This is the Muslim predicament. The new millennium has not seen the Muslims moving closer to the modern state but revolting against it. The politicians and the people are scared of discussing the problem but they are privately absorbing the debate. The private channels have done a few good things and a few bad ones, always following the market. They have downgraded religion to a mantra by following the istikhara market, but they have also begun discussing religion and its relationship with the state seriously. Is Pakistan being affected by this discourse? Not yet. Significantly, the politicians are staying away from the debate. GEO (January 1, 2006) discussed Islam and the state in Fifty Minutes, Dr Mubarak Ali said that religion did not mix well with the state. He said talk of ijtihad was meaningless because there was no guarantee that any Muslims would accept it. He said every time someone did ijtihad it gave birth to a new sect. He said the two-nation doctrine was no longer valid in Pakistan. The concept of ummah was equally irrelevant. He said if the Muslims wanted to get together they should create a bloc of states but not based on religion. Religion must remain in the private domain. The nation-state was the reality in our times. It was no longer possible to discriminate against the non-Muslims on the excuse of Islam. He said before 1947 ideology had no reference in what was later called the Pakistan Movement. REFERENCE: SECOND OPINION: Who is listening to the ‘new debate’?— Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review - Daily Times, January 21, 2006 New Debate in Pakistan: Religion and State? Hassan Abbas TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006 http://watandost.blogspot.com/2006/02/new-debate-in-pakistan-religion-and.html
SECOND OPINION: Who is listening to the ‘new debate’?—Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review Tuesday, February 21, 2006 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\21\story_21-2-2006_pg3_3
Ghulam Ahmed Parwez & Mullahs.
The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure). In none of the writings of the Jama’at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite: “Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all. [Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25] Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: “Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path.” [Reference: The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37] Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi’s writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contrad...ictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: “Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work.” [Reference: Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman] (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23] He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims ...were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941). However, Maulana Maududi’s stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed at that critical moment. [Reference: Ulema in Politics by Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi , p-368]
Takfir or the condemnation of a Muslim by another Muslim as a kafir is strictly prohibited in the Quran, the Hadith, and the writings of many eminent Muslim authorities. This section presents quotes from the Quran, Hadith, and Muslim theologians on the prohibition of Takfir (calling a Muslim as a kafir). Also, the view held by Muslim theologians' that a person cannot be called kafir on the grounds that he differs with a commonly-accepted interpretation of some religious point. One chief argument advanced by our opponents is that Ahmadis are kafir because the leaders of various Muslim groups have issued fatwas (rulings) against them, describing them as kafir. But the fact is that all these sects have also issued fatwas of the same sort against each other. Their fatwas declare Muslims to be kafir on the most trivial grounds. Therefore by this argument, every Muslim in the world can be proved to be a kafir! Ghulam Ahmad Pervez of Lahore is a well-known Pakistani Islamic thinker and writer, representing the Ahl-i Quran tendency, and founder of the Idara Tulu`-i-Islam (Institute of the Dawn of Islam). In the monthly journal of this institute, entitled Tulu`-i-Islam, dated August 1969, there is an extensive article headed Fatwas of Kufr (Rulings of Heresy) quoting fatwas of various Sunni groups condemning one another as kafir. All but the first two and the last section are taken from this article.
"``The non-conformist (ghair muqallid) sect, whose distinctive outward manner [of prayer] in this country is saying Amen aloud, raising the hands [during the prayer], folding the arms on the chest, and reciting the Al-Hamd behind the Imam, are excluded from the Sunnis, and are like other misguided sects, because many of their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. It is not permissible to pray behind them. To mix with them socially and sit with them, and to let them enter mosques at their pleasure, is prohibited in Islamic Shari`ah.''
(This bears the seals of nearly seventy Ulama. Reference the book: Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabis from mosques, p. 8.)
``He who calls conformism (taqlid) as prohibited, and conformists as polytheists, is a kafir according to Islamic Shari`ah, and in fact a murtadd [apostate].''
