Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Ansar Abbasi, Pakistani Zimmis and Lynch Mob.

Lynch mob - a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority - a disorderly crowd of people. Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. Lynching is sometimes mistakenly thought of as an exclusively North American activity, but it is found around the world as vigilantes act to punish people outside the rule of law; indeed, instances of it can found in societies long antedating European settlement of North America. AND PAKISTAN as well.

March 2013 Lahore, Pakistan - Incident of Attack on Christian Community in Joseph Colony, Badami Bagh Lahore - The tragedy’s roots is said to lie in a quarrel between two friends, Mohammed Imran, a local Muslim barber, and Sahwan Masih, a 28-year-old Christian municipal cleaner, who lived across the road. They were close, by all accounts. “They would sit together, drink together,” said Mr Chand Masih. Earlier in the week, on an afternoon when they were sitting outside Mr Imran’s barber shop, a fight broke out between them. It is not clear what was said, but residents claim sharp words were exchanged about each other’s faiths. By Friday, Mr Imran and another friend, Urf “Chico” Shafiq, told the local Muslims. The colony rests next to Lahore’s steel mills, and the quarrel coincided with local elections for the steel worker’s union. According to residents, the leading candidates decided to make the alleged blasphemy a campaign issue. A crowd - estimated to be more than 3,000 strong - first gathered on Friday. They gathered after Friday prayers, apparently urged on by the local religious leader. The police were there, although in just scores. The next day, the attackers returned to torch the colony. REFERENCE: Neighbours' row ends in a holy war against Christians of Pakistan Muslim mob goes on arson rampage in Lahore after alleged blasphemy by OMAR WARAICH , ANDREW BUNCOMBE LAHORE SUNDAY 10 MARCH 2013

Joseph Colony Arson Attack

Joseph Colony Arson Attack from Saad Sarfraz Sheikh on Vimeo.

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that it was a criminal negligence to bring changes in the documents like Objectives Resolution as former president General (retd) Zia ul Haq tampered with the Constitution in 1985 however, the sitting parliament had done a good job by undoing this tampering. At one point Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the word ‘freely’ was omitted from the Objectives Resolution in 1985 by a dictator, which was an act of criminal negligence, but the then parliament surprisingly didn’t take notice of it. He said the Constitution is a sacred document and no person can tamper with it. The chief justice said credit must go to the present parliament, which after 25 years took notice of the brazen act of removing the word relating to the minorities’ rights, and restored the word ‘freely’ in the Objectives Resolution, which had always been part of the Constitution. The chief justice further said that the court is protecting the fundamental rights of the minorities and the government after the Gojra incident has provided full protection to the minorities. “We are bound to protect their rights as a nation but there are some individual who create trouble.” - DAILY TIMES - ISLAMABAD: Heading a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry termed as criminal negligence the deletion of a word about the rights of minorities from the Objectives Resolution during the regime of General Ziaul Haq in 1985. Ziaul Haq had omitted the word “freely” from the Objectives Resolution, which was made substantive part of the 1973 Constitution under the Revival of Constitutional Order No. 14. The clause of Objectives Resolution before deletion of the word ‘freely’ read, “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to ‘freely’ profess and practice their religions and develop their culture.” DAILY DAWN - ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday praised the parliament for undoing a wrong done by the legislature in 1985 (through a constitutional amendment) when it removed the word ‘freely’ from a clause of the Objectives Resolution that upheld the minorities’ right to practise their religion. The word “freely” was deleted from the Objectives Resolution when parliament passed the 8th Amendment after indemnifying all orders introduced through the President’s Order No 14 of 1985 and actions, including the July 1977 military takeover by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and extending discretion of dissolving the National Assembly, by invoking Article 58(2)b of the Constitution. After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Objectives Resolution now reads: “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their culture.” The CJ said: “Credit goes to the sitting parliament that they reinserted the word back to the Objectives Resolution.” He said that nobody realised the blunder right from 1985 till the 18th Amendment was passed, even though the Objectives Resolution was a preamble to the Constitution even at the time when RCO (Revival of Constitution Order) was promulgated. REFERENCES: CJ lauds parliament for correcting historic wrong By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 09 Jun, 2010   - CJP raps change in Objectives Resolution * Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry says deletion of clause on rights of minorities was ‘criminal negligence’ * Appreciates incumbent parliament for taking notice of removal of clause by Gen Zia’s govt in 1985 By Masood Rehman Wednesday, June 09, 2010\story_9-6-2010_pg1_1  CJ lauds parliament for undoing changes in Objectives Resolution Wednesday, June 09, 2010 Says minorities’ rights have to be protected; Hamid says parliament should have no role in judges’ appointment By Sohail Khan

