Friday, December 30, 2011

Imran Khan is Inspired by Heretic (Zindeeq) Ibn Arabi.

Imran vows to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state - If elected, we’ll create an Islamic welfare state Imran pledges to end corruption in 90 days * PTI chief says Pakistan needs a govt that changes system and breaks begging bowl KARACHI: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan, on Sunday, pledged to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state if his party came to power, and promised a state where justice would be ensured on grass roots level. Addressing a big convention at a ground adjacent to the Mazar-e-Quaid, the PTI chairman told the crowd he was forming a team to formulate policies, notably aimed at alleiviating poverty “We want to break the begging bowl once and for all”, he said, and make Pakistan a “true Islamic welfare state”. He hit out at President Asif Ali Zardari, claiming his days were numbered and accusing him of policies that encouraged corruption. He said his party would solidify judiciary on priority basis, and promised free of cost justice on people’s doorsteps, adding that all the systems in government departments would be computerised to check corruption. Khan said that he would introduce an exemplary team, which would be honest and capable. He said that party ticket would be granted on merit to only those candidates who will declare their assets. Later, if someone’s assets grow, he/she would be asked to make a declaration. That mechanism, he said, would prevent legislators from getting involved in corruption. The PTI chief further said that corruption prevalent in the country would be eliminated within 90 days of his party’s coming to power, and said it was not a tough task for him. He said that in present situation, the country bears a loss of Rs 3000 million every day. He announced that his party would form a free and fair accountability cell, free of political pressure, and vowed to end political interference in police department. REFERENCE: If elected, we’ll create an Islamic welfare state By Asad Farooq Monday, December 26, 2011\12\26\story_26-12-2011_pg1_1 Imran vows to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state Shamim Bano Monday, December 26, 2011

Imran Khan is Inspired by Heretic (Zindeeq) Ibn Arabi.

As per Ms. Madiha R Tahir: By then, Imran had taken a distinctly pious turn. "I met a man who was a spiritual man and had powers like Ibn Arabi, that great 13th Century mystic who saw with double vision. "He paused and corrected himself, then started again. "It wasn't that. It was just the vision of that man. REFERENCE: I’ll Be Your Mirror by Madiha R Tahir

Lets have a look what is the reality of Ibn Arabi (The Heretic Sufi) in the light of Islamic Teaching & kindly do keep in mind that Imran Khan wants an Islamic Welfare State.

Excerpts from Iman-e-Khalis by Late. Masooduddin Usmani

Noted Saudi Arabian Scholar Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid says


He was a prominent Sufi; in fact he was an extreme Sufi. His name was Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Taa’i al-Andalusi. The scholars have told us about him in response to a question which was put to them. The question was as follows:

What do the imaams of the religion and the guides of the Muslims say about a book which has been circulating among the people, the author of which claims that he wrote it and distributed it to people by permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which was given to him in a dream which he claims to have seen? Most of this book contradicts what Allaah revealed in His Books and is opposed to what His Prophets said.

Among the things that he says in this book are: Adam was called insaan because in relation to the truth (Al-Haqq), he was like the pupil [insaan] of the eye, the part that can see.

Elsewhere he said: Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.

Concerning the people of Nooh he said: if they had turned away from their worship of [their idols] Wudd, Siwaa’, Yaghooth and Ya’ooq, they would have lost more of Al-Haqq.

Then he said: Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image.

Then he said concerning the people of Hood: They reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allaah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favour, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path.

Then he denied the idea of the warning against those of mankind against whom the word of punishment is justified.

Should the one who believes in what he says be denounced as a kaafir, or should we accept what he says, or what? If the person who listens to him is an adult of sound mind, and does not denounce him by speaking or in his heart, is he a sinner, or what?

Please explain to us clearly and with proof, as Allaah has taken the covenant from the scholars on that basis, for negligence [on the part of the scholars] causes a great deal of confusion to the ignorant. (‘Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqiy al-Deen al-Faasi, p. 15, 16).

(The author) mentioned the response of some of the scholars:

Al-Qaadi Badr al-Deen ibn Jamaa’ah said:

The passages quoted, and other similar parts of this book, are bid’ah and misguidance, evil and ignorance. The religiously-committed Muslim would not pay any heed to them or bother to read the book to find out more.

