Chagatai Khan: Imran Khan, Difa-e-Pakistan Council & Curse of Sectarian Killings.

May 23, 2007: Maulana Sami ul-Haq said, Iran is not a threat to Pakistan at all. Iran is giving the United States a tough time in the region and seems quite determined to acquire nuclear power status. Muslims all over the world are happy about this move because there should be someone who has the courage to demonstrate the religious strength to look into the eyes of the United States. We support Iran. Besides, we would not allow the Pakistani leadership to toe the U.S. line in dealing with Iran, as they have done in the case of Afghanistan. Imtiaz Ali asked: IA: There has been speculation that Iran has ambitions for a "Shiite Crescent" in the Middle East. What is your opinion of this? --- Maulana Sami ul-Haq said, This is U.S. propaganda aimed at dividing the strength of Muslims. The Shiite-Sunni issue has been created by the United States just to hide its failure in Iraq and to achieve its goals in the Middle East. Besides, the United States is also creating poisonous propaganda against Iran for intervening in Iraq's affairs just to malign its position in the world community. It is baseless. I was in Iran two months ago where I held meetings with the top Iranian leadership. I urged them to counter U.S. propaganda and try to satisfy Kurds, Arabs and Sunnis. I clearly told them that if you [Iran] need the support of the whole Muslim ummah, then you have to garner support against the United States, not only from Shiites but also from Sunnis. Imtiaz Ali asked What do you think of Lashkar-e-Jangvi, TNSM and other jihadi outfits in Pakistan? Maulana Sami ul-Haq said, Lashkar-e-Jangvi and similar organizations are the continuity of the Kashmir problem. These jihadi forces were patronized by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, with full state support for their activities in Kashmir. But when Pakistan came under immense pressure, then this whole drama was wrapped up and that is why a ban was put on these jihadi organizations. It is all a dictated policy from the West. REFERENCE: The Father of the Taliban: An Interview with Maulana Sami ul-Haq Publication: Spotlight on Terror Volume: 4 Issue: 2May 23, 2007 01:23 PM Age: 5 yrs By: Imtiaz Ali http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4180&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=2feb32fe98

The General and Jihad: Pakistan Under Musharraf By Wilson John

General (R) Hamid Gul on Shia Sunni Issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SGE3244fUM

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, By Steve Coll

PESHAWAR: The Difa-e-Pakistan Council (DPC) have rejected the decision regarding the resumption of Nato supplies through Pakistani routes and announced that a countrywide protest campaign will be initiated in Peshawar on April 20. Talking to media in Peshawar where arrangements have been made for a large rally in an open ground, DPC leader said they would reject parliament’s decision with “full force on all fronts”. They said that since the Pentagon had made it clear that drone attacks would not be suspended, there was no justification for the resumption of Nato supplies through the country. “If the supply was restored then we will resist it peacefully by staging protests near its routes, as we fear that either Nato or America could send its armed forces to Pakistan on the pretext of securing the supply route,” said Maulana Samiul Haq, adding that the decision regarding the resumption of the supply line was taken by parliament overnight on the instructions of President Asif Ali Zardari. Imran Khan’s stance Meanwhile, in Lahore, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairperson Imran Khan said the restoration of the supply line was “the biggest collusion” between Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the US. He was addressing the 2012 Punjab PTI Women Convention. Imran also showed grave concern over the loss of 40,000 Pakistani soldiers in the US ‘war on terror’ and reiterated that Pakistan must stop fighting a foreign war. “We always knew that the Nato supply line would be restored since these rulers have no spine to show against the US,” said Imran. (WITH ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM our correspondent IN LAHORE) Published in The Express Tribune, April 15th, 2012. REFERENCE: Resumption of NATO supplies: DPC, PTI put their foot down over decision By Our Correspondent Published: April 15, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/364925/resumption-of-nato-supplies-dpc-pti-put-their-foot-down-over-decision/

Sheikh Waqas Akram Speech on Misuse of Blasphemy Law & Sectarian Killings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forpIXHu2m0

Difae Pakistan didn't say a single word on Shia Killing

Sunday, April 15, 2012, Jamadi-ul-Awwal 22, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/apr2012-daily/15-04-2012/u103686.htm

Former ISI Chiefs Exposing Sectarian Terrorists (ARY Dr. Shahid Masood)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbMF1YeB-Kg

LAHORE: Pakistan Ulema Counsel (PUC) Chairman Allama Tahir Ashrafi has said that easy availability of instigating literature in the market was the core reason behind the rising extremism in the country, a private TV channel reported on Wednesday. Speaking in a programme aired by the channel, Ashrafi condemned Tuesday’s bomb blast in Lahore, which took more than 10 lives and left several others injured. He said nobody in the country mulled over the post 9/11 rising wave of terrorism in the country. Literature and CDs spreading hate against all schools of thoughts was available in the markets, he said, adding that no authority in the country took action against it. He said the country was founded in the name of Islam, but there was no true Muslim in the country at present. Followers of every sect considered the others kafir (non-believer) or issue edicts alleging others of blasphemy. Such unauthorised people were in action because the authorised ulema were silent over such issues, he added. He urged ulema to lead people to the right path as uneducated maulvis were leading society towards bloodshed. Ashrafi said it was easy to blame India, America or any other country but the issue was that our own people were being brainwashed and used against fellow countrymen. The situation was created in the 80s when attempts were made to replicate the Iranian Revolution in the country. Professor Attaur Rehman Saqib was killed on false charges of blasphemy and all schools of thought kept quite at that time, he said. He said Samiul Haq formed Milli Yakjehti Council, which fell prey to politics. He said in the past, Abdul Sattar Niazi and Samiul Haq summoned all parties’ conference in which ulema from all schools of thought participated. Then the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) was formed. The government should implement the Milli Yakjehti pact, singed by Shah Ahmed Noorani, Allama Sajid Naqvi, Ziaul Haq Qasmi and all schools of thought, he added. Ashrafi condemned the US-led drone attacks, and said they should be stopped as they were killing innocent people. Religion was being politicised and ulema and media should play a positive role. All schools of thought were equally responsible for the current situation, as none spared the other, the channel reported him as saying. REFERENCE: Hate literature behind rise in extremism: Ashrafi * Pakistan Ulema Council chief says uneducated maulvis leading society towards bloodshed Daily Times Monitor Thursday, January 27, 2011 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C01%5C27%5Cstory_27-1-2011_pg7_31

Imran Khan and Sectarianism in Pakistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9I2P3pphm8

1995: KARACHI, April 9: The Milli Yakjehti Council at a meeting of its member organisations on Sunday adopted a 17-point code of ethics calling d complete ban on the issuance of recriminatory statements and use of bandying words at Friday congregations. It also demanded ban on indecent graffiti and desecration of worship places in order to get rid of sectarianism and to steer out Ummah from the abyss of odium, animosity and killings. Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan chief, Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani, who is also the president of the MYC, was in the chair. The Ulema presented proposals for a unanimous stand by thereligious organisations on sectarian and national issues. The chairman of the reconciliatory committee of the MYC, Liaquat Baloch of Jamaat-i-lslami was also present in the meeting. The task the committee has laid before it is to lesson the hawkish attitude of "the hostile organisations (SSP, TJP and SMP) and to persuade them to sit on negotiation table". The code of ethics is based on the 22-point charter compiled by 31 leading Ulema of the country in 1951 which formed the basis of the Objectives Resolution. Through a resolution the meeting urged the government to extend material support to Kashmiri freedom fighters and not to cap peaceful nuclear programme. Leaders of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat-i-Ulema-i- Islam, Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan (Noorani group), Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Sami group), Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan (Niazi group), Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan, Tehrik-i-Jaffaria Pakistan, Sipah-i-Muhammad Pakistan, both factions of Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith, Sawad-i-Azam Ahl-i-Sunnat Pakistan and others took part in the deliberations. REFERENCE: Ulema demand ban on provocative sermons, By Our Staff Reporter DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : April 13 1995 Issue : 01/14 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1995/13Ap95.html#ulem

Ahmed Ludhiyanvi's Fatwa of Apostasy Against Pakistani Shia Community

1997: LAHORE, July 6: The Milli Yakjehti Council (MYC), a grouping of religious parties representing various schools of thought, at a meeting here on Sunday, rejected the assertion that the killings going on in various parts of the country were sectarian in nature. The participants said it was possible that some foreign powers, including India and Israel, used the activists of various religious parties for their nefarious designs. However, they said, the government should inform the religious parties about the activists playing in the hands of foreign powers so that the parties could verify the facts. In case any party was found involved in the killings, the MYC would single it out, they said. They alleged that the government was not providing details of the activists arrested for their involvement in violence. "It seems that the government does not want peace in the country", they said. The Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and the Sipah-i-Muhammad Pakistan (SMP), the two rival parties allegedly killing each other's leaders and activists did not attend the meeting. The meeting was held at the Lytton Road office of the Jamaat- i-Islami and prominent among the participants were: Liaquat Baloch (Jamaat-i-Islami), Pir Ijaz Hashmi, Mohammad Khan Leghari (JUP-Noorani), Sahibzada Arif Salman Roopri (Jamaat Ahle Hadith), Reza Bhatti (TJP), Syed Abid Husain Gardezi (Mashaikh Ahle Sunnat Pakistan) and Professor Abdur Rehman Ludhianvi (Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadith). Mr Liaquat Baloch told reporters after the meeting that the participants expressed serious concern over the unrest, terrorism and sectarian killings. The religious parties, doctors, lawyers and professors were being targeted. The mosques were also being made a target of violence to create unrest among the masses. According to him, the stock exchanges had already directed their members to offer their prayers at their residences instead of going to mosques. Mr Baloch said the participants also expressed concern over the indiscriminate arrests being made by the police. He said the religious parties had no soft corner for those involved in various cases but the arrest of various people without any cogent reason was intolerable for the religious parties. REFERENCE: MYC says killings not sectarian COPYRIGHT The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 1997 & The JANG Group of Newspapers, 1997 01 July 1997 Tuesday 25 Safar 1418 http://199.238.130.165/news/Jul97/0701_10.txt

Najam Sethi on Sectarianism & Taliban in Punjab.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQyLEgtqAM4

The MMA's boycott of the inaugural session of the National Security Council remains a sort of a 'riddle inside an enigma'. How would the MMA be able to reconcile its support of the passage of the controversial (and basically undemocratic) Legal Framework Order (17th Amendment) with its boycott of the NSC - an integral part and off-shoot of the LFO? Regardless of polemics, the MMA marshalled its parliamentary vote for the LFO as an expedient pro-democracy measure, irrespective of the fact that the LFO tended to violate both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. How can a popularly elected parliament through a joint session at all allow an elected president to stay in his military uniform as army chief even for a short period of time? Ayub, Yahya and Zia all forged devices like LFOs and 'Continuance in Force' laws to legitimize their regimes by an extra-parliamentary executive fiat. Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq had their parliaments indemnify their constitutional violations to close the chapter of their coups. Only Yahya ended with his boots around his neck as a vanquished general. Pliant and muted through Yahya's disastrous reign, the superior judiciary came into action only after his fall to brand him a 'usurper'. Never before, however, it fell to the sad lot of an elected parliament to vote for an army chief to combine in his person the brass and the bowler hat even as an expedient move. Political pragmatism is not the same as party or individual opportunism. While the pragmatist knows where to stop, the opportunist fails to resist the fatal attraction of yet another chance, yet another pasture new around the corner. The MMA's supreme council must ask itself whether or not by supporting the passage of the LFO they did indeed commit a terminal error of judgement. And whether they did not sacrifice their reputedly principled party politics at the altar of expediency and opportunism. Worse still, they did so at the cost of the united front they had forged with such mainstream parties as the PPP and the Muslim League-N. A major compromise was made with Gen. Pervez Musharraf's regime, now invoking the NSC as the main plank of its future governance. If such were to be the end of the military-mullah alliance, it should not be difficult to see who is the loser. The nexus has been a part of our history, either marginally as under Ayub Khan or covertly as under Yahya Khan or naked and deeply written into the system as under Ziaul Haq. Ayub's secularism as part of the military culture of British Indian Army was like an open book without any fine print. Even the prefix Islamic attaching to the Republic of Pakistan was dropped until restored under the writ of superior judiciary. That continued to be the case until the fateful day of 1965 when India attacked Pakistan along the international border, with Lahore as its principal target. Even in his first address to the nation within hours of the Indian invasion, Ayub went on to recite the 'Kalama-i-Tayyaba' in a stirring, emotion-choked voice. His subsequent meeting with religious parties - mainly the Jamaat-i-Islami under Maulana 'Abul 'Ala Maududi - marked the beginning of the military-mullah nexus. Yahya would not have much to do with things spiritual until the induction of retired Maj.-Gen. Sher Ali Khan into his cabinet as minister in-charge of information and national affairs. He initiated Yahya into ideological lore and saddled him with the mission of protecting the 'ideology of Pakistan and the glory of Islam'. Yahya's intelligence chief, Major-(later Lieut.) Gen. Muhammad Akbar Khan made no secret of his close liaison with the Jamaat-i-Islami especially in respect of its pro-active role in East Pakistan. The Jamaat was to go even to the extent of certifying Yahya's draft constitution as Islamic. The draft was authored by Justice A.R. Cornelius, Yahya's law minister. As for Zia, he embarked on his Islamization programme even as he assumed his army command. He gave the army the triple motto of 'Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sibil Lillah'. Subsequently, as president, he introduced the Hudood Ordinance and collaborated with the Americans in projecting the Soviet-Afghan war as a jihad. The country continues to pay the bitter wages of Zia's jihad syndrome. Gen Musharraf continued to recognize the Taliban's radical Islamic regime as a legacy of the Nawaz Sharif period and extend muted support to the Kashmiri mujahideen until 9/11. That was the turning point and the defining moment for the future shape of relations between a para-secular government on the one hand and jihad-oriented, religious groups on the other. Musharraf relented on his temporal stance vis-a-vis the religious group under the pressure of political necessity during the general election of October 2002. He placed the mullahs at par with university graduates to qualify for membership of his 'graduate' assembly. The mullahs returned with strength sufficient to form coalition governments in the NWFP and Balochistan. Once in power they gradually and subtly clanged their religion-based stance into realpolitik where it suited their interest. They supported the LFO to extract from Musharraf the promise that he would shed his uniform by the end of 2004. However, when it came to endorsing the NSC by an act of parliament, they abstained from voting. Hence the present crisis. The MMA's Supreme Council, in no uncertain terms, declared its resolve to 'scrap' the NSC when it 'obtains a simple majority in the house'. The inaugural session of the NSC (June 24) was off to an unhappy and not a little ill-tempered start. Chairing the session, the president was livid over the absence of the leader of the opposition, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, and NWFP Chief Minister Akram Durrani. He took particular note of the latter absenting himself as a government functionary - a somewhat strange observation to make about an elected public leader with a party mandate of his own. The president spoke spiritedly and at some length on the rationale and functions of the NSC. Prior to the NSC, he said, there was no forum where 'key functionaries' including the opposition, provincial heads and armed forces chiefs could debate issues of national importance and 'exercise checks on each other and lend support to each other'. Of course, the defence committee of the cabinet (DCC) was always there, but hardly as a body as comprehensive as the NSC. The question now is: what other body could be either more comprehensive and competent to discuss and resolve all issues of national importance than an elected parliament? Even in the context of a best-case scenario, it won't be easy to rule out a perpetually difficult relationship between parliament and the NSC. REFERENCE: MMA and the NSC By A.R. Siddiqi - The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. 30 June 2004 Wednesday 11 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1425 http://archives.dawn.com/2004/06/30/fea.htm#1