Secularism: Chief Justice, Hasba Act, Takfiri Calamity (Excommunication)

2010: The Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Justice Ifthakar Chaudhary, who was reinstated to his top position after rigorous anti-dictatorship efforts of champions of democracy and pluralism, has stunned everyone with his recent remarks against the Parliament and secularism. The Chief Justice, who surely is able enough to grasp the real meaning of legal and constitutional terms, said if the Parliament in Pakistan was given a “free hand”, it would, he feared, convert the country into a “secular” state. The Judiciary and the Parliament in Pakistan have locked horns with each other ever since the ouster of former military dictator Pervez Musharraf. Similar to the country’s old political stakeholder, the military, the Judiciary has now emerged as the self-appointed “custodian” of people’s rights against a widely elected parliament. The judiciary has unilaterally waged a war against the so-called “incompetent politicians” and the “disqualified parliament”. Therefore, it believes it is “responsible” to keep a vigilant eye on the performance of the parliament. Similar derogatory views that looked down upon the parliament were vented sometimes back by Qazi Mohammad Anwar, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Ideally, the judiciary should stay away from politics in order to demonstrate some professional discipline. After all the judiciary has a better understanding of democracy, constitution, separation of powers and the rule of law. Now that the judges have stepped up to humiliate the elected parliament, a deliberate attempt is being made to create rifts among state institutions. Thus, it is the time the judiciary’s violation of its constitutional mandate was strictly checked. Judiciary plays a pivotal role in any working, or even defective, democracy. At the same time, it must learn to respect the constitutional mandate of the parliament and understand its limitations. In no functioning parliamentary democracy can the judiciary be placed on a higher position than the parliament. Secondly, one wonders how the Chief Justice of Pakistan interprets “secularism”. If he has the same connotation for secularism which is used by the right-wing political parties in the country (which is la Deen in Urdu) then he is surely leading the entire country towards more trouble. Pakistan, as proven by the popular August 11, 1947 Speech of Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), the country’s fonder, was supposed to be a secular state. In Jinnah’s vision, a secular state was not one where no one worshipped any kind of God. Instead, Jinnah believed followers of all religions should have the freedom to practice regardless of what religion they followed. His Pakistan was meant to be tolerant and accommodative of all people irrespective of citizens’ religious affiliations. With some much bloodshed in the country on the name of religion over the past many years, the Chief Justice must understand the way forward for Pakistan is secularism if the country wants to get rid of religious fanaticism that is over taken the country. This country can no longer afford to see its citizens killed in the battle between “good Muslims” and the “bad Muslims”, Sunnis and Shias; and “Muslims” and Ahmedis. The Chief Justice should refrain from playing politics only to win the support of the largely illiterate masses in this country. It is for the Parliament to decide whether it introduces secularism or Islamic Sharia in the country. This important responsibility cannot be given to the judiciary at any cost. The CJP has further scared his liberal supporters. Even those who support the top judge’s argument that Supreme Court of Pakistan should have the power to play the “big brother” role in the country’s politics are equally concerned about the political feelings of the CJP. Who is going to guarantee that the Supreme Court, if granted more powers than the Parliament, is not going to convert the country into a theocratic state? What is going to happen to the rights of the millions of religious minorities who have been victim of the religious zealots over the years? REFERENCE: Why is CJP Afraid of Secularism? http://timesofpakistan.pk/editorials/2010-09-06/why-is-cjp-afraid-of-secularism/1299/ ’لامحدود اختیار سے سیکولر ازم کا خدشہ‘

آخری وقت اشاعت: پير 16 اگست 2010 ,‭ 10:49 GMT 15:49 PST http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/08/100816_cj_secularism_parliament.shtml

Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi faces death (blasphemy_ 5_51) CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDJoBBxN5BI

The UN special rapporteur urged the government to apply jurisdiction of highest courts enshrined in the Constitution to the whole of Pakistan since many could be deprived of their constitutional rights. She avoided elaborating her observation when asked, but said she believed that “a uniform legal system enshrined in the Constitution is necessary in order to avoid ambiguities and discrepancies in the administration of justice”. In the preliminary report, Ms Knaul said that the recognition of another superior higher court, the Federal Shariat Court, in the Constitution has created an ambiguity. “The existence of two superior courts in the Constitution is problematic and leaves space for interpretations which might be contradicting,” she believed. The UN special rapporteur expressed concern over cases brought under blasphemy law for which she used the term ‘so-called’ and explained that judges had been coerced to decide against the accused even without supporting; as for the lawyers, in addition to their reluctance to take up such cases, they were targeted and forced not to represent their clients properly. In addition, judges, prosecutors and lawyers working on cases related to terrorist acts and organised crime were also often the target of serious threats and attacks from various actors, including non-state actors, she said. As part of her mission, the UN special rapporteur paid attention to the integration of a gender perspective and women’s rights in the justice system, and expressed concern that there were currently no women sitting on the Supreme Court and only two women in the high courts. Ms Knaul said that she was further struck by reports of existing laws, such as the blasphemy law, being misused to target women and strip them off of their fundamental rights. Many stages of the justice system, starting with filing a case with the police, to accessing lawyers and appearing and testifying before courts, were gender-biased, and therefore impeded the full functioning of justice for women, she said. She expressed deep concern over the poor quality of investigations carried out by police service. REFERENCE: UN rapporteur calls for clear criteria for suo motu action http://dawn.com/2012/05/30/un-rapporteur-calls-for-clear-criteria-for-suo-motu-action/

Mumtaz Qadri, murderer of Salman Taseer, showered with rose petals by Lawyers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ7kO4fAE4A

Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the bodyguard arrested for the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, shouts religious slogans while being taken away by police after he was presented at a court in Islamabad. -Reuters Photo -- LAHORE: Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court Wednesday and an influential Muslim scholars group praised the assassination of the outspoken opponent of laws that order death for those who insult Islam. Mumtaz Qadri made his first appearance in an Islamabad court, where a judge remanded him in custody a day after he allegedly sprayed automatic gunfire at the back of Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer while he was supposed to be protecting him as a bodyguard. A rowdy crowd slapped him on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside. The lawyers who tossed handfuls of rose petals over him were not involved in the case. As he left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted ”death is acceptable for Muhammad’s slave.” The suspect stood at the back door of an armored police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled ”God is great.” More than 500 clerics and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of the governor. The group representing Pakistan’s majority Barelvi sect, which follows a brand of Islam considered moderate, also issued a veiled threat to other opponents of the blasphemy laws. ”The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” the group warned in a statement, adding politicians, the media and others should learn ”a lesson from the exemplary death.” Jamat leader Maulana Shah Turabul Haq Qadri paid ”glorious tribute to the murderer … for his courage, bravery and religious honor and integrity.” Mumtaz Qadri told interrogators Tuesday that he shot the liberal Taseer multiple times because of the politician’s vocal opposition to the harsh blasphemy laws. REFERENCE: Lawyers shower roses for governor's killer AP | 5th January, 2011 http://dawn.com/2011/01/05/lawyers-shower-roses-for-governors-killer/

Pakistan's private television channels offer a host of programs in current affairs and entertainment but in the absence of an effective regulatory body, talk show hosts can get away with murder. (Photo courtesy Geo TV) - One man that stands out among a plethora of talking heads on TV is Aamir Liaquat, whose foray into televangelism began at Geo TV, Pakistan’s largest media house. There, Liaquat held forth on an array of issues, answering queries on seemingly inane matters like whether a prayer mat could be washed in a washing machine to bigger issues on spiritual matter. He was as reviled as he was beloved. Liaquat has been a subject of intense scrutiny in the media, from his “fake” PhD (allegedly bought online just a few weeks after he reportedly got a Masters degree) to leaked video outtakes in which he was seen cursing profanities prior to coming on camera for a show. He was also hauled up by the police for driving a car with tinted windows in Karachi a few years ago, when it was illegal, but as a then parliamentarian, he was let off scot free, not before the press reported that he was caught with a woman in the car. Despite the drubbing he received, his popularity was not affected until a show in September 2008 in which he castigated Pakistan’s minority Muslim community, the Ahmadis, The two guest scholars he invited on the show said anyone who called Ahmadis Muslims were “waajib al qatl” (worthy of death). One day later, an Ahmadi was shot in Sindh, the following day another prominent Ahmadi was killed. “I have no regrets because it has nothing to do with me,” he told BBC Magazine on July 14. “I’m hurt by what happened and I’m sorry for the families but it has nothing to do with me or anything that was said on my program.” Not everyone brought it. The Asian Human Rights Commission filed a complaint against him saying his cajoling led to the death of the two men following his TV show. Liaquat was also sacked from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, of which he was a member and had won an election ticket in 2002 with, for the anti-Ahmadi TV outburst, saying his beliefs clashed with the secular party’s ideology. But Geo only suspended his live programs. None of that has dented Liaquat’s popularity, or credibility, who, after a brief spell with a rival TV network where he hosted another religious talk show, signed up with Geo last month to return to his alma mater. Not just as a TV host but also in senior management position -- much to the chagrin of season senior journalists and management at GEO, one of whom, popular political analyst Sana Bucha, resigned in protest. But it appears that Liaquat will ride the waves of this controversy out too, as he is now a brand, loved by cooking oils that he endorses to housewives who wait eagerly for his sermons, for which no one can verify his religious qualifications. Liaquat is not alone in using TV as a platform to air views that cater to right-wing Islam in Pakistan whose presence is felt by the growing numbers of women wearing the niqaab on the streets to the rise in dars (religious sermons) especially tailor made for the elite. Intolerance is evidenced in the collective silence of a democratically elected secular government of the Pakistan Peoples Party which has lost two of its stalwarts to violent and gruesome murders: Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer in January 2011 by his armed guard who murdered the man for the governor's support of a Christian woman languishing in jail on trumped up blasphemy charges to the death of the country's minorities minister a few months later, Shahbaz Bhatti. Weeks prior to his death, Taseer appeared on a TV show with host Meher Bukhari who practically accused the governor of blasphemy as he tried to explain his defense of a Christian woman languishing in jail on what he said were trumped up charges. Taseer was leading a case for a presidential pardon before he was killed in broad daylight. Then the politicians retreated to their corners, ostensibly sensing the mood in the country which had no room for tolerating anything perceived as blasphemous. An innumerable amount of people have been charged in false cases of blasphemy that have led to murders, extra judicial killings and constant threat to lives. REFERENCE: Is Pakistan’s TV evangelism sprouting a dangerous creed of intolerance? Sunday, 15 July 2012 http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/15/226423.html