Then he said:

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) could never give permission in a dream for something which goes against and contradicts Islam; on the contrary, this is from the evil insinuations or whispers of the Shaytaan and a trap whereby the Shaytaan is playing with him and tempting him.

His words about Adam, that he is the pupil of the eye, and his likening Allaah to His creation, and his remark that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ – if by ‘Al-Haqq’ he is referring to the Lord of the Worlds – is a clear statement of anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and he has taken this notion to extremes.

With regard to his denial of what has been narrated in the Qur’aan and Sunnah concerning the warning: this makes him a kaafir in the view of the scholars of the followers of Tawheed.

His comments about the people of Nooh and of Hood is vain and false talk which deserves to be rejected. The best way of dealing with that is to destroy this and all other similar passages of his book, for it is no more than fancy words, an expression of baseless ideas and an attempt to introduce into the religion ideas that do not belong to it. The ruling on this is that it should be rejected and ignored. (Ibid., p. 29, 30).

Khateeb al-Qal’ah Shaykh Shams al-Deen Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Jazari al-Shaafa’i said:

Praise be to Allaah. His comment about Adam being called insaan is anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and is a lie and falsehood. His belief that the idol-worship of the people of Nooh was valid is kufr. Anyone who says such a thing cannot be approved of. His comment that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ is false and contradictory, and it is also kufr. His comment that the people of Hood had reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) is a lie against Allaah, and by saying this, he has rejected what Allaah said about them. His remark that they were no longer remote and that Hell became a blessing and a joy for them is a lie and a rejection of everything that was revealed to the Prophets; the truth of the matter is what Allaah said about that, that they (the people of Hood) will abide in the torment forever.

Concerning those who believe what he says – and he knows what he said – the same ruling applies to them as to him: that they are misguided kaafirs, if they have knowledge. If they do not have knowledge, then the person who says that out of ignorance should be told the truth and taught about it, and should be stopped if possible.

His denial of the warning to all people is a lie and a rejection of the consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. No doubt Allaah will bring about the punishment. Islam offers definitive evidence that a group of sinners from among the believers will be punished, and the one who denies that is regarded as a kaafir. May Allaah protect us from wrong belief and denying the Resurrection. (Ibid., p. 31, 32).

Ibn Taymiyah said:

The Muslims, Christians and Jews all know something which is a basic principle of the Muslims’ religion: that whoever says of any human being that he is a part of God is a kaafir, he is regarded as a disbeliever by all these religions. Even the Christians do not say this, although their belief is a major form of kufr; no one says that the essence of creation is part of the Creator, or that the Creator is the creation, or that Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.

Similarly, his remark that if the Mushrikeen turn away from idol-worship, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is obviously kufr according to the basic principle that is common to all the religions. For the religions are agreed that all the Prophets forbade idol-worship and regarded as disbelievers those who did that; the believer cannot be a believer unless he disavows himself of worshipping idols and of everything that is worshipped instead of Allaah. As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning);

“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’” [al-Mumtahanah 60:4]

-- and he quoted other aayaat as proof -- then he said:

Whoever says that if the idol-worshippers give up their idols, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, and the one who does not regard them as kaafirs is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, for the Jews and Christians regard idol-worshippers as disbelievers, so how about one who says that the one who gives up idol-worship has turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that he has abandoned idol-worship?! Let alone the fact that he says, The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied forms are like the limbs of a physical image and the energy in a spiritual image; nothing but Allaah is being worshipped in everything that is worshipped. He is an even greater kaafir than the worshippers of idols, for they only take them as intercessors and mediators, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“ [The Mushrikeen say] ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’” [al-Zumar 39:3]

“Have they taken (others) as intercessors besides Allaah? Say: “Even if they have power over nothing whatever and have no intelligence?” [al-Zumar 39:43]

They acknowledged that Allaah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the Creator of the idols, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And verily, if you ask them: ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ Surely, they will say: ‘Allaah (has created them)’” [al-Zumar 39:38] (Ibid., 21-23)

Shaykh al-Islam also said:

When the faqeeh Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam came to Cairo and they asked him about Ibn ‘Arabi, he said:

He is a vile and evil shaykh who says that the world is eternal and does not see anything haraam in any sexual relationship.

He mentioned the belief that the world is eternal because this is what [Ibn ‘Arabi] believed, but this is well-known form of kufr and the faqeeh Abu Muhammad denounced him as a kaafir because of this. At that time Ibn ‘Arabi had not yet said that the universe was God or the universe was the image and essence of God. This is a greater form of kufr because those who say that the universe is eternal still believe that there had to be Someone Who brought it into existence, that from the One Who must exist comes that which may exist. Those shaykhs who met him [Ibn ‘Arabi] said that he was a liar and a fabricator, and that in his books such as al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah etc. there were lies which could not be concealed from any intelligent person.

Then he said:

I have not even mentioned one-tenth of what they mentioned about kufr, but people who do not know about them have been deceived by these ideas, just as they were deceived by the Baatini Qaraamitah when they claimed to be descendents of Faatimah and said that they belonged to the Shee’ah, so the Shee’ah began to like them without knowing of their hidden kufr. So the person who is attracted to them is one of two things: either he is a heretic and hypocrite, or he is misguided and ignorant. With regard to these pantheists (ittihaadiyoon), their leaders are the leaders of kufr and must be executed, and their repentance cannot be accepted if they are seized before they repent, for they are among the greatest heretics, those who make an outward display of being Muslim whilst concealing kufr in their hearts, those who conceal their beliefs and their opposition to Islam. Everyone who follows them, who defends them, who praises them, who admires their books, who is known to help them, who does not like to speak against them or who makes excuses for them by saying that we do not know exactly what these statements mean, who says ‘How can we be sure that he wrote this book?’ and other excuses which no one but an ignorant person or a hypocrite would come up with, must be punished.

Indeed, it is obligatory to punish everyone who knows about them but does not help to resist them, because campaigning against these people is one of the most serious duties, for they have corrupted the minds and religious belief of many shaykhs, scholars, kings and princes, and they are spreading corruption throughout the world, preventing people from following the path of Allaah. The harm that they cause to the religion is greater than that done by those who damage the worldly interests of the Muslims but leave their religion alone, such as bandits on the highways and the Tatars (Mongols) who took their wealth but left their religion alone. Those who do not know them should not underestimate the danger they pose. Their own misguidance and the extent to which they misguide others defies description.

Then he said:

Whoever thinks well of them and claims not to know how they really are should be informed about them. If he does not then turn his back on them and denounce them, then he should be classed as one of them. Whoever says that their words could be interpreted in such a way that it does not contradict sharee’ah is one of their leaders and imaams. If he is intelligent, he should know what they really are. But if he believes in it and behaves like this openly and in secret, then he is a worse kaafir than the Christians. (Ibid., p. 25-28 – adapted and abbreviated)

Ibn Hajar said:

Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn ‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir. (Ibid., p. 39).

Ibn Khaldoon said:

Among these Sufis are: Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Saba’een, Ibn Barrajaan and their followers who follow their path and their religion. They have many books in circulation that are filled with blatant kufr and repugnant bid’ahs, trying to interpret clear texts in very far-fetched and repugnant ways, such that the reader is astounded that anyone could attribute such things to Islam. (Ibid., p. 41).

Al-Subki said:

These later Sufis, such as Ibn ‘Arabi and his followers, are misguided and ignorant and beyond the pale of Islam; those among them who have knowledge are even worse. (Ibid., p. 55).

Abu Zar’ah ibn al-Haafiz al-‘Iraaqi said:

Undoubtedly the famous book Al-Fusoos contains blatant kufr, as does al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah. If it is true that he wrote this and continued to believe in it until he died, then he is a kaafir who is doomed to eternity in Hell, no doubt about it. (Ibid., p. 60).

So how can any sane person say that these brilliant scholars did not understand Ibn ‘Arabi? If they did not understand him, who can?

An incident from which we learn a lesson:

Al-Faasi said:

I heard our companion al-Haafiz al-Hujjah al-Qaadi Shihaab al-Deen Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-Shaafa’i say: there were many disputes about Ibn ‘Arabi between me and one of those who like Ibn ‘Arabi, until I insulted him because of the bad things that he had said, but that did not make the man change his mind. He threatened to complain about me to the Sultaan in Egypt with regard to a matter that was different from that which we were arguing about, just to cause trouble for me. I said to him: the Sultaan has nothing to do with this! Come, let us make Mubaahalah [call our sons, our wives and ourselves and pray and invoke the Curse of Allaah upon those who lie – cf. Aal ‘Imraan 3:61]. It is very rare, when people make Mubaahalah and one of them is lying, for that one to go unpunished. So he said to me, ‘Bismillaah’ [i.e, he agreed]. And I said to him: ‘Say: O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is misguided, then curse me with Your Curse’ – so he said that. Then I said, O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is rightly-guided, then curse me with Your Curse. Then we parted. Then we met in a park in Egypt on a moonlit night, and he said to us, Something soft touched my leg, look! So we looked but we did not see anything. Then he checked his eyes and he could not see anything (i.e., Allaah had afflicted him with blindness). This is the meaning of what Al-Haafiz Shihaab al-Deen ibn Hajar al-‘Asqallaani told me. (Ibid., p. 75, 76).

This is how this man has misguided and deceived those who are seeking the truth and who want to follow the path of right guidance. He is a heretic who was not ahead of his time in any way except in misguidance and kufr. He does not possess any light or wisdom; on the contrary he is in the depths of darkness and ignorance. We have quoted to you the words of scholars other than Ibn Taymiyah, to point out the kufr of Ibn ‘Arabi, so that you will not think that Ibn Taymiyah was the only one who denounced him as a kaafir.

In response to your bad manners towards Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and your claim that he came years after Ibn ‘Arabi, we say: you came many more years after Ibn Taymiyah than the number of years between him and Ibn ‘Arabi, so you of all people should keep quiet about him. It is not right to speak in such an ill-mannered way about a Shaykh such as Ibn Taymiyah, whose knowledge has spread all over the world. How can a man such as you dare to describe him as an ant? Who are you to describe the Shaykh of shaykhs and the Shaykh of Islam as an ant? Do you not fear that you will have to stand before Allaah and be questioned as to why you were so ill-mannered towards the scholars? We ask you by Allaah, besides Whom there is no other god, can a person who says that the creation is a part of the Creator be a Muslim? Based on your response, you will know the state of your Islam. And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path.


Imran Khan's PTI is General Pervez Musharraf League (Capital Talk - 21 Dec 2011)