Please keep in mind that Zimmis are those Non-Muslims who seek protection after Muslim Defeat them in the Battle and Pakistani Non-Muslims cannot be called "Zimmis" they should be equal to Pakistani Muslim Citizens which they are not since the tinkering of Objective Resolution which was "wrongly" introduced by one of the Alleged Founding Father amongst many Fathers of Pakistan i.e. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Jang Group's Rent a Mufti Ansar Abbasi is trying his level best to distort not only the History but also tinkering with the Islamic interpretation of Zimmis. Jizya from the Linguistic Perspective: "Jizya" is derived from the root "Jaza" or "compensate". Arabs usually say the phrase "Jaza, yajzi" which means "compensate" or 'reward" if a person rewards another for the service rendered by the latter. "Jizya" is a derived term in the form of "ficla" from "Mujazã" which is the noun "compensation", meaning "a sum of money given in return for protection". Ibn Al-Mutaraz said: "It is derived from "’idjzã" or "substitute" or "sufficiency" because it suffices as a substitute for the "dhimmi's embracement of Islam" REFERENCE: Jizya in Islam by Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar Ph.D in Christian Doctrines and Scripture, Faculty of Usul-al-Din, Umm al-Qura, Saudi Arabia. Translated by Hayam Elisawy, Edited by Mohammad Elfie Nieshaem Juferi.

“Pakistan desires to show a beacon of light to the world, which has been caught in the vortex of materialism and has lost its way in the darkness of atheism and agnosticism,” thundered Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani as the first Constituent Assembly listened attentively. He was speaking in support of the Objectives Resolution presented in the House two days ago, on 7 March 1949, by Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. It is believed that the resolution was drafted by the Maulana. His words were music to the ears of many sitting in the Assembly Chamber in Karachi. There was more than one reason for them to celebrate this turn in the region’s political discourse. Pakistan Resolution was presented nine years ago. During the period between the Pakistan Resolution and the Objectives Resolution, the world went through the frenzy of World War II; the bloodiest event of mankind’s history which took tens of millions of life all across the globe, most of them in horrid ways. Standing at the fag end of this event, you did not need arguments to convince a new state that an option other than the greedy capitalism is worth a try. But probably the honorable members were not as much concerned about the horrors of capitalism as they were about the “excesses” of communism that were purportedly advancing from the western side. “Islam has no truck with capitalism. The Islamic State brings about an equitable distribution of wealth by employing methods peculiar to it and distinct from communistic practices.” So the Islam was the panacea, the antidote to the ills of the two systems of governance that the world had known thus far. Members of the Constituent Assembly cheered over the passage of the resolution. It elated them. Most of the members boasted of a glorious past and the resolution reassured that the return of greatness was at hand and a matter of few years. On a more pragmatic note, however, they rejoiced over the other more handy feature — the “Islamic State”. It seemed to be a perfect tool to fix “the problem of cultural diversity” that they saw as an obstacle in the way of building a nation for this country. The problem originated from the fact that the new country had at least five distinct languages and cultures. Sindhi was Greek to a Pakhtun and Bengali Latin for a Punjabi and, more importantly, one of these was separated from the others by a thousand miles stretch of enemy territory. The problem had two dimensions. One, what will serve as the uniting element, the binding force. No one in power echelons had the capacity, courage and foresight to pursue the nation building as a humane and democratic process. They were desperate for quick fixes even if these required blatant use of force. REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi Ansar Abbasi on Pakistani Zimmis Daily Jang March 11, 2013

In case people forget "Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan etc. were all Zimmis.

Barelvi Fatwa Against Jinnah, Allama Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan

The other aspect of the problem was more worrisome — how would the ruling elite maintain its hegemony over this country where they had no cultural or political constituency. The Pakistani elite at that time was composed mainly of Urdu-speaking migrants from northern India. Their language and culture were not indigenous to the areas that formed Pakistan. Urdu had a hold in Punjab even before Partition but not in other parts of the country and certainly not in Bengal. A nation built on indigenous identities and democratic principles offered no place to this elite, not at least the top and the most powerful one. The most important of the interpretations of the Objectives Resolution thus was that it required all to abandon their languages and cultures and adopt the one ordained as Islamic by the ruling class. Baba-i-Urdu Molvi Abdul Haq is on record to have said that all languages of the subcontinent, except Urdu, are languages of kafirs and thus have no place in this Islamic country. The lofty Islamic ideals belittled and demeaned all things local. “Provincialism” was propagated as a scourge and “lisani” (linguistic) labelled an evil. Unlike the western provinces, Bengal in 1947 had a fully grown and thriving middle class. It was educated and trained in its mother tongue that was used in all walks of life in that vast area. Again unlike the languages of the western provinces, Bangla had a distinct script of its own, developed and in vogue since centuries. On the western side, only Sindhi had a script and a print media. The decision to abolish Bengali language from official use through a notification was arbitrary, naive and callous. It implied overnight disempowerment of the biggest section of the middle class of the country. Such a brazen act of omission was bound to meet stiff resistance. The decision sparked a movement in East Bengal that pitched mother tongue against the state narrative of nationhood. It started as early as December 1947 and spread far and wide. There were frequent street protests in 1948 led fervently by Dhaka University students. In one of those, the former prime minister of united Bengal AK Fazalul Haq, was hurt in a scuffle with police. He was the Bengali leader whom Quaid-e-Azam had chosen to present the Pakistan Resolution to the Muslim League meeting of 1940 in Lahore. The movement got its first martyrs in 1952 when on February 21 four of the protesting students died as the police opened fire to break the crowd. The language movement of Bengal was the first tussle between the two paradigms of identity, one based itself on all things indigenous and the other derived a whole array of cultural symbols from a particular interpretation of Islam or borrowed these from various chapters of the history of different Muslim societies. While the Islamic one attempted to unite distinct ethnic groups on the basis of faith, the cultural recipe supported unity among believers of diverse religions. Islam suited the ruling elite of Pakistan as it not only offered return of the glory, it also supported the status quo — the continued dominance of Urdu speaking elite. Bengalis, however, won the first round. They successfully checked the onslaught of this elite. The national language status for Bangla was one of the 21 points on the basis of which the United Front made the Muslim League bite the dust in the landmark elections of 1954. The Bengalis had by now grown weary and were apprehensive about the intentions of the ruling coterie at Karachi. They pressed forcefully for their democratic rights and again Islam was used to silence, subdue and coerce them. The Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) led the cause of Islam-based identity in both the wings of the country. In East Bengal, it secured 6.1 per cent of the votes in the 1970 elections while Awami League swept with 75.1 per cent of votes, bagging a whooping 160 of total 162 seats of that province. The language based narrative of nationalism defeated the supra-cultural Islamic state ideal on all possible avenues — on the streets, in the campuses and at the polling stations. It however did not soften the other party that instead further stiffened. It ended up as a bloody clash that reached its zenith in the spring of 1971. The nationalists came well-prepared and won on this front too, though only after a lot of bloodletting. REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi

In case people forget Jinnah and even any other practicing Muslim who was not in Jamat-e-Islami was also declared Apostate, Heathen, Polytheist, Zimmis by Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami Leaders like Manzoor Nomani

Real Face of Mawdudi and Jamat e Islami by Maulana Manzoor Naimani

The Islamists stood defeated completely and thoroughly. This had cleared the way for the triumphant Bengali nationalists to pursue the state formation on the basis of their secular and culture-based ideals. Did they? No, they did not. The violent campaign against the nationalists was spearheaded by the Pakistan Army as the Jamaat (JI) people served as their point-men. With the benefit of hindsight, it now seems that probably the Pakistan Army was serving as the front-men of Jamaat. The real owner of the Islamic state narrative is the Jamaat and the state of Pakistan was just one of its franchises. Pakistan and its army became irrelevant to the politics of Bangladesh after 1971. But Jamaat-i-Islami survived. In the 1970 elections, there was one Jamaat voter for every 12 of Awami League and this is not negligible especially when you factor in the level of organisation in the Jamaat. The Jamaat kept its ideals, of basing national identity on Islam, alive in Bangladesh and found new allies within the new country’s middle class and its military establishment. Bangladesh’s original constitution of 1972 had declared it a secular state but the later military rulers amended it to ward off democracy and they never forgot to play up Islam to compensate for the shortfall in democracy. The 8th Amendment, effected by General Ershad in 1988, declared Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh. The Awami League, though champions of secularism but like any other political party involved in the power games, does not hesitate using the religion card. The government of the four-party alliance (2001-2006) led by Bangladesh Nationalist Party and including Jamaat-i-Islami had banned Ahemdi literature through an executive order. The Awami League could ill-afford losing the Islamic constituency to its arch rivals, it thus joined hands in 2006 with another Islamic party, Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish, on the promise that it would extend the definition of state religion to include the belief in the finality of Prophet Muhammad which by implication would have declared Ahemdis as non-Muslims. Similarly, a Bangladesh High Court had declared in 2010 the constitutional amendment that had changed the country’s secular status to that of an Islamic state as having been done without lawful authority. It laid the legal ground for the government to revert to the secular state status but despite enjoying the required majority in the parliament it did not dare. It is against this background that the current Shahbag movement should be seen. The Bangladeshi youth has gathered in a Dhaka city compound in droves and continues to do so since the past few weeks. Their apparent demand is from the International Crimes Tribunal that is set up by the present Awami League government to try those accused of committing war crimes in 1971. Most of them are members of Jamaat-i-Islami. The protest gathering started on February 5, 2013, in reaction to a “lenient” sentence of life-imprisonment awarded to a Jamaat member. The youth instead demands “exemplary punishment”. This youth does not want Islam to be a determinant in matters of government, the biggest proponent of which is Jamaat and 1971 is its soft belly. A surprising aspect of the protest is that it has ‘pardoned’ Pakistan even before the country could tender a formal apology. Pakistan is conspicuously missing from the list of those accused of crimes of 1971. It is solely focused on Jamaat men. In Shahbag, there has not been even a meek demand to ‘try’ Pakistan as well. Pakistan and its army are a distant historical entity for the youth born much after those events. Jamaat, however, is an alive phenomenon — omnipresent and overbearing. They experience their suffocating presence on a daily basis. A blogger who was part of the Shahbag movement and is accused of being an atheist was stabbed to death, allegedly by members of Jamaat. On the other hand, the Jamaat is avenging the sentencing of its leaders by attacking the Hindu neighbourhoods and by vandalising their places of worship. They believe that it is the presence of the Hindus that has made the “Muslim brothers” fight each other. The Islamisation campaigns in Bangladesh have been invariably targeted against local Hindus. They were 15.6 per cent of the country’s population in 1975 and by 2010 were reduced to 9.6 per cent. Political parties in the Muslim countries over the past half century have either actively pursued the idea of an Islamic State or have silently witnessed the politics go that way. Even those who profess secular ideals have not dared take a diversion. It is the default position of all and a nugget of common political wisdom that any act being done in the name of Islam enjoys unflinching public support and thus must be supported at all costs. Shahbag is the first time in the recent history that the youth of a Muslim society has come out in such numbers and with such fervour and zeal to oppose something that is cloaked in a sacred robe. Maulana Osmani was a great orator and he had the skills to spell bind the Muslim elite sitting in the Assembly Chamber in Karachi. Can the screaming youth of Shahbag break that spell? REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi

No comments: