamia. Speaking at the Karachi Press Club, Allama Ikram Tirmizi, Allama Azhar Naqvi, Allama Syed Ali Karar Naqvi, Allama Athar Mashhadi, Allama Shaikh Ali Muhammad Mutahiri, Allama Syed Mohsin Kazmi, Allama Agha Nadir Rizvi and Allama Kamran Turabi and others condemned terrorism of every nature. They said that for a long time mosques, Imambargahs and processions of Millat-i-Tashih had been targeted. The Hazara community was particularly being targeted in Quetta, south Punjab, D.I. Khan and Parachinar, and innocent youths of Millat-i-Jafria were being targeted in Karachi, but the government authorities and institutions as well as the media were silent on the issue and it amounted to patronising terrorists. They criticised the attitude of the higher authorities and the media and demanded that the chief justice, the army chief, the president and the prime minister discharge their duty by exposing this conspiracy immediately. They praised MNA Nasir Shah for raising voice against victimisation of Ahl-i-Tashih in parliament. They said anti-Islam forces had always blown up differences among the Muslims but the Pakistani nation had foiled every conspiracy through peace, love and friendship. REFERENCE: Mirza told to seek public apology for remarks By Our Staff Reporter http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/20/mirza-told-to-seek-public-apology-for-remarks.html
Barelvi and Deobandi Maulvis on Shias being Infidels [in Urdu.]
KARACHI, Oct 19: A sessions court on Wednesday returned an application seeking the registration of a case against former home minister Dr Zulfikar Mirza under the blasphemy law over a jurisdiction matter. Sindh Industries Minister Rauf Siddiqui of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement had moved an application in the court through his lawyer, Amir Mansoob Quershi, under Section 22-A of the criminal procedure code. During the last hearing, the court had summoned the SHO of the Gulberg police station, who appeared before Additional District and Sessions Judge (central) Mohammad Azeem on Wednesday and informed the court that he could not register the case since the alleged incident took place within the remit of the Chakiwara police station. While returning the plea to the applicant, the court said it had no jurisdiction to hear the application as the alleged incident took place in district south. The MQM leader alleged in the application that Dr Mirza had used derogatory remarks about Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) during his press conference on Oct 9. He further submitted that he approached the Gulberg police station to lodge a case against Dr Mirza, but the police said that they would not entertain the plea without the permission of their high-ups. Meanwhile, the applicant’s lawyer told Dawn that he had submitted an application in a sessions court (south), which put the Chakiwara SHO on notice for Thursday. REFERENCE: Blasphemy plea against ex-minister returned By Our Staff Reporter http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/20/blasphemy-plea-against-ex-minister-returned.html Wednesday, October 19, 2011, Ziqad 20, 1432 A.H. Updated at: 1740 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/oct2011-daily/19-10-2011/u85283.htm
1). THE DIFFERECE BETWEEN THE SUNNIS AND SHIAHS
You and every other Muslim is well aware of this fact that there were no Nazaryaati Ikhtilaafs during the noble era of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and his Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum). In fact, during that era, the entire Ummat was free from the bane of (such) Ikhtilaafs and it was a united force against the entities of kufr. The first time that Nazaryaati Ikhtilaafs rose its ugly head was towards the end of the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiAllaahu anhu). This was the starting point of the Shiah creed. Their first basis and initiative was plain, that is (they claimed) that Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) who was the close and beloved relative of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) was the first most worthy candidate for the Khilaafat. This theoretical opinion of theirs, albeit seemingly simple and plain, and outwardly amiable, was the antithesis of Islaamic teachings and the 23 years of Nabi‟s (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) teaching. This is so because Islaam has eradicated the veneration of nepotism and lineage and based honour and dignity on “Taqwa” (piety and fear of Allaah Ta`ala). As far as the attribute of Taqwa was concerned, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiAllaahu anhu) was the most outstanding amongst the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum), as is borne out by the word “At Taqaa” (The Pious One), which appears in Surah Wal-Lail and refers to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiAllaahu anhu). It is for this reason that he as the most worthy successor to Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam).
In the Jaame Masjid of Kufa, Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) was asked the reason as to why Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiAllaahu anhu) was made the Khalifah after the demise of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) replied that the most important form of Ibaadat in Deen is Salaat, and Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), during his final illness appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiAllaahu anhu) as the Imaam of the Salaat of the Muslims, notwithstanding the presence of Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu). Even though Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) was fully aware of the presence of Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu), he nonetheless, chose Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiAllaahu anhu) as the Imaam, hence Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) said that the same personality whom Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) chose as the Imaam of the Muslims in Deeni matters, they are pleased to choose him as their Imaam in worldly matters.