Marxism even in its heyday never had so many prophets of change as Pakistan. We can’t fix ordinary things and most of our bonzes, including Kublai Khan, have a hard time grappling with ordinary concepts but they must talk the language not just of change but of revolution. Whether they are fooling many people on the skyline may be a matter of conjecture. But they sure are fooling themselves. Out in the vanguard of the revolution waiting-to-happen is Kublai himself, his Bolshevik central committee consisting of such committed ideologues as Qureshi, Kasuri, Assef Ahmed Ali, Jehangir Tareen, et al, with those sinister ex-Jamaatias at the back who have been his ideological bodyguards...a list enough to give anyone a headache. The time may have come to rend the veil asunder. The Karl Marx of the Khan revolution is Professor Rafiq Akhtar of Gujar Khan. And I suppose its Engels is our friend Haroon Rashid, the perspicacious wordsmith. I want to make the pilgrimage to Professor Akhtar’s Marxian shrine myself. Out of curiosity and then because Professor Akhtar is said to be a generous host, partial to game – partridge and quail and desi mugh (no broilers, please) and, lastly, because another of his acolytes is one Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. The Bolsheviks, God save their memory, had their priorities right. When the Winter Palace in St Petersburg was stormed soldiers and sailors broke into the Tsar’s cellars, and the drains ran with some of the finest wine in Europe. And soldiers lay drunk in the gutters. Wine was not the emblem of the revolution but it was a solace. What is going to be the solace of the Kublai revolution? Given what is fairly widely known of the early preference of many of its leading lights – I will not be more specific – could it be pot? If that is the case, is there a glimmer of hope? For could not pot – charas in the vernacular – lead to a light loosening of the strings of Prohibition? Or will there be a continued run on hypocrisy? On the subject of hypocrisy, must the standard-bearers of revolution make a spectacle of their prayers on stage? Whom are they trying to impress? Such a public effusion may leave even sinners like me with wet eyes but if it becomes standard practice it is likely to become a bit wearisome...too much of a good thing. A word also about the soulful music at the Kublai rallies, especially when the theme gets tragic and Imran speaks of all that has gone wrong with the Islamic Republic. The choreographers went soulful even in Chakwal and the results were hilarious. If there is to be music there are so many stirring marches to choose from – Mozart (Turkish march), Beethoven (his military music is fantastic), Schubert, etc. But I suppose this is a tall order. If Imran were the only drumbeater around, the only apostle of change, it would still be bearable. But Pakistan is suffering from a surfeit of Lenins, Pakistani politicians somehow convinced that unless they intone the word inquilab they are not coming up to the mark. Thus the ensuing catastrophe of even the Sharif brothers playing the same symphony, Nawaz Sharif unable to deliver a speech without mentioning revolution and Punjab’s Khadim-e-Aala leaving audiences spellbound with his rendition of Jalib’s “mein nahin manta, mein nahin janta”. Nawaz Sharif has a keen sense of humour and laughs easily. Does the irony escape him that coming from him, one of Pakistan’s leading plutocrats, talk of revolution sounds a bit thick? But I suppose it doesn’t pay to be over-sensitive in Pakistani politics. At this point, unless I sound too jarring, may I put in a word for the mayhem let loose on ‘Pindi Board first year students by the computer revolution set in motion by the Khadim-e-Aala? They have been denied what in the jargon is called ‘objective marks’ which will make them suffer when they seek admission in such places as NUST and FAST and so on. Let the Khadim-e-Aala be grateful that the media have other eggs to fry. Otherwise, the ineptitude on display on the part of Punjab’s education mandarins under his command would be a firing squad matter in any other climate. The affected students don’t deserve this. Lest we forget, this is in the land of good governance. A relatively simple matter like getting papers marked correctly turns into a laughing blunder but, let all doubts be set at rest, we will change the destiny of Pakistan. It is a relief to turn from Kublai Khan and other Lenins to the PPP, the relief coming from the lack of hypocrisy in a party not afraid of turning itself into a laughingstock. President Zardari and the PPP are what they are without guise or makeup, warts and all unconcealed, with mercifully no talk of revolution and little pretence at being what they are not. In telephone conversations the president tries to sound like a global statesman but that is not hypocrisy. Perhaps he really thinks that he operates at that level. The other parties and their leaders are too stuffy and self-righteous, including Kublai. The eleventh commandment could well be “Thou shalt not be self-righteous”...although one would have a hard time enforcing it in the broad spaces of the Islamic Republic. The twelfth commandment could be “Thou shalt not be boring”. Rehbar-e-Tehrik Altaf Hussain is not boring, never is. It is always a spectacle watching him deliver his long-distance orations, and a treat watching the looks of patient suffering on the faces of his captive audiences. When he is funny he can be impish, his take on the Khadim-e-Aala’s Jalib singing an example of this. He has also been known to talk of revolution but he doesn’t labour the point, as Nawaz Sharif does, in season and out. I suppose as a natural comic Altaf Hussain is not self-righteous, currently the foremost Pakistani disease. The firebrands of the Pakistan Defence Council recently held a most impressive show at Minto Park. (Where do these guys get their funding from?) Dubbed by uncharitable critics as Gen Pasha’s own hussars – ah, when will we be rid of conspiracy theories? – I have a great deal of empathy for this outfit, especially some of its firebrands who are more engaging company than many of the worthies in Pakistani politics out to save the nation, and who make your eyes glaze as they hold forth. I have friends amongst the Council such as the Islamic scholar, Allama Tahir Ashrafi, a portly divine with a sharp sense of humour and hence also a man of the world. And I look with great respect, and no little inward amusement, at that staunch pillar of the faith, the reverend Maulana Samiul Haq, spiritual godfather, Allah be praised, of the Taliban movement. But some of my empathy also flows from the rumour – alas, only a rumour – that among the other facets of the Pakistan Defence Council there also lurks a potent Vodka Wing. The great Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was not above taking a glass on the sly. This we have from Sardar Khushwant Singh. Far better something like that than wearing one’s religion on stage: it is enough to reaffirm one’s faith in human nature, and the future of Pakistan. Don’t we take ourselves too seriously? Mansoor Ijaz, the great patriot taken to heart by Gen Pasha, has informed us of an S Wing in the ISI’s hallowed confines. If there was a Vodka Wing besides, we would be a less paranoid country. Tailpiece: At last some arguments in the Supreme Court about the meaning and import of Article 184 (3) of the Constitution which leave one’s heart refreshed. Chiefs of the security establishment may yet discover that by conferring the highest patriotic award on the outlandish Mansoor Ijaz, they may have waded into waters more deep than they imagined. Well done, Asma Jahangir. REFERENCE: The many Lenins of Pakistan Ayaz Amir Friday, December 30, 2011