(Book: Discipline of mosques with regard to the expulsion of mischief-makers from mosques)
``It is obligatory upon the Ulama and Muftis that, by merely hearing of such a thing, they should not hesitate to issue fatwas of heresy and apostasy. Otherwise, they themselves would be included among the apostates.''
Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, has quoted the beliefs of all sections of the non-conformists, and given the fatwa:
``All these groups are murtadd and kafir. He who doubts their being kafirs, is himself a kafir.''(Book Hisam al Haramain)"(Tulu'-i-Islam, August, 1969)
"``Question: What say the Ulama and the Muftis regarding the conformist (muqallid) group, who follow only one Imam [i.e. Hanafis]. Are they Sunnis or not? Is it valid to pray behind them or not? Is it permissible to allow them into mosques, and to mix with them socially?
``Answer: Undoubtedly, prayers are not permissible behind conformists because their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. In fact, some of their beliefs and practices lead to polytheism, and others spoil prayers. It is not correct in Islamic Shari`ah to allow such conformists into mosques.''
(This bears the seals of nineteen priests. (Reference the book: Collection of Fatwas, pp. 54,--,55)
The late Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan wrote:
``The word polytheist can be applied to conformists, and polytheism can be applied to conformism. Most people today are conformists. The Quranic verse, `Most people believe not, they are but polytheists', applies quite well to them.''
(Iqtarab as-Sa`a, p. 16)
Not only Hanafis, but all of them:
``The followers of all the four Imams and the followers of the four Sufi orders, viz. Hanafi, Shafi`i, Maliki, Hanbali, Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, Naqshbandiyya and Mujaddidiyya are all kafirs.''
(Jami al-Shuhood, p. 2)"
(Tulu'-i-Islam, August 1969)
"Fatwa of three hundred Ulama against Deobandis
``The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets, and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is himself a murtadd and kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them, and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grave-yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.'' (See the Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama, published by Muhammad Ibrahim of Bhagalpur)
Deobandis should be declared non-Muslim minority
In March 1953, a poster was put up on walls in Karachi titled:
``Demands: Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority''.
Among other things it said:
``Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.''
After this it was demanded that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 persons
(see Tulu`-i-Islam, May 1953, p. 64).
Fatwa of Deobandis against Barelvis
Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband has, in his book, tried to show that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir, Anti- Christ of this century, murtadd, and excluded from Islam.
(See the booklet Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir.)The opposite side
Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelvi) has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi (founder of the school at Deoband) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (of Deoband), and then added:
``They are all murtadd [apostate] according to the unanimous view (ijma) of Muslims.''
This fatwa bears the signatures and seals of Ulama of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir :
1.They deny the finality of prophethood;
2.They insult the Holy Prophet;
3.They believe that God can tell a lie.
Hence it is written about them:
``He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.''
(Hisam al-Haramain, pp. 100 and 113)"
(Tulu'-i-Islam, August 1969)
"You will have seen that all the sects, whether Hanafis, Ahl-i Hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi, and all the Sufi orders such as Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, etc., have had fatwas of heresy and apostasy pronounced against them. And not only sects, but the prominent men of these sects have had fatwas directed against them individually.
Maulana Nazir Husain of Delhi (Ahl-i Hadith) was called disputant, doubter, follower of base passions, jealous, dishonest and alterer (of the Quran).
Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalavi, along with the above Maulana, was called devil, atheist, stupid, senseless, faithless, etc. This fatwa bears the seals of 82 Ulama of Arabia and elsewhere.
(Book Nazar al-Haq)
Maulana Sana-Ullah of Amritsar (Ahl-i Hadith) had fatwas directed against him which were obtained in Makka. It is written about his commentary of the Quran:
``It is the writing of a misguided person, one who has invented new doctrines. In his commentary he has collected beliefs such as re-incarnation and the doctrines of the Mu`tazila [an early extreme Muslim sect]. It is neither permissible to obtain knowledge from Maulana Sana-ullah, nor to follow him. His evidence cannot be accepted, nor can he lead prayers. There is no doubt regarding his heresy and apostasy… His commentary deserves to be cut to pieces. In fact, it is forbidden to see it except for the purpose of refuting it.''
(Faisila Makka, pp. 15--20)
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi):
Referring to an article of his, the weekly Tarjuman Islam of Lahore carried the following extract in its issue for 10 November 1961:
``Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, Deobandi, was a first-rate scholar and servant of Quran and Hadith. He needs no introduction. But one was very shocked by a letter of his which contained the grotesque idea of the denial of Hadith. This concept goes beyond the Mu`tazila, and breaks the records of the ideologies of Chakralvi and Pervez.''
All those whose record is said to be broken by Husain Ahmad Madani, have had fatwas of kufr directed against them. This makes it clear that Maulana Madani too is considered a kafir.
Abul Ala Maudoodi and his party have been the subject of fatwas by Ulama of nearly every sect.
1. Mufti Muhzar-ullah, of Jami Fatehpuri in Delhi, wrote in his fatwa:
``On the very face of it, these things [beliefs of Maudoodi's party] exclude a Muslim from the Sunnis, and lead to divisions among the believers, and is the basis of making a new sect. But looking closely, these things take one to heresy. In this case, they do not make a new sect, but result in one's entry into the group of apostates.''
2. Maulana Hafiz-ullah of Aligarh has written:
``Whatever was the position of the Zarar mosque, similar is the position of this [i.e. Maudoodi's] party.''
[Note: The Zarar mosque was a mosque built by some hypocrite Muslims in Madina during the Holy Prophet's time for the purpose of conspiring against Islam].
The word kufr is used about the Zarar mosque in the Holy Quran. Hence the same word applies to these people.
3. Maulana Izaz Ali, Deobandi, wrote in his fatwa:
``I consider this [i.e. Maudoodi's] party to be even more harmful for the faith of the Muslims than are the Ahmadis.''
4. Mufti Sayyid Mahdi Hasan, President-Mufti of the theological school at Deoband, writes in his fatwa:
``If an Imam of a mosque agrees with the views of Maudoodi, it is a hateful matter to pray behind him.''
5. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi) wrote in a letter to Maudoodi:
``Your `Islamic' movement is against the righteous tradition in Islam. It is like the [extremist] sects of old such as Mu`tazila, Khwarij and Rafiz. It resembles modern sects such as Qadiani, Chakralvi [deniers of Hadith], Naturi [rationalist], and Baha'i [i.e. the Baha'i religion]. It seeks to make a new Islam. It is based on principles, beliefs and practices which are against the Sunnis and Islam.''
6. The Committee of Ulama of Maulana Ahmad Ali wrote in a poster against Maudoodi:
``His reasoning is devilry against the Quran.''
It is then added:
``May God save all Muslims from Maudoodi and the evil and deceit of his so-called Islamic Party.''
Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan [prominent Muslim modernist leader and founder of the Aligarh University for Muslims, d. 1898]:
In his biography Hayat-i Jawaid by Maulana Hali, the storm of condemnation and takfir against Sir Sayyid is fully detailed. Read some of these lines:
``Sir Sayyid was called atheist, irreligious, Christian, nature-worshipper, anti-Christ, and many other things. Fatwas that he was a kafir were prepared, and signatures of Maulavis of every town and city were obtained. Even those who remained silent against Sir Sayyid as regards takfir, were called kafir.''
``All the Muslim sects in India, be they Sunni or Shiah, conformist or non-conformist, the seals and signatures of the known and unknown Ulama and priests of all these are on these fatwas.''
A fatwa was obtained from Makka, bearing the seals of Muftis of all the four schools, in which it was written:
``This man is an heretic, or he was inclined to unbelief (kufr) from Islamic law in some aspect…If he repents before he is arrested, and turns away from his misguided views, and there are clear signs of repentance from him, then he should not be killed. Otherwise, it is obligatory to kill him for the sake of the faith.''
Jinnah and Iqbal [revered in Pakistan as fathers of the nation]:
Sir Sayyid had at least expressed views on religious matters. But these people also called Jinnah as ``the great kafir''. Even a true believer like Iqbal had a fatwa of kufr directed against him."
(Tulu'-i-Islam, August 1969)
Ghulam Ahmad Pervez, founder of the movement which publishes Tulu`-i-Islam, from which the last five sections were taken, was himself the subject of fatwas such as these two quoted below:1. ``Ghulam Ahmad Pervez is a kafir according to Islamic Shari`ah, and excluded from the pale of Islam. No Muslim woman can remain married to him, nor can a Muslim woman enter into marriage with him. His funeral prayers cannot be said, nor is it permissible to bury him in a Muslim grave-yard. This applies not only to Pervez, but to every kafir. It also applies to any person who is a follower of his in these heretic beliefs. As he has become an apostate (murtadd), it is not permitted by the Shari`ah to have any kind of Islamic relations with him.''
``Signed: Wali Hasan Tonki, Mufti and teacher,
``Muhammad Yusuf Banori, Shaikh al-Hadith,
``Madrasa Arabiyya Islamiyya, New Town, Karachi.''
2. An organ of Maudoodi's Jama`at-i Islami gave the following fatwa about Pervez's followers:
``If they say that Shari`ah is only that which is contained in the Quran, and all that is besides this is not Shari`ah, then this is clear heresy. It is the same kind of heresy as the heresy of the Qadianis. In fact it is worse and more extreme than that.'' (article by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi, in the daily Tasneem, Lahore, 15 August 1952, p. 12)
One of the most famous public documents in the history of Pakistan is known commonly as the Munir Report, its official title being: Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. The disturbances referred to were instigated by a number of religious leaders (ulama) in pursuance of their demand that the government officially classify Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority community, and take certain other actions against members of this movement.
The disturbances were eventually quelled by the authorities, and a public court of inquiry appointed with Justice Muhammad Munir as president and Justice Kayani as member to investigate the causes of the trouble. The inquiry went into the underlying issues behind the events, carrying out an incisive analysis of the ulama's concept of an Islamic state. Its 387-page Report, which soon became a historic document, was presented in April 1954.
Referring to the ulama's call for Pakistan to be run as an official `Islamic' state, and to their demands against Ahmadis, the Report says:
``The question, therefore, whether a person is or is not a Muslim will be of fundamental importance, and it was for this reason that we asked most of the leading ulama to give their definition of a Muslim, the point being that if the ulama of the various sects believed the Ahmadis to be kafirs, they must have been quite clear in their minds not only about the grounds of such belief but also about the definition of a Muslim because the claim that a certain person or community is not within the pale of Islam implies on the part of the claimant an exact conception of what a Muslim is. The result of this part of the inquiry, however, has been anything but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be. Below we reproduce the definition of a Muslim given by each alim in his own words.''
There then follow in the Report the answers given by various ulama to the question, What is the definition of a Muslim. At the end of the answers, the Report draws the following conclusion:
``Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else.''
After this, under the heading Apostasy, the Report refers to the belief held by the ulama that, in an Islamic state, a Muslim who becomes a kafir is subject to the death penalty. The Report says:
``According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i-Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, if Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri or Mirza Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, or any one of the numerous ulama who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautiful tree in the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 14, were the head of such Islamic State. And if Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi were the head of the State, he would exclude those who have pronounced Deobandis as kafirs from the pale of Islam and inflict on them the death penalty if they come within the definition of murtadd, namely, if they have changed and not inherited their religious views.
``The genuineness of the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 13, by the Deobandis which says that Asna Ashari Shias are kafirs and murtadds, was questioned in the course of enquiry, but Maulana Muhammad Shafi made an inquiry on the subject from Deoband, and received from the records of that institution the copy of a fatwa signed by all the teachers of the Darul Uloom, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi himself which is to the effect that those who do not believe in the sahabiyyat of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and who are qazif of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa and have been guilty of tehrif of Quran are kafirs. This opinion is also supported by Mr Ibrahim Ali Chishti who has studied and knows his subject. He thinks the Shias are kafirs because they believe that Hazrat Ali shared the prophethood with our Holy Prophet. He refused to answer the question whether a person who being a Sunni changes his view and agrees with the Shia view would be guilty of irtidad so as to deserve the death penalty. According to the Shias all Sunnis are kafirs, and Ahl-i-Quran, namely, persons who consider hadith to be unreliable and therefore not binding, are unanimously kafirs, and so are all independent thinkers. The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim. If the constituents of each of the definitions given by the ulama are given effect to, and subjected to the rule of `combination and permutation' and the form of charge in the Inquisition's sentence on Galileo is adopted mutatis mutandis as a model, the grounds on which a person may be indicted for apostasy will be too numerous to count.''
Jamaat e Islami Go Amarica Go Exposed On Live Tv دھوکے باز غیرتمند
Jamat-e-Islami & Mawdudis' Fatwa of Apostasy against Those who are not in Jamat-e-Islami
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 1
A prominent Islamic scholar has launched a blistering attack on Pakistan's blasphemy laws, warning that failure to repeal them will only strengthen religious extremists and their violent followers. "The blasphemy laws have no justification in Islam. These ulema [council of clerics] are just telling lies to the people," said Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a reformist scholar and popular television preacher. "But they have become stronger, because they have street power behind them, and the liberal forces are weak and divided. If it continues like this it could result in the destruction of Pakistan." Ghamidi, 59, is the only religious scholar to publicly oppose the blasphemy laws since the assassination of the Punjab governor, Salmaan Taseer, on 4 January. He speaks out at considerable personal risk. Ghamidi spoke to the Guardian from Malaysia, where he fled with his wife and daughters last year after police foiled a plot to bomb their Lahore home. "It became impossible to live there," he said. Their fears were well founded: within months Taliban gunmen assassinated Dr Farooq Khan, a Ghamidi ally also famous for speaking out, at his clinic in the north-western city of Mardan. The scholar's troubles highlight the shrinking space for debate in Pakistan, where Taseer's death has emboldened the religious right, prompting mass street rallies in favour of his killer, Mumtaz Qadri. Liberal voices have been marginalised; many fear to speak out. Mainstream political parties have crumbled, led by the ruling Pakistan People's party, which declared it will never amend the blasphemy law. Sherry Rehman, a PPP parliamentarian who proposed changes to the legislation, was herself charged with blasphemy this week. Since Taseer's death she has been confined to her Karachi home after numerous death threats, some issued publicly by clerics. Although other Islamic scholars share Ghamidi's views on blasphemy, none dared air them so forcefully. "Ghamidi is a voice of reason in a babble of noises seemingly dedicated to irrationality," said Ayaz Amir, an opposition politician and opinion columnist. Ghamidi's voice stands out because he attacks the blasphemy law on religious grounds. While secular critics say it is abused to persecute minorities and settle scores, Ghamidi says it has no foundation in either the Qur'an or the Hadith – the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. "Nothing in Islam supports this law," he said. Ghamidi deserted the country's largest religious political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, to set up his own school of religious teaching. He came to public attention through a series of television shows on major channels. They were cancelled due to opposition from the mullahs, he said. "They told the channels there would be demonstrations if I wasn't taken off air." Three years ago gunmen fired a pistol into the mouth of the editor of Ghamidi's magazine; last year the police foiled a plot to bomb his home and school. Now the school is closed. The core problem, Ghamidi said, was the alliance between Pakistan's "establishment" – code for the military – and Islamist extremists it uses to fight in Kashmir and Afghanistan. "They are closely allied," he said. The blasphemy debate has exposed painful rifts in Pakistani society. One Ghamidi follower said his father, a British-educated engineer, called him an infidel for attacking the controversial law. "Our society is tearing itself apart," he said. Tariq Dhamial, a lawyer representing Mumtaz Qadri, said more than 800 lawyers had offered to represent the self-confessed killer. "Everyone is behind Qadri. Doctors, teachers, labourers, even police – they believe he did the right thing," Dhamial said.Dhamial said the police intended to hold Qadri's trial in jail but the lawyers wanted it heard in open court. The latest hearing is due next Tuesday. Even when out of Pakistan, Ghamidi features on television shows by phone, often outwitting extremist clerics with his deep knowledge of the Qur'an. But he eschews terms such as "liberal". "I am neither Islamist nor secular. I am a Muslim and a democrat," he said. But even allies question whether religious argument alone can win the sulphurous blasphemy debate. "When you talk about religion, you only provoke the forces of reaction who become more intolerant. Then governments become frightened and retreat," said Amir. "Ghamidi's is a voice for the converted. But that won't solve our problem." • This article was amended on 21 January 2011. The original referred to Jamaat-e-Islami as Pakistan's largest religious political party. This has been corrected. REFERENCE: Islamic scholar attacks Pakistan's blasphemy laws In the wake of Salmaan Taseer's murder, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi declares Islamic councils are "telling lies to the people" Declan Walsh in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 January 2011 16.43 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/islam-ghamidi-pakistan-blasphemy-laws
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 2
Barelvism originally emerged as a reaction against the propagation of several new streams of Islamic thought-including, though not limited to, the Deobandis. Ahmed Raza himself painstakingly developed refutations of Deobandism, the Ahl-e-Hadith (whom the Barelvis decry as the "Wahhabis" of South Asia), as well as the minority Ahmadi sect. What has conventionally distinguished the Barelvis from the Deobandis and Ahl-e-Hadith is the latter two's notoriously puritan understanding and austere practice of Islam, which the Barelvis reject as unorthodox. While performing the Hajj in 1906, Ahmed Raza asked the ulemas of Mecca and Medina to endorse his fatwas and refutations of the teachings of Deobandis and other new schools of thought in South Asia. (Mecca and Medina were then under Ottoman rule, and the authority of the religious scholars in these two holy cities was at the time recognized across the Islamic world.) The Arab scholars, according to the Barelvis, agreed fully with Ahmed Raza's propositions, and a total of twenty clerics from Mecca and thirteen from Medina endorsed Hussam al-Harmain, a book of fatwas compiled by Ahmed Raza http://www.nooremadinah.net/UrduBooks/HussamulHaramain/Download/HussamulHaramain.pdf . Most of these fatwas concern what constitutes the proper veneration of the Prophet Muhammad, and by these standards, Ahmed Raza accused the Deobandis of not bestowing sufficient respect upon the Prophet-and thus, found them guilty of heresy. After Ahmed Raza returned from Arabia to India, his anti-Deobandi fatwas began to circulate, and this put the puritan Deobandis on edge. The Deobandi scholars reacted by developing their own refutations of Ahmed Raza's teachings, accusing the Barelvi movement as well of heresy. This launched what came to be known as the "Fatwa War" between the Barelvis and Deobandis. From 1925 until now, it has been claimed, a virtually "uncountable" number of fatwas were issued by Barelvi and Deobandi scholars renouncing the other school of thought for their deviant, "un-Islamic" beliefs and practices. These fatwas have addressed a range of matters-from religion to politics, both great and small-and they have only further divided the two schools of thoughts on nearly every issue. REFERENCE: The Assertion of Barelvi Extremism by Ismail Khan Published on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 ARTICLES Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, Volume 12 http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-assertion-of-barelvi-extremism
Hussam ul Haramain حسام الحرمیں
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 3
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 4
ABARAT-E-AKABIR-2 Fabrications of Deobandi,
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 5
Jamaat Tableegh And The Deobandis