Page 9 of 106
This then is the spurious basis which the Shiahs have based their difference upon. The initiator of this Baatil theory was the Munaafiq, who was a Jew, namely Abdullaah Bin Sabaa and his cohorts. They were the ones who burnt at the victories of Islaam. They intended to change the course of the flood of Islaamic progress. They saw no other way except to inject the poison of difference and dispute amongst the Muslim Ummat, thereby rendering it in pieces and scattered the unity of its adherents. When fighting and hostility flares up amongst the Muslims, then there remains no more any guts or spirit in them to fight kufr. Hence they (Shiahs) started their slogan of “Hubbe Ali”, thereby spoiling the Aqaa`id of many Muslims and exploding a hydrogen bomb of Ikhtilaaf amongst the Ummat of Muslims.Had Islaam not been the final religion and had Allaah Ta`al not made a promise to safeguard it until Qiyaamah, then it was close that this fort of Islaam would have buckled under this vile and evil force. Just as the conniving Jews had spoilt and changed the face of the Deen of Hadhrat Isaa (alaihi salaam), so too would they have scored a success with Islaam. However, the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum), Tabieen and Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) himself had challenged this fitnah with force and had thus nipped it in the bud. The result was that the Shiah beliefs and theories were forced and compelled to hide behind the veil of “Taqiyah” (holy hypocrisy). Later, the Shiahs were split into many groups and sects. The details of this can be seen in the Kitaab of Hadhrat Abdul Qaadir Jilaani (rahmatullahi alaih), “Ghuniatut Talibeen” and the Kitaab of Hadhrat Shah Muhaddith Dehlwi (rahmatullahi alaih), “Tuhfah Ithnaa Ashariyyah”. From amongst all these sects of Shiasm, one named “Shiah Imaamiyah” or “Shiah Ithna Ashariyyah”, is the surviving and existent “Shiah” that is prevalent today. The details of their beliefs are not appropriate at this juncture. Nevertheless, a few of their principles and beliefs are listed hereunder:
1). The theory of Imaamat -- The basic principle of the Shiah creed is their “Aqeedah-e-Imaamat”. The crux of this belief is that just as Allaah Ta`ala had specially appointed and sent the Prophets (alaihimus salaam) in the same He had sent and specially appointed the Imaams that came after Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). These Imaams are, according to the Shiah religion also free of faults and sinless. Wahi (Divine Revelation) is sent to them. Their obedience is necessary just as is that of a Prophet. They, just like Prophets, can issue and regulate the rulings of Shariah. They also have the prerogative to change and abrogate any law that is contained in the Qur`aan Majeed.
It is as though the Aqaa`id of Islaam, and its every aspect is in the hands of a specially appointed Prophet, which is understandable, nevertheless, the Shiahs aver that their “Imaams” have this same status and rank. This theory of Imaamat of the Shiahs is a rebellious opposition to the finality of Prophethood of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and it is a clear conspiracy against the existence of Islaam. This is the reason why all the false claimants to prophethood since the times of yore upto Mirza Ghulaam Ahmad have borrowed this Shiah concept of Imaamat as an expedient loophole to their false claims. This concept of Imaamat of the Shiah religion is inherently and naturally incorrect. The reason being that the Shiahs themselves will not be able to sustain the burden of this belief for a long time. In fact they have terminated their Imaamat theory upon their 12th Imaam, who, since the year 260A.H. has been in hiding in a cave and has ever since disappeared. Today, an entire 11 centuries later, the Shiahs are still unaware where exactly their Imaam is and what is his condition . As much as I contemplate upon the Shiah‟s theory of Imaamat, I am becoming more and more convinced that this theory has been thrust against the finality of the prophethood of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and it has been connived so as to grant impetus and validity to the false claimants to prophethood and Imaamat. Consider well – since the time of Hadhrat Isaa (alaihi salaam) until the time of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) an entire period of six centuries passed, but there was no guider sent to the Ummat from Allaah Ta`ala. Here on the
Page 10 of 106
other hand, after the Sun of the Finality of Prophethood (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), who illuminated the universe with his Noor, passes away, according to the Shiah belief, Allaah Ta`ala did not leave the world for one minute, nay not even one second and He established some „sinless Imaam‟ who then changes the Deen and abrogates the Qur`aan Majeed. And then, this is not restricted o only one Imaam, there comes 12 of them in succession. And then suddenly, after two and a half centuries of Islaam has passed, Allaah Ta`ala (abruptly) closes the succession of Imaams. In fact, the twelfth Imaam who was sent, is made to disappear forever at the age of two. Can there be any person who believes in the Nubuwwat of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), and who accepts that he (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) was not sent to destroy, change and disfigure Islaam, in fact, he (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) was sent to sustain and be a means for the procurement of Islaam until the Day of Qiyaamah, ever tolerate this theory of Imaamat of the Shiahs?
The „seniors‟ of the Shiah religion, who they brand as their Imaams, have also themselves never claimed Imaamat. They never laid claim to be leaders of the Allaah Ta`ala‟s creation. In fact, every one of them were the elders of the Ahle Sunnah and they were the illumination to the eyes of the believers. Their Deen and beliefs, their methods and ways, and their manner of Ibaadat was never in accordance to that of the Shiah religion. Actually they followed the ways and methods of the Sahaabah and Taabieen. It was in accordance to that Deen which was left by Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), and that which the entire Muslim Ummat practices upon. These pious personalities practised upon this Islaam in front of all to see. However, the Shiahs wish us to believe that the beliefs of these people were something else, but in accordance to their spurious belief in „Taqiyah‟ (holy hypocrisy) they were concealing their true beliefs and showing something else to the people. According to the Shiah religion, it is as though Allaah Ta`ala sent sinless Imaams who were incapable of guiding mankind and forever hid behind the cloak of Taqiyah. And their twelfth Imaam is so concealed that none knows his whereabouts to this day! From this we can ascertain that this theory of Imaamat of the Shiahs, not only strikes at the finality of Nubuwwat of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), in fact it is clearly even contrary to the intelligence and reasoning. This can never be the teachings of Allaah Ta`ala, it is the invention of the warped brain of some Jew.
2). The second largest principle of the Shiah religion is their hatred and enmity for the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiAllaahu anhum). According to the Shiahs, all those Sahaabah (this would include Hadhrat Ali - radhiAllaahu anhu) who, after the demise of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), took the pledge of allegiance (Ba`it) at the hands of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiAllaahu anhu) are murtad and kaafir (Nauthubillah!) due to this action of theirs. The reason for this is, that they did not take ba`it at the hands of the sinless Imaam – Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu). And since Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) did not lay claim to Khilaafat during the eras of all three Khalifahs before him, in fact, he also took Ba`it at their hands, is the reason why the Shiahs are infuriated with him, as well. This claim of the Shiahs is so spurious and false that it requires no review. The object of this belief of theirs is that the duty of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) in this world is, Nauthubillah, completely useless and futile. The claim of Islaam is that he (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) was sent for the guidance of the entire mankind until the Day of Qiyaamah. However, the belief of the Shiahs avers that this is completely incorrect. (According to their belief) Islaam never progressed even for a day after the demise of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), in fact, the entire group (of Sahaabah) upon whom Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) made a concerted effort for 23 continuous years and he prepared them, and whom he made a means of intermediaries between himself and the coming Ummat, all of the became murtad (Nauthubillah!) after his demise. From this is plain, clear and simple that the Shiah creed is the anti-theses of Islaam. That is, if the Shiah religion is correct, then, Islaam is – Nauthubillah – wrong! And if Islaam is correct, then it will be obvious according to any intelligent and right -headed person to conclude that Shiasm is wrong and spurious. The attack upon the friends and companions of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) is such a blow to Islaam itself and to Nabi‟s (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) being, that history will fall short of finding a likeness thereof. It is
Page 11 of 106
stated in Tafseer-e-Mazhari, that the Ustaad of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alaih), Hadhrat Sha`bi (rahmatullahi alaih) said that if the Jews are asked who are the most revered and Honoured persons amongst their Ummat, then they will immediately reply that it is the friends and companions of Hadhrat Moosa (alaihi salaam). And if the Christians are asked the same question, then they will immediately reply that it is the helpers (companions) of Hadhrat Isaa (alaihi salaam). But if the Shiahs are asked the question: “Who are the worst persons amongst your Ummat?” They will immediately reply that it is the Companions of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam. Nauthubillah, Astaghfirullah! Nevertheless, if the Shi`ite belief of the theory of Imaamat is an opposition to the finality of Prophethood of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), then their theory of „tabarra‟ (showing disdain, disapproval at and abuse of the first Khalifahs of Islaam) is a much worse rebelliousness against the very Nubuwwat of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). And no person who has belief in Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) will ever be able to condone and tolerate this, that the entire group, whom he (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) had prepared during his lifetime, had Nauthubillah, became murtad the moment his eyes closed.