LAHORE: Former chief justice Lahore High Court Khawaja Sharif will defend Mumtaz Qadri, the accused killer of former governor Punjab Salman Taseer, DawnNews reported on Monday. The hearing of the appeal against the death sentence of Qadri will be heard by a two-member bench led by Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman. The panel of Qadri’s lawyers including Khawaja Sharif, Malik Jawad, Malik Rafiq and Shuja-ur-Rehman, will be appearing before the court. Qadri signed his appeal papers today in Adiala Jail. Qadri confessed to shooting Taseer dead outside an upmarket coffee shop close to his residence in the leafy capital Islamabad on January 4. He said he objected to the politician’s calls to amend the blasphemy law. REFERENCE: Former CJ LHC to fight Mumtaz Qadri’s case DAWN.COM | 10th October, 2011 http://dawn.com/2011/10/10/former-cj-lhc-to-fight-mumtaz-qadris-case/ http://dawn.com/2011/10/06/mumtaz-qadri-files-appeal-against-death-penalty/

Former CJ LHC Khawaja Sharif defends Mumtaz Qadri in High Court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thEsyl9nT2I

ISLAMABAD: A reported statement by Lahore High Court Chief Justice (CJ) Khawaja Muhammad Sharif that the Hindu community was funding terrorism in Pakistan, irked members of the National Assembly, as many of whom joined minority members and walked out in protest. The lawmakers also demanded Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry take suo motu notice of the CJ’s remarks. Ramesh Lal, a minority lawmaker from the Pakistan People’s Party, raised the issue on a point of order and censured the CJ’s remarks, saying the Hindu community in Pakistan was as patriotic as the rest of the country and the remarks were highly uncalled for. Lal announced a token walkout and was joined by a few other members belonging to different parties, including the Awami National Party. He said the remarks hurt the over three million Hindus in Pakistan, adding the statement was against national unity. Labour and Manpower Minister Khursheed Shah tried to defend the CJ, saying he could not have made such a statement and might have referred to India and not the Hindu community. staff report REFERENCE: LHC CJ’s remarks irk NA members Wednesday, March 17, 2010 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C03%5C17%5Cstory_17-3-2010_pg7_6

BARELY days after the Punjab chief minister was caught playing to the Taliban gallery, another high official from the province is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. This time, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif has sparked outrage for reportedly saying that Hindus were responsible for financing acts of terrorism in Pakistan. The remarks came while the judge was hearing two identical petitions against the possible extradition of Afghan Taliban suspects. It may well have been a slip of the tongue by Mr Sharif, who might have mistakenly said `Hindu` instead of `India` — nevertheless it was a tasteless remark to say the least. Although such remarks warrant criticism what makes them worse is the position of the person who makes them. These sort of comments are the last thing one expects to hear from a judge, that too the chief justice of a provincial high court. What sort of message are we sending to our minorities, as well as to the world, when the holder of such a respected public office makes comments that come across as thoughtless? The Hindu members of the National Assembly walked out of the house on Tuesday to protest the remarks. The members said the comments had hurt the feelings of Pakistani Hindus — and there is no doubt that they had. As it is, Pakistan scores quite poorly when it comes to treating minorities fairly. Remarks such as these put our already marginalised minorities in an even tougher spot, as the patriotic credentials of non-Muslims living in this country are put into question. Though foreign elements may be involved in terrorist activities within Pakistan, maligning a whole community based on its faith is totally unacceptable. Before making such tactless remarks, our public figures should consider how much they dislike it when others equate Muslims with terrorism. A member of the National Assembly quite correctly advised our judges to concentrate on the dispensation of justice in Tuesday`s session. In the meantime, one hopes that Justice Sharif explains his comments. REFERENCE:Tactless remarks Dawn Editorial Thursday, 18 Mar, 2010  http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32510

ISLAMABAD, March 16: It was a rare, judge’s turn to be judged in the National Assembly on Tuesday as Hindu members staged a walkout to protest at reported remarks by the Lahore High Court (LHC) chief justice alleging Hindu financing of terror attacks in the country. Some members of the Awami National Party too joined the first walkout against the judiciary in Pakistan’s parliament before the protesters were brought back to hear words of sympathy for the injured sentiments and some advice for judges to focus on delivering justice rather than publicity despite a government minister’s statement that the remark by Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif while hearing a case in Lahore on Thursday seemed to be “a slip of the tongue”. The protest was the second raised in the house over press reports in as many days after sharp criticism of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif over his appeal to Taliban in a speech to a seminar in Lahore on Sunday to spare his province terror attacks because of some shared views with his PML-N party. PPP’s Hindu member Romesh Lal, who raised the issue, said sentiments of an estimated four million Pakistani Hindus had been injured by the LHC chief justice’s remarks, as reported in a section of the press, that while terrorist bomb blasts were being carried out by Muslims, “money used for this came from Hindus”. The member said if a country was suspected of sponsoring such attacks it should be named, but blame should not be put on just Hindus who, he said, were as good patriots as other Pakistanis. While drawing attention of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to what he called worry caused to Hindus, he appealed to Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to take suo motu notice of Justice Sharif’s remarks. As Inter-Provincial Coordination Minister Pir Aftab Shah Jilani and some other members of the ruling PPP went out of the chamber to persuade the protesters to return, party chief whip and Labour and Manpower Minister Khurshid Ahmed Shah told the house the judge seemed to be blaming India for financing the Taliban rather Hindus, adding he was sure a clarification would come “by tomorrow”. PML-N’s Rashid Akbar Niwani said judges should devote to dispensation of justice instead of seeking publicity as he also advised the media to exercise “restraint”, particularly blasting unspecified television anchorpersons who, he said, should also be held accountable for their earnings together with “heads of (government) institutions” as often-maligned elected politicians. REFERENCE: A judge is judged in NA, with walkout By Raja Asghar Wednesday, 17 Mar, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/44079

Nobody is Muslim in Islamic Republic of Pakistan even the Practicing Muslims are declared Apostate and Death Deserving.