Imran Khan Flase Allegations on MMA & Intelligence Agencies (Jirga - 23 Dec 2011)

* In Musharraf, I saw a reformer; I was wrong * Agencies deprived us of winnable candidates * The economy has sunk and poverty increased * I was offered a top job * We are now organising our party * This is a fight between the establishment and democratic forces * Candidates withdraw when they see that the establishment is against you Imran Khan, chief of his Tehreek-e-Insaaf, is a maverick politician. He won his seat from Mianwali with a thumping majority, is adored by Pakistanis for his contribution to cricket and social welfare. And yet, his party refuses to take off and most people consider him a political novice who doesn’t know how to chalk out the right political course. He is also seen as wavering between his past liberalism and today’s almost rightwing conservative ideas. His party has been going from bad to worse; recently, one of his stalwarts left the party accusing Imran of running the party autocratically. When General Pervez Musharraf took over in October 1999, Imran came very close to him but parted ways when he saw Musharraf indulging in political wheeling-dealing. Today, Imran stands in the opposition. Daily Times’ Karachi Resident Editor Sarfaraz Ahmed met him for a tough-talking interview in Karachi. Below are the excerpts:
Daily Times: Let’s begin with the resignation of your party’s secretary general Mairaj Mohammad Khan.

Imran Khan: I feel sad that Mairaj Mohammad Khan who really worked hard for the party has left feeling bitter. It is unfortunate. We wanted to reorganise our party and give him another position. The secretary general is really the key position around which the party revolves; it is the person that organises the entire party. And Mairaj Mohammad Khan is a different type of politician, basically a street politician, who makes great speeches and is good with the workers. So we wanted to give the job of organisation to someone else. But he took it badly and left. But people come and go in parties and this does not affect parties until they stick to their ideology. Look at the mass defection in Pakistan People’s Party, look at PML (N). It doesn’t mean they will be finished in the next elections. They might actually make a comeback. It all depends on whether people perceive what the party stands for.

DT: But Mairaj Mohammad Khan has raised important issues in his resignation letter. He is highly critical of how you have been running the party?

IK: There’s no point in talking about that. That letter was written in anger. Whatever he wrote was in the heat of the moment. He seemed hurt.

DT: But Mairaj is not the only person. Another important office-bearer, Azhar, has also resigned.

IK: Azhar would go wherever Mairaj goes. When Mairaj talked to the press, Azhar was sitting with him.

DT: Have you accepted his resignation?

IK: Well (laughing), if you go to the press then what choice are others left with?

DT: What do you think of the present state of Pakistan’s politics?

IK: We keep saying that Pakistan is at a crossroads. What does that mean? It means whether our institutions will prevail over the establishment. It is a fight between the establishment, wanting to retain its power over the institutions, which it has done more or less so far and the supremacy of parliament. If democrats win this battle and if they manage to have 1973 constitution reinstated in toto, then we will have a situation where perhaps for the first time the establishment will have lost to political and democratic forces.

DT: You were bitterly critical of the PPP and the PML-N. You seem to have moved away from that position towards accommodation. Why?

IK: Sadly, it is absolutely true. I supported Gen [Pervez] Musharraf because I felt and believed that he could deliver, clean up the judicial system, which is the biggest problem, strengthen the Election Commission, have across-the-board accountability, and hold free and fair elections. If he had done that he would have created a niche for himself. I freely admit my mistake. Before the elections I had a choice. Ours was probably the only party that had the choice either to join or go along with the establishment party or actually risk being wiped out as we almost did. We were deprived of four of our winnable candidates by three agencies. The moment people realise that the establishment is against a party they cower. Contesting elections needs big money. Who wants to spend that kind of money in fighting the establishment and losing? So all our eligible candidates disappeared and we were nearly wiped out. The Musharraf government thought I was in for a piece of cake like others [laughs] while I mistakenly thought Musharraf genuinely wanted to reform the system. I wasn’t interested to be part of their sham and they weren’t interested in reforms.