3). The third belief of the Shiahs is even worse than the previously mentioned two beliefs of theirs. However, just as two plus two equals four, this third belief of theirs is an obvious result of the first two. And this belief of theirs is “Tahreef-e-Qur`aan Majeed” (that the Qur`aan Majeed was distorted and tampered with). Let alone a Muslim, upto this day, not even the worst of kaafirs has the courage to say (and none in their right frame of mind will be able to aver), that the Qur`aan Majeed which is present with the Muslims of today, that sanctified the Kitaab which has been preserved through the ages, and of which thousands, nay millions have memorised, is not the same Kitaab which was revealed to our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). But, „bravo‟ to the inventors of the Shiah religion, who have included this belief in the Shiah creed. The Shiahs aver that the Qur`aan Majeed which is present with the Muslims today is not the same Qur`aan Majeed as the original which was revealed to Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). They claim that this is “Sahifa-e-Uthmaani” (the script of Hadhrat Uthmaan - radhiAllaahu anhu).(They aver that) The original Qur`aan Majeed is hidden with the 12th Imaam in some unknown cave. Besides one of two, every Mujtahid, Aalim and Imaam of the Shiahs accepts this contention. There exist more than two thousand narrations from their „sinless Imaams‟ which are unanimous on this issue. How can this not be the case when according to the Shiahs, after the demise of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), Nauthubillah, all the Sahaabah became murtad, so how can it be that they bring Imaan on that Qur`aan-e-Kareem which was conveyed by these Sahaabah? It is for this reason that those few Shiahs who accept the present Qur`aan Majeed to be in its original revealed state, have to accept and recognise the integrity and honour of the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiAllaahu anhum).
It is as though whoever believes as true the Shiah religion, can never bring ring Imaan on the present Qur`aan Majeed. And it is also not possible to bring Imaan in any Qur`aan of the Shiahs. There are many other beliefs and theories of the Shiah religion, but we will not discuss them here. Just by mere consideration of these three beliefs of theirs, one can ascertain exactly what relationship there is between Islaam and Shiasm.Above, I had mentioned the Hadith wherein Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) drew a line by way of an example and said: “This is Allaah Ta`ala‟s Path”, and then he drew a few lines branching off from this centreline, and said:
“These are those paths, upon which each one of them sits a shaitaan, which invites man towards it.
Page 12 of 106
Citing this, I am of the opinion that the Shiah religion is one of the first offshoots and opposing factors of Islaam, which shaitaan has devised and invented through the medium of his Jewish agents in order to mislead man. Right from the very first day after the demise of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), did the Shiah religion aspire to sever the link of the Ummat to his (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam)‟s Mubarak being. They had sought to uproot the entire foundation and basis of Islaam, and create another new religion in opposition to Islaam. You may have heard that the Shiah creed is unhappy about the Kalimah of Islaam. In fact, they have added the verse “Ali Waliullah, Wasi Rasulullaah wa Khalifatun Bila Faslin”. Since the Shiahs do not accept the Kalimah and the Qur`aan Majeed of the Muslims, then is there anything left to say? And one of the most unfortunate things is their hatred and enmity towards the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (radhiAllaahu anhum ajmaeen), from which all believers seek protection. The Sahaabah-e-Kiraam were the first recipient of the divine Revelation. Their history is an integral part of the history of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). Their character and behaviour were proofs of the Nubuwwat of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). They were the guide and teachers of the entire coming Ummat. Our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) placed the duty of conveying the Deen upon their able and capable shoulders. The Ummat that followed, whatever good they had acquired was through the Barkat and blessings of the Sahaabah-eKiraam. It is for this reason that love for the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam stems from the love for Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), since they were nurtured and sprung from him. Hatred for the Sahaabah stems from hatred for Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). Love for them is a part of Imaan. To slur and malign them is not mere disrespect; in fact, it necessitates the removal of Imaan. Therefore my belief is of that of the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaat, that the family and companions of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) are all worthy of the utmost respect and honour. That person who has even the least bit of connection to Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam), will love ever ything that was close to him. Especially those personalities who were his deputies after his demise. We have been blessed with the honour of Imaan owing to their sacrifices and efforts. Therefore, in the defence of Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu), those who criticised Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiAllaahu anhu) were, in my opinion, astray. In the same way, I also deem that person to be astray who casts even the slightest slur and criticism at Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu). Also, that person who, in defence of Yazeed criticises Hadhrat Hussein (radhiAllaahu anhu). I understand the love and affection for every family member and companion of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) to be a part of Imaan. I deem any criticism levelled at any one of them, be it by way of indication, inference or directly to be a sign of one losing his Imaan. This is my belief. I hope to meet Allaah Ta`ala in His Court with this belief of mine. REFERENCE: DIFFERENCES IN THE UMMAT AND SIRAAT-EMUSTAQEEM By Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Ludhyanvi
REFERENCE: The Raafidah (Shi`ah) Questions and Answers On the Raafidah Shi`ah Based upon Minhaaj us-Sunnah of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=GSC&subsecID=GSC03&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm
GEO TV raise hue and cry over almost everything whereas their very own key "Religious Scholar - Mr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain" is indulged in “Tabbarra Against the Companions of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)” (Insulting Comments against the Companions of Prophet Mohammad - PBUH). Had Daily Jang quoted Quran and Hadith on Beard then it wouldn’t have been a problem but lecture on Islam from a TV Anchor who doesn’t even know about the “Status” of Companions [Sahaba Kiram] would not be acceptable to any sane person. Watch and lament.
Presenting... the Real Spirit of Aamir Liaquat (GEO TV/ARY NEWS/Daily Express) Real face of Amir Liaqat Hussain - WARNING strong use of Explicit Language
ISLAMABAD/WASHINGTON: President Pervez Musharraf’s favourite Islamic TV preacher, the minister of state for religious affairs, Dr Aamir Liaquat Hussain, has finally shot himself, not in the foot but almost in the head, South Asia Tribune reported on Wednesday. “The minister, who was already in trouble over his allegedly fake degrees scandal and his sharp criticism of the Pakistan Army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and is being replaced by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), despite all his denials, went on record in a TV interview last week and said Pakistan supported Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and what he was doing to US forces in Iraq,” it reported. “Aamir said this in an interview to ARY’s famous host, Dr Shahid Masood, on the subject of a fatwa (decree) issued by some Pakistani religious scholars recently, on whether suicide bombing was permissible in Islam. Aamir had been called to discuss the fatwa along with senior Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmed,” it said. “The young and inexperienced minister, a loud-mouth who offends listeners, said such ‘truthful’ things about Pakistan’s policy on jihad in Iraq and Kashmir and even so strongly blasted President Musharraf for supporting the US that ARY TV decided not to run the programme on popular talk show Views-on-News,” South Asia Tribune added. Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, who was the other guest on the talk show, was shocked out of his senses when he heard the comments of the minister during the interview. He asked Aamir several times whether he was speaking in his personal capacity or on behalf of the MQM or the Musharraf government. When he was told that he was representing the government’s point of view, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed reportedly could not refrain from making the following remarks: ‘If this is what enlightened moderation of General Musharraf means, who in hell can oppose it. The MMA will fully support the MQM and Musharraf if this is the official policy’,” it said. “The whole show became so ridiculous that ARY decided not to run it, but the tape immediately became a hot potato and was soon in tremendous demand from all interested parties,” South Asia Tribune reported. Hafiz Hussain Ahmed confirmed the story of the censored TV show to South Asia Tribune. It quoted him as saying that he was shortly going to protest to the ARY TV Channel for not running the interview, as the minister had repeatedly said that it was the official government policy. “The minister agreed with all the points that I raised and all the arguments for jihad that I made and concurred that it was jihad being fought by Muslims in Iraq and the Pakistani government supported it. I was so surprised that I told him on record that if this is the meaning of enlightened moderation of General Musharraf, we (the MMA) are with you and kon kambakht mukhalifat kar sakta hay (which Godforsaken soul can oppose it),” it quoted him as saying. “ARY officials in Dubai and Islamabad refused to say why the interview had not been shown but Hafiz Hussain Ahmed said he would be protesting to the channel and urging them to release the tape as it would open the eyes of the world,” South Asia Tribune reported. “When Hafiz Hussain Ahmed started asking questions about the interview, the secret service got wind of what had happened and immediately demands were made from the ARY administration to let the authorities have a copy of the dreaded tape,” it said. “Surprisingly, the London headquarters of the MQM also got wind of what had happened in the interview and Altaf Hussain, who had already summoned Aamir Liaquat Hussain to London, also started looking for a copy of the tape,” it added. South Asia Tribune quotes US diplomatic sources in Islamabad as telling it that they had heard about the interview and that they would like to hear the tape and what the minister had said about President Musharraf’s policy about suicide attacks by Zarqawi’s men on US forces. It quoted sources as saying later that Pakistani authorities had informed the US diplomats about the contents of the interview and everyone might soon be watching the tape of the interview. “Whether President Musharraf, Altaf Hussain or the US diplomats have received the cassette and heard Dr Aamir’s comments or not is not yet confirmed, but experts in Islamabad said it is only a matter of time that everyone concerned will hear what this outspoken minister had to say and then the chips would fall where they may,” it added. South Asia Tribune quotes sources close to Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, who heard the minister in awe during the interview, as saying that the minister had become emotional while talking about jihad and suicide bombings and was grilled by the host of the programme, Dr Shahid Masood, who almost trapped him into making statements which no politician in such a high political position would make. It quotes the sources as saying that Aamir had openly criticised President Musharraf for his pro-US policies and had fully supported the jihadis in Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir, but at the same time he had insisted that suicide bombings in Pakistan were against Islam. “‘Anywhere, if there is one American soldier present, suicide bombing is permissible in Islam,’ Dr Aamir was quoted by these sources as having said on record. ‘There are times when the truth must be told,’ he added in one remark,” South Asia Tribune reported. “The minister was the main sponsor when about 50 Pakistani religious leaders issued the fatwa against suicide bombings in Pakistan, which according to some analysts, was done to please President Musharraf. But in his exuberance the minister was caught on the wrong foot when questioned by ARY and Geo TV Channels about such attacks in Iraq and other places,” it added. South Asia Tribune quoted sources in London as saying that MQM Chief Altaf Hussain had already been told by the army to name a replacement for the minister, as he had become too controversial and out-spoken in his remarks and it was difficult to keep him at the cabinet post. “The London sources also revealed a shocking story about Dr Aamir’s brother, Imran Liaquat Hussain, who studied in Iran and later declared himself an ‘Ayatollah’ opposed to the clerics of Iran,” it said, adding, “Dr Imran was arrested in Iran and later came to Karachi where he took up a fight with MQM Chief Altaf Hussain and declared him ‘an agent of Iran, and a mafia don’. He also issued a fatwa calling for Altaf Hussain’s death and accused the MQM of Wall Street Journal’s journalist Daniel Pearl’s kidnapping and murder.” “He claimed that the MQM was getting funds from Iran,” South Asia Tribune said. “In response to his statements in 2002, Altaf Hussain pressured his father, who was also a senior MQM leader to disown his son and Sheikh Liaquat Hussain did exactly that, saying the statements issued by his ‘Ayatollah’ son were stupid, misleading and provocative and he as his father had nothing to do with these views of his son,” it added. “Imran Liaquat Hussain also has a website where he has numerous press clippings of his war against the MQM and its leader Altaf Hussain. He also supported President Musharraf in the 2002 referendum,” it reported. REFERENCE: Shocking TV interview haunts Dr Aamir Liaquat’s career Daily Times Monitor Thursday, May 26, 2005 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-5-2005_pg7_45
GEO TV [JANG GROUP] Incites Killing & Sectarianism - Part 1
GEO TV & Aamir Liaquat Want Shia Sunni Clash
Justice should be available to all whether they are Shia, Sunni, or others. You cannot hope for peace while you do not even make a feeble reference to murderers, assassins, and criminals of the highest order - No individual, party, or group (excepting Jamaat-e-Islami) has tried to read deeper into the Supreme Court’s verdict on Karachi’s law and order problem. It seems politically correct to shower praise on the verdict and express the desire to implement the guidelines given therein. The verdict, however, fails to address the real causes of intense violence the residents of Karachi have been subjected to for years. The Supreme Court held a suo motu hearing on the Karachi violence because the judges had been worried over the matter. They should be praised for it. This writer believes that any constructive criticism of the Karachi verdict will be taken in good faith by the judges. The verdict says that the violence in Karachi is not ethnic but a result of conflict between groups over economic, social and political interests. This is a tricky observation. In Karachi, there are no economic or social no-go areas. There are, for instance, Pathan or Mohajir no-go areas, i.e. ethnic no-go areas. Ethnicity and political economy in Karachi are so deeply intertwined that they cannot be isolated. The Supreme Court verdict has referred to economic, social, and political interests. However, it did not put the right perspective — i.e. the ethnic perspective — on it. A glaring omission from the verdict is the Court’s failure to mention the purely religious-sectarian factor in Karachi violence. One is puzzled to note that the verdict makes no significant mention of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and the Taliban. What about the hundreds of Shias killed by these outfits? What economic, social, or political interests were responsible for their deaths? The notorious bombings and suicide bombings on Shia mourning processions were done by these terrorist organisations who proudly claimed responsibility for their wicked acts, but these facts did not find favour with the judges. A number of Taliban leaders and suicide bombers have been nabbed in Karachi recently. A few months before, the Karachi police caught terrorists who confessed killing hundreds of innocent Shias only because they were Shias (a local TV channel even showed those confessions in its daily news round-up). These terrorists, however, were given no reference in the verdict. The Talibanisation of Karachi is obvious and the coming months will evidence a great deal of sectarian violence in which in addition to the Shias, communities like Agha Khanis, Christians, Ahmedis, and even Barelvis will be targeted. But no discussion exists on it. Strangely enough, you can smell the coming violence, but you cannot talk about it! The question is: why has the Karachi verdict failed to include sectarian violence, which has claimed far more lives than ethnic violence? The answer is found in the verdict itself. LeJ does not appear in the verdict at all. The Taliban and the SSP appear only once each and in a context where Shias can only pull their hair in frustration and disbelief. About the Taliban, the verdict says: “Karachi’s ethnic wars have claimed some 1,000 lives this year, with more than 100 in the past week alone. By contrast the Taliban and other religious extremists kill tiny numbers in Karachi” (page 137). One would like to ask: how tiny is a tiny number? The verdict has simply not mentioned hundreds of Shias killed in the past few years. What is the point of enumerating the number of people killed in just one year and blot out hundreds of people killed in the previous years? On page 16, the verdict refers to the Shia-Sunni conflict. This is plain wrong because it is not a Shia-versus-Sunni conflict. It is Deobandis declaring jihad against the Shias whom they call kafirs (infidels). The very verdict of the Supreme Court contradicts its own Shia-versus-Sunni claim: on page 27 the verdict refers to the feud between Sunni Tehreek and the SSP. If Karachi sectarian violence is between a Sunni monolith and the Shias, then what is the problem between Sunni Tehreek and the SSP, both being Sunni outfits? It is in fact a sectarian one: Sunni Tehreek (Barelvi) versus the SSP (Deobandi). The Taliban, the SSP, and the LeJ are expressions of the same Deobandi ideology. This also reflects on the Supreme Court’s claim that Karachi’s violence is based upon economic, social, and political interests. Sectarianism is more dangerous, because it is more real than an ethnic or any other factor. Why did the Supreme Court not discuss the sectarian issues — the real issues indeed — of the Karachi quagmire? The answer is very simple. As identified by the verdict itself, the judges relied on the information provided by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the ISI. It was the judges’ task to ask these agencies about the role of the sectarian outfits in the Karachi violence. Did the agencies tell the judges that there are a number of Deobandi mosques in Karachi that are financed and controlled by members of the House of Saud, and which are beyond the control of the state of Pakistan? Where do these terrorist outfits get their finances? What sort of venom is preached from those mosques? It is no secret that these Talibanic sectarian outfits are managed by the intelligence agencies. Did the judges asked the agency bosses questions to this effect? One can go on and on, but the point is: justice should be available to all whether they are Shia, Sunni, or others. You cannot hope for peace while you do not even make a feeble reference to murderers, assassins, and criminals of the highest order. For those Shias who had been hoping for the Supreme Court to give them some relief, this verdict is an unfortunate, demoralising blow. REFERENCE: VIEW: Supreme Court’s Karachi verdict —Abbas Zaidi The writer is the author of Two and a Half Words and Other Stories. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C10%5C12%5Cstory_12-10-2011_pg3_3