Barelvi Decree of Apostasy on Deoband (Hussam ul Haramain)

Shaikh Talib-ur-Rehmaan on those who declare Imam Abu Haneefah Kaafir

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Be8bWzpNpo

Hasba bill NWFP govt may file petition in apex court Bureau Report August 6, 2005 PESHAWAR, Aug 5: Terming the Supreme Court’s verdict on the Hasba bill in conflict with the constitution, NWFP Law Minister Malik Zafar Azam has asked the president to direct the provincial governor for signing the bill. “The judgment is only an opinion which is neither binding on the provincial government nor on the president and the governor,” Mr Azam said in a press conference here. He said that after going through the detailed judgment, they would consult their legal experts and file a constitutional petition in the Supreme Court for clarifying certain ambiguities in the judgment. “We would decide after the detailed judgment whether to adopt the same bill or to make amendments in it, and if it is again passed by the assembly then the governor cannot withhold his assent,” the law minister said. He said: “Although we respect the judgment of the court, but it has made recommendations of the Council of Islamic Ideology redundant as majority of the clauses of the Hasba Bill declared ultra vires of the constitution were in fact recommended in the report of the council.” Mr Azam stated that in his opinion the Constitution had made it binding on the governor to sign a bill passed by an assembly and by observing that the governor might not sign the bill, the Supreme Court had violated that provision. “How could the apex court place restriction on the powers of the provincial assembly as far as legislation is concerned?” he asked. The president, he said, was the symbol of the federation, and he should not try to undermine the powers of the federating units. He stated that the NWFP government would continue the legal battle. “The political forces should support us in this fight for provincial autonomy,” he remarked. He informed that they would launch a constitution awareness campaign countrywide for making the people aware about the power of the legislature, executive and judiciary. Mr Azam cited various recommendations of the Council of Islamic Ideology, stating that the same had been incorporated in the Hasba bill, but declared ultra vires of the Constitution. “The Council of Islamic Ideology is a constitutional body and under Article 2130(4) of the Constitution, parliament and provincial assemblies should enact laws in the light for its recommendations,” he said and added: “We have not committed any mistake in implementing the recommendations of the council.” He pointed out that Section 25 of the Hasba bill had ousted the jurisdiction of courts in matters taken up by the mohtasib, and the same provision was also part of the laws through which offices of federal, Punjab and Sindh mohtasibs had been set up. What would be the status of those provisions in other laws, he questioned. Mr Azam had to face a volley of questions regarding that ambiguous stand of the MMA on the judgment. Answering a question about terming the verdict in the favour of MMA, he stated that out of the 31 sections of the bill, clauses of only five sections had been declared in conflict with the constitution. He stated that Islamising the laws was the duty of the government and if restrictions were placed on the legislature in that regard, every individual would start their own interpretation of Islam, which would create chaos and anarchy. REFERENCE: Hasba bill NWFP govt may file petition in apex court Bureau Report August 6, 2005 Saturday Jumadi-us-Sani 29, 1426 http://archives.dawn.com/2005/08/06/nat44.htm

Ahle Hadith (Wahabis) Fatwa on Offering Prayers Behind Deobandis

Ahl-e-Hadith Scholar ISSUES Fatwa of Kufr on Imam Abu Haneefah, Deobandis & Barelvis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze74hcdxYkI

2007: Hasba Bill partially unconstitutional: SC * Says mohtasib can’t be delegated judicial powers  ISLAMABAD: An eight-member bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the office of the mohtasib (ombudsman), as envisaged in the NWFP Assembly’s Hasba Bill, could not be delegated judicial powers and a seminary-qualified person could not be graded an ‘aalim’ for appointment as a provincial mohtasib. The court said the NWFP Assembly should review the Hasba Bill to exclude controversial sections, otherwise the rest of the bill was okay. The bench was giving its ruling on a reference filed by President Pervez Musharraf, who had sought the court’s opinion on Hasba Bill’s validity. “In our unanimous view, the (court’s) opinion expressed in Reference No 2 of 2005 (Hasba Bill 2005) has been complied with, except for in the provisions of Section 2(11) and section 3(2) of the bill, and this appears to have escaped the notice of the provincial legislature, which may now be given due consideration,” said the Supreme Court in its short order. Section 2(11) carries the definition of an ‘aalim’, and according to the current definition, anybody with a seminary certificate is eligible to be called an ‘aalim’. Section 3(2) prescribes that an ‘aalim’ – who would also be eligible to become a judge of the Federal Shariat Court, according to the bill – could also be appointed mohtasib. However, the Supreme Court has declared that these two sections violate the Constitution. The bench also ruled that violation of a mohtasib’s authority under Section 23 of the bill could not subject a person to punishment for contempt under Section 14 of the bill. The NWFP assembly passed the first Hasba Bill on July 14, 2005, but the Supreme Court, on a presidential reference, declared that several sections of the bill were unconstitutional. The NWFP Assembly passed a fresh bill in November 2006, and claimed it had been drafted in accordance with the SC recommendations. However, the president filed another reference in the court under the SC’s advisory jurisdiction challenging the new bill in December. On December 15, the SC directed the provincial governor not to assent the bill in its present form. Now, the court has ruled that a mohtasib cannot be given judicial powers to prosecute a person who disobeys his orders and a seminary-qualified person cannot be eligible for the post of mohtasib. The Hasba Bill envisages an office of the mohtasib at the provincial level and in each district. REFERENCE: Hasba Bill partially unconstitutional: SC * Says mohtasib can’t be delegated judicial powers By Mohammad Kamran Wednesday, February 21, 2007 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\21\story_21-2-2007_pg1_3

Ahl e Hadith (Wahabis) on Deobandi Tableeghi Jamat Attaullah Dayrvi

NIKKAH WITH SISTER IS ALLOWED in FIQHA HANFIA (URDU) 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r_pX0fsLZQ

MMA senator contests reference against Hasba bill By Our Reporter July 20, 2005 ISLAMABAD, July 19: Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal’s Senator Prof Khurshid Ahmad has expressed his reservations about the legality and propriety of a reference submitted to the Supreme Court by President Pervez Musharraf under Article 186 of the Constitution in respect of Hasba Bill. “This article of the Constitution provides the president with an opportunity to seek prior advice of the Supreme Court in respect of matters related to the discharge of the functions that are his direct responsibility under the Constitution,” Jamaat-i- Islami’s deputy chief said in a statement issued on Tuesday. He further said it was not a kind of a free-for-all type of provision whereby the president might seek Supreme Court’s opinion on any legal matter under the sun. He emphasized that “public importance” has to be understood in relation to the constitutional responsibilities of the president. The senator said under Article 186, all the eight reference made to the apex court in the past directly related to the constitutional responsibilities of the president. The only reference that related to a provincial issue was made by Ghulam Mohammad which sought to find out whether the provincial assembly was rightly dissolved or not. According to Prof Khurshid Ahmad, the position with respect to Hasba Bill passed by the NWFP Assembly was very different. Here the assembly has passed a bill under its constitutional authority because in respect of administrative courts or provincial ombudsman it is the prerogative of the provincial assembly to legislate. It does not require any prior permission or otherwise any input or intervention from the president or the federal government at any stage. The provincial government is empowered to pass any bill within its constitutional jurisdiction and the governor is bound by the Constitution to either give his assent or send it back to the assembly for reconsideration. He is obliged to give his consent to a bill approved second time by the assembly in whatever form. “The constitution does not empower the governor to refer any matter to the Supreme Court under Article 186 and there is no constitutional provision which entitles the president to seek advice on behalf of the governor, who is expected to use his own mind and judgment,” the senator said. “Prima facie, it is very clear that the reference to the Supreme Court is devoid of legal vires. I would, therefore, suggest that the president should withdraw this petition and should not overstep his constitutional limits and obligations,” he said. Our Reporter from Pindi adds: Jamaat-i-Islami Rawalpindi District Amir Dr Mohammad Kemal, MNA Haneef Abbasi and other office-bearers of the party have congratulated the NWFP government on adoption of Hasba Bill. In a statement issued here on Tuesday, they said the move would help the masses of the NWFP get rid of ‘Thana Culture’ and, thereby, pave way for introduction of Islamic system. REFERENCE: MMA senator contests reference against Hasba bill By Our Reporter July 20, 2005 Wednesday Jumadi-us-Sani 12, 1426 http://news.dawn.com/2005/07/20/nat8.htm 

Ahl-e-Hadith (Wahabis) on Deobandi Sufism by Attaullah Dayrvi

NIKKAH WITH SISTER IS ALLOWED in FIQHA HANFIA (URDU) 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRG3bHESFZc

Imran Khan rejects Hasba, women rights bills By Our Correspondent November 20, 2006 PESHAWAR, Nov 19: Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan on Sunday rejected both the Protection of Women’s Rights Bill and the Hasba Bill and said that both the bills had been adopted with ulterior motives; the former to divide opposition parties the latter to establish a parallel judicial system. The Protection of Women’s Rights Bill, he said, had been passed to introduce a ‘made-in-Washington Islamic system in the country. It is also aimed at dividing the opposition parties. If a law related to women had been in place for more than 26 years, why it was not allowed to continu for one more year?” he said. “We had never accepted the amended bill that had been passed by the National Assembly because it had not been endorsed by an elected parliament,” he said. Referring to the Hasba Bill, he said that if the provincial MMA government was really interested in resolving public issues, it should have concentrated on strengthening the judicial system and reforming the police department, instead of passing a controversial law. He was speaking at the oath-taking ceremonies of the PTI’s youth wing and district Peshawar office-bearers. Newly-nominated PTI district president Hamidul Haq, general secretary Mohammad Asif, Arif Yusuf and president of the party’s youth wing Tariq Meer and press secretary Jawad Ali Shah took oath on the occasion. Imran Khan said that his party would mobilise people to stage anti-government protests, adding that a rally would be held in Kohat district on Nov 28. He said that it was clear now to everyone that President Musharraf would never leave power. He urged the opposition parties to unite on a single-point agenda to make President Musharraf quit government and force him to hold free and fair elections through an independent election commission.He said that he would go to Britain soon to meet former prime minister Nawaz Sharif for launching a movement against the government. Referring to his party’s position about the issue of resigning from parliament, he said that the opposition needed to take a decision to resign en bloc, adding that MMA’s resignations alone might not work. REFERENCE: Imran Khan rejects Hasba, women rights bills By Our Correspondent November 20, 2006 Monday Shawwal 27, 1427 http://archives.dawn.com/2006/11/20/nat7.htm

Deobandi Fatwa Against Ahle Hadith Farhat Hashmi and Al Huda International

Marriage with Mother and Sister in Hanafi Fiq - Maulana Amin Safdar Orkarvi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zgqk8JtqM

SC blocks Hasba bill By Nasir Iqbal December 16, 2006 ISLAMABAD, Dec 15: The Supreme Court on Friday stopped the NWFP government from enacting the Hasba bill. The court issued the stay order on a presidential reference — the second such referral in a year. The provincial assembly had, on Nov 13, rushed through a revised version of the Hasba bill proposing the appointment of an ombudsman for enforcing ‘Islam’s morality code’. But NWFP Governor Ali Jan Aurakzai withheld assent, terming the bill unconstitutional, in a letter to the prime minister on Tuesday. On Friday a five-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, asked the Frontier government’s Chief Secretary, the advocate-general and the assembly’s speaker to appear before it during the third week of next month. The court’s ruling came on a presidential reference filed on Thursday, requesting the Supreme Court to take up the matter ‘at the earliest’. Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan said the revised Hasba bill was unconstitutional on the same grounds as those given by the court last year. One of the grounds was that the bill was aimed at setting up a parallel judicial system. Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the new bill also sought to create a parallel judicial system. On Aug 4 last year, a nine-member Supreme Court bench had blocked the first version of the bill in response to a presidential reference by declaring as unconstitutional several of the bill’s clauses on the powers of the ombudsman. The court had also advised the governor not to sign the bill into law. In its earlier judgment, the AG recalled, the court had declared unconstitutional the district Mohtasib’s office, envisaged in last year’s Hasba bill, as there was already a provision for such an office under the Local Government Ordinance. But the revised bill incorporated the same provision, Mr Makhdoom said. In his reference, the president urged the court to determine whether the Hasba bill respected or not the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. The reference also requested the court to determine whether the bill conformed to the principle of separation of powers. The presidency contended that the bill delegated too many powers of the executive and the legislature to the ombudsman. REFERENCE: SC blocks Hasba bill By Nasir Iqbal December 16, 2006 Saturday Ziqa'ad 24, 1427 http://archives.dawn.com/2006/12/16/top2.htm

Deobandi Fatwa Against Salafi Farhat Hashmi and Al Huda

Hanafi/Shia Fatwa of Apostasy against Dr. Zakir Naik (Ahle Hadith)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yp7LTf4Byk

Deobandi Fatwa against Dr Zakir Naik Jamia Binoria Pakistan of Mufti Naeem

Dr. Zakir Naik K Mutalik Dar ul Ulloom Deoband Ka Fatwa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhX9YSDBlc

 Hasba bill infringes personal freedom: SC By Nasir Iqbal September 1, 2005 ISLAMABAD, Aug 31: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state cannot enforce any religious obligation stipulated by Islam, except Sallat (prayers) and Zakat. Authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, a 106-page detailed judgment, said that Islamic jurists were unanimous on a point that though zakat was seriously enforced by Hazrat Abu Bakar but for sallat, the only way was through “Taleem” (education), “Tableegh” (preaching) and “Targheeb” (persuasion). The court agreed that private life, personal thoughts and individual beliefs of citizens could not be allowed to be interfered with and held that under the Hasba Bill, the NWFP Assembly had conferred judicial powers on “Mohtasib” (ombudsman) not only to inquire into cases of maladministration of government agencies but also religious and personal affairs of individuals and blocking powers of judicial review by civil and criminal courts.

On August 4, a nine-member Supreme Court bench had declared several clauses of the Hasba bill relating to powers of the mohtasib as contrary to the constitution and had advised the NWFP governor not to give his assent to the controversial law. The unanimous short-order was announced after four-day hearing on a reference filed by President General Musharraf against the bill under the advisory jurisdiction of the court.

Instead of showing haste, the NWFP government should have studied in depth all the reports of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) before moving the Hasba bill in the assembly, under which discretionary powers have been conferred on mohtasib to create a new offence in consultation with the provincial advisory council, the CJ observed in the detailed judgment. About mohtasib’s powers to remove causes of dereliction in performance and proper arrangements of Eidain and Friday prayers, the CJ observed that offering of prayer was a personal obligation on an individual being the Haqooq Allah. Religiously, mohtasib is not authorized to check negligence or disregard of a person who abandons sallat. Allowing such interference by mohtasib would deny an individual’s right of freedom to profess religion, the CJ said.

It is therefore not correct to suggest that the Hasba bill is in accordance with Islam and if the legislation is accepted and made into law, then a citizen who is held responsible for dereliction will be liable to six-month punishment on the hukumnama (order) of the mohtasib when Sharia does not mandate imposition of penalties on vague offences. The only objective behind making available Hasba police to mohtasib is to strengthen the arms of mohtasib, to implement his hukumnama by force, if need be, the CJ said. Under the law, mohtasib would also have direct interference/access in the family functions in the garb of discouraging extravagance at the time of marriages and other family functions, thus interfering in personal life, freedom of assembly, liberty, dignity and privacy, which is strictly prohibited in Islam. Tracing the history, the CJ recalled that the institution of the office of Hasba did not exist at the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Khulfa-e-Rashideen. Initially the office of “Amil-al-suk” was created by “Ummayyads” to regulate markets, but later it was expanded into the office of the mohtasib by the “Abbasids.”

History reveals that the term mohtasib was used during the Khilafat of Qazi Mamoon-ur-Rashid when mohtasib used to look after the market business in addition to his religious duties like to reform social life. During the period, the duties of the mohtasib was to inspect instruments of the scales of weights and measures, which were so complicated that the people could be easily deceived. In addition, their duties include keeping vigilant eye over shortcomings and dishonesty that could be committed during preparation and sale of commodities. The judgment also explained that by declaring some sections of the bill as unconstitutional does not mean that leftover sections have been declared in accordance with the constitution. Their constitutionality remains open to be questioned, which can be upheld or struck down as or when challenged before a competent forum. Meanwhile Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza Khan in his separate note expressed reservations on the definition of Aalim (scholar) in the Hasba bill and held that the definition was discriminatory and restricted to only one school of thought. REFERENCE: Hasba bill infringes personal freedom: SC By Nasir Iqbal September 1, 2005 Thursday Rajab 26, 1426 http://archives.dawn.com/2005/09/01/top4.htm

General (R) Hamid Gul on Shia Sunni Issue.

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

Blasphemy Law and Shias (as Per Sunnis)

Ahmed Ludhiyanvi's Fatwa of Apostasy Against Pakistani Shia Community

2005: Detailed judgement on Hasba Bill: Hasba restricts basic rights: SC * State can’t enforce religious obligation except salat and zakat ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC), in its detailed reasons for rejecting the Hasba Bill of the NWFP government, has ruled that no legislation could be made to interfere with the private life, personal thoughts and individual beliefs of citizens. In its 106-page detailed unanimous judgement, the SC has laid the onus on the rationale that Hasba was a discriminatory and unconstitutional legislation which gave discretionary powers to the newly envisaged office of ‘mohtasib’, leading to interference in the personal life of citizens and establishing parallel offices of executive and judiciary. “It is observed that private life, personal thoughts and the individual beliefs of citizens cannot be allowed to be interfered with. Islamic jurists are unanimous on the point that except salat (prayer) and zakat (alms) no other religious obligation stipulated by Islam can be enforced by the state,” states the detailed judgement.

The NWFP Assembly passed the Hasba Bill on July 14 with a majority of 68 votes against 34 opposition votes. The bill envisaged an office of mohtasib with special powers to implement Islamic laws in the province. However, President Pervez Musharraf filed a reference the next day seeking the SC’s opinion on the Hasba Bill under its advisory jurisdiction. A nine-member SC bench consisting of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justices Javed Iqbal, Abdul Hameed Dogar, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Mian Shakirullah Jan, Javed Buttar and Sayed Saeed Ashhad heard the presidential reference pleaded by Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan while Advocate Khalid Anwar appeared on behalf of the NWFP government.

The SC bench conducted the reference’s hearing for four consecutive days and pronounced its short judgement on August 4. The SC judgement declared that Section 10 (sub sections b, c and d); Section 12 (1) (sub section a, b and c); Section 23 (sub sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 27); Section 25 (1 and 2) and Section 28 of the Hasba Bill 2005 passed by the NWFP Assembly were ultra vires to the Constitution. The SC also ruled that the NWFP governor may not assent to the bill in its present form. The sections declared unconstitutional by the SC relate to the powers and duties of the mohtasib, the implementation of his orders, his special powers to implement the Islamic code, restriction on other courts to proceed against the mohtasib’s orders and the punishment prescribed for violation of the mohtasib’s orders. In the detailed reasons, the SC rejected the mohtasib’s office with the contention that “a mohtasib would have direct interference in the family functions in the garb of discouraging extravagance at the time of marriages and other family functions. Such exercise of powers would not only interfere in the citizens personal life, freedom of assembly, liberty, dignity and privacy which is strictly prohibited in Islam”. Detailed judgement on Hasba Bill: Hasba restricts basic rights: SC * State can’t enforce religious obligation except salat and zakat By Mohammad Kamran Thursday, September 01, 2005 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-9-2005_pg1_2

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


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

Barelvi vs Deobandi - Zalzala by Arshadul Quadri

Jamat e Islami Sindh president-Asad ullah Bhutto Speech on Imam Khomeini (Part - 1)

http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=f7d84a7879ec8da8a4a3

Jamat e Islami Sindh president-Asad ullah Bhutto Speech on Imam Khomeini (Part - 2)

http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=80bbeca7bc73193de235

In a television programme aired recently, former chief of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and an important leader of Difa-e-Pakistan Council (DPC) General (retd) Hamid Gul cast doubts over the authenticity of a picture run by the website of The Express Tribune. The picture in question was that of Malik Ishaq, commander of the banned outfit Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), who was shown to be in attendance at the DPC meeting in Multan – a meeting also attended and addressed by General Gul. During a talk show on Aaj TV, host Wajahat S Khan showed Gul the picture on The Express Tribune’s website as evidence of Ishaq’s attendance – in response to which the retired general alleged that the photo had been doctored. When he was further challenged by the show’s host, Gul resorted to questioning the reporter of the story. The Express Tribune takes strong exception to General Gul’s allegations and contends that the picture is authentic. It was taken by our photographer, who was assigned to cover the gathering. In fact, the picture was also run by other newspapers. If Gul has the slightest doubt regarding the authenticity of the photograph, we ask him to take the matter to court. Express Media Group Published in The Express Tribune, February 16th, 2012. REFERENCE: Notice: A note to Hamid Gul Published: February 16, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/337252/notice-a-note-to-hamid-gul/ Difa-e-Pakistan: Malik Ishaq out to 'defend' Pakistan http://tribune.com.pk/multimedia/slideshows/329282/

Deobandi vs Barelvi Dhamaka Arshad AL Qadri Ki Kitaab ZalZala Ka Jawab

Malik Ishaq attended Multan rally: Jamaatud Dawa

LAHORE: Chief of banned militant outfit Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Malik Ishaq was in attendance at the Difa-e-Pakistan Council rally in Multan, a spokesperson for the council’s member organisation Jamaatud Dawa has said. “General (retd) Hamid Gul was wrong in denying Ishaq’s presence at the rally. He was present on stage,” said Yahya Mujahid, a spokesperson for Islamic chairty, which is blacklisted by the United Nations  for its alleged ties to LeJ but not by the Pakistan government. Gul, in an interview with Express News television channel, had categorically denied that Ishaq was present at the rally. “It was DPC’s unanimous decision that Ishaq will not address the rally,” Mujahid told The Express Tribune on Friday. “It’s a simple rule that whoever addresses the people from stage at a DPC rally cannot be a member of a banned militant outfit.” Mujahid was attending an emergency protest, called by the JuD outside their main mosque Jamia Qudsia in Lahore under the DPC’s banner, against resumption of Nato supply routes and trade talks with India. The council has also called a meeting of heads of member parties on February 19 in Islamabad.

Apology to media

He also apologised for statements made against the media at the council’s Karachi rally. “The statements should be condemned in the strongest terms. I, as a representative of JuD, have written letters of apology to media organisations.”

Funding

The spokesperson said that the DPC is an organised platform. “Funding [for the organisation] is provided by member parties while host parties for different rallies fund events in their own cities,” he explained. For instance, he said, JuD hosted the Lahore rally, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat organised the one in Multan, Sheikh Rasheed hosted the Rawalpindi event and Jamat-e-Islami hosted the Karachi rally. “The nationwide networks of all member parties provide support in organisational procedures.”

In defence of Hafiz Saeed

Amir Hamza, a senior leader of the JuD, said that the reason the US is against JuD chief Hafiz Saeed is because he speaks out about human rights violations by US allied forces in the region. He also blamed former president Pervez Musharraf for joining hands with the US in the ‘war on terror’ and the Balochistan crisis. CORRECTION: Former president Pervez Musharraf’s name was erroneously written as Pervez Sharif. The error is regretted. REFERENCE: Malik Ishaq attended Multan rally: Jamaatud Dawa By Rabia Mehmood Published: February 17, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/337998/malik-ishaq-attended-multan-rally-jamaatud-dawa/ 

The hate campaign by fake bloggers: whose agenda they are promoting? Raza Rumi

A dubious blog – LUBP – has taken some of my tweets and weaved a story around it. The problem with that blog is that it is not managed by real people but by individuals who have no moral courage to reveal their names. I was wrong about the blog and the people who manage it. I must admit my mistake and change my view. I was supportive of them in the past thinking that all progressive bloggers and voices should come together. I was criticised by several people for engaging with these fake identities. My sole purpose was that progressive discourse on the internet should not be undermined. However, over the past few months it is clear that these cowards are not furthering the progressive agenda but sabotaging it. People like Rabia Shakoor, Ali Arqam who were part of this blog left it due to differences with chief blogger Nishapuri (there is no picture of his to post here since he mysteriously sits in the UK and runs this hate campaign of which I am the latest target. Hence the image on the right is a representation for the readers). Then came threats, vilification and attacks on Dr Saleem Javed, an earnest activist from Quetta who is forever reporting from the ground on social media about the massacre of Hazaras. I was even more intrigued. Here is a man based in a dangerous zone and this anonymous guy sitting in the UK has the audacity to abuse Javed! Perhaps the turning point was the Not-the-so-real-Nishapuri started to attack liberals for condemning the suicide of an acid attack victim Fakhra. He thought that liberals were not condemning Shia killings enough but Fakhra got more attention. This ‘competitive’ politics of condemnation business finally tested my patience. I was appalled at the fact that Nishapuri-Laibaah was trivializing such a gruesome death (the woman underwent dozens of surgeries and died many deaths before her last breath). Lo and behold the bullies started to malign me. This dubious blog should be renamed as Let Us Bully Pakistan ( especially its liberals through false accusations, misrepresentation and promoting the view of ISI sympathisers and Zaid Hamids of the world that Pakistani liberals are the actual problem in this country). LUBP in view of its vicious campaign appears to be a plant of forces which are always looking for opportunities to undermine Pakistan’s liberal and secular minority. This common agenda speaks for itself. The intellectual bankruptcy of this platform is evident from the fact that while they are using my tweets but hurling abuse at The Friday Times and its staff. Quite ridiculous. I will leave that to TFT team to handle that. But the libelous nature of posts will not be ignored. Suffice it to mention that TFT and its chief editor has been under the watch of ISI and had to leave the country last year due to numerous threats. Once again, the LUBP is helping the agencies who have targetted Najam Sethi etc.

Why the bullies started their recent hate-campaign against me?

I was startled to find out one day that the Shia Mullahs were initially part of the deliberations of an all party conference organised by Difa Pakistan Council in Oct, 2011. I was intrigued as to how a community’s clerical leadership was doing that while their apologists in blogosphere were attacking liberals instead of the the Mullahs who happily truck with the establishment; and this is a historical fact. I am posting a few images of the minutes of the meeting of the joint resolution that was passed by Pak Defence Council’s initial meeting on 24 October 2011 at the Ambassador Hotel. It is a charter of sorts as well. According to this letter, obtained from the head of DPC, Maulan Sami ul Haq’s office by a journalist friend, there were two Shia representatives along with some Hindu and Christian representatives.

Here are the images:

I am skipping the full list but here is the basis for my tweets. Check out the numbers 48 and 49 on the list below which indicate two Shia clerics as participants to this conference.

This was the evidence that was given to me; and unlike LUBP I do not make my opinions on conjecture, hatred or wild speculation. I was quite furious and tweeted that why were these Mullahs sharing a stage with DPC. The agenda in the document has their names at the end; and of course this ‘stage show’ by LUBP’s liberal-hating and bashing friends did not exclude the clerics who should not have attended this meeting and made a strong statement about the DPC for the very start. DPC is full of Shia-hating Salafis and other Muslim sects. Guess what Nishapuri-Laibaah found more offensive? That