DT: Did Musharraf convey to you through the agencies that you would be the next prime minister?

IK: No. I was never told I would be the prime minister. I was made to understand that I could really get a good post, possibly the top job. Look at the power the Patriots have. I mean look at it in terms of their parliamentary strength and in terms of the share in the government. It is disproportionate. So I guess I would have been one of those if I had played along.

DT: But you were sure you would become the PM?

IK: Not for a minute did I even consider it. All I am saying is that this was in the end when they negotiated with me and asked me to join the National Alliance.

DT: Was that after the referendum?

IK: That’s when they came after the referendum. I wasn’t buying. They told me ‘listen you are missing out’. Later, they said I’d not even win my own seat.

DT: But you did win your seat.

IK: I won my seat only because there was a popular revolution in Mianwali. Even though all the traditional political houses that have fought each other for thirty years combined to defeat me. That was done by the agencies, but the popular will supported me.

DT: But still...

IK: My opponent who was supported by the establishment had secured 30,000 votes in the previous elections. In the October election, the agencies got him 61,000 votes. I guess they [the agencies] thought that was enough. But the common man returned me with record number of votes.

DT: But your party did not fare well elsewhere?

IK: Look at the problem people don’t understand in Pakistan. Everyone knows the PML-N has the vote-bank and ‘Q’ has no vote-bank. PML-N has barely got 13 seats in the Punjab where they have been in power for fifteen years. How does one explain that? Even in Lahore, the PML-N despite its vote could not get all the seats. So it is the question of getting the right candidates. If your candidates are strong, you will be able to pick up your vote-bank. You also need finances. When our confrontation started with the establishment, we were left with no time and couldn’t groom our own candidates. Those who would have thrown in their lot with us realised the establishment was backing ‘Q’ and so they backed off. Some of them were very straightforward and told us they just could not waste their money.

DT: So you are satisfied with the party’s performance?

IK: No, I am not. That’s why we want to reorganise. We are now developing the party to be able to contest and win elections. We will now groom our own candidates. We are not going to be ever in a position where we are at the mercy of attracting other candidates.

DT: Prime Minister Jamali says the democratic process would come to an end if the opposition does not relent on the LFO issue.

IK: The democratic process has hardly begun. How could it come to an end? This is not democracy. The prime minister calls the president his ‘ boss’ while we have a parliamentary system. The real power is with the president, while the responsibility lies with the prime minister. How can the system work? I don’t know what democracy he is talking about. This is like one of the ‘banana republic’ democracies. The only thing going for us is the free press. We have had rigged elections and the only force that has defied the establishment is of course the MMA.

DT: What are your views on LFO?

IK: The issue and the debate mainly revolve round one point, the uniform. I don’t understand how we can call ourselves a democracy if we have an army chief as president; a grade-22 officer sitting on top of the prime minister. This is not a democracy. I feel very strongly that the only compromise can be that the president doffs his uniform and seek election through the assemblies.

DT: What do you see in the near future?

IK: I don’t see the problem getting any easier. I see a system that is unworkable because of a basic anomaly. This system is going to destroy itself sooner or later. The only way out is for Musharraf to become the president sans his uniform.

DT: How is the economy doing?

IK: September 11 has given Pakistan a window of opportunity. Please bear in mind that before Sept 11, this government had devalued the rupee by 20%. Anyway, thanks to that event, the rupee has stabilized; that’s good. We have reserves. But the biggest disservice this government has done to the common man is reducing the deficit by increasing the prices of utilities. If you collect money through indirect taxes and reduce the deficit, you reduce the deficit, but at what cost. That has broken the common man’s back. There is stagflation and the government has cut down on development expenditures. It should be making infrastructural investment. Its actions are only worsening the recession, though we keep hearing that the economy is picking up. So that’s the one point. But the other point is, I can’t see the economy picking up if there is so much political instability. Who is going to invest? Investment is directly related to political stability and good governance. * REFERENCE: HARDtalk: "MMA is the only political force that has defied the establishment..." Sunday, June 15, 2003 

Imran Khan "ACCEPTS" Lotas & Loses Upright Meraj Muhammad Khan - 4 (Dunya TV 27-1-10)

Way Back in 2003

KARACHI: The leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Mairaj Muhammad Khan, has resigned from the office of Secretary-General and as member of Central Executive Committee in protest against the attitude of party chief Imran Khan who, he says, is managing party affairs through his non-political friends. Mairaj announced his resignation at a Press conference on Friday at the Karachi Press Club. He said after working for over five years with Imran Khan, he had come to the conclusion that the party chief and some of his "non-political" colleagues wishing to build and run the party affairs beyond the realm of experience and comprehension of the Secretary-General. He said it was tragedy that Imran failed to build a party that could lead the people in the struggle to change the oppressive system while the great goals and objectives could only be achieved by great struggle and sacrifices through a strong and organised set-up. The PTI leader said that unfortunately those at the helm of affairs did not share a common vision and many of them were devoid of all conviction and commitment and were not interested even in rendering the slightest sacrifice. He said that the Imran and his friends knew that they would lose their monopoly and control over the party if it developed into a real democratic force as then genuine political workers would join the PTI. He alleged that these elements were creating factionalism, disunity, and lack of discipline in the organisation, and didn't refrain from facilitating the entry of dubious characters, and even criminals into the party, so as to render it ineffective. Mairaj said that the party could have trained and created excellent leaders and workers but there was no collective leadership, no political direction, no political activity or struggle, or enforcement of decisions and accountability. The rank and file, therefore, became disillusioned and the party was gradually reduced to a 'fan club'. He said that the party chief nominated his friends as chief organisers and chief campaign managers who were not really interested in building the party image and made no serious preparations for the local bodies polls or general elections. Mairaj pointed out that the basic strategy and efforts of these elements were to seek government support to reach the corridors of power. He pointed out they gave the analysis that as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were out in the wilderness, the PTI, was the best choice of the military regime, which would then be forced to send strong "constituency candidates" to contest the elections on behalf of the PTI. He said that the party chief and his friends supported the referendum of Gen Musharraf to achieve this task which had no moral, legal, or political justification, and which lowered the standing in the democratic circles and completely alienated the party from the masses. He said the public meetings in Lahore and Rawalpindi, and the strategy for both the local and general elections also flopped. According to him, the "miracle" they expected did not take place and when it become clear that the government was in fact patronising the PML-Q, Imran strongly rejected the strategy of 'collaboration' and started attacking the Chaudhury's of Gujrat. It was, however, already too late, Mairaj said, adding, "cricket is by chance but politics certainly is not." He said during the last many years the country had been in the grip of severe inflation, unemployment, "honour" killings, ethnic and sectarian violence, and terrorism. He said the 1973 Constitution had been violated by the LFO and the supremacy of parliament itself had been undermined but the party did nothing to protest, demonstrate, and mobilise the masses on these burning issues. He said that the duality, lack of discipline, and disorder had paralysed the party and party was working as a commercial or social welfare organisation. Mairaj advised Imran that a political party could not lead the people if it was being run through personal friends, retired civil and military officials, and professional managers, like a pressure group or an NGO. He said that Imran was the hero of the World Cup for the people but they did, not accept him as a deliverer (Nijaat Dahanda) or the political leader. He pointed out that for the present, there was no elected organ in the party other than the central office-bearers while all other elected provincial organisations had been unnecessarily dissolved which created a leadership crisis. He said the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the policies had created confusion within the party, whether it was an Islamic democratic, social-democratic party or a Left-wing, Right-wing, or Centrist party. Mairaj said that Imran and he jointly finalised the names for the Central Executive Committee last month but Imran subsequently violated and announced that all those invited to the meeting on April 6 in Islamabad, would become members of the CEC, for six months. He said being Secretary-General of the party, he disagreed on this step of the party chief and decided to resign from the CEC and SG posts. REFERENCE: Mairaj resigns from post of PTI secretary-general By our correspondent

No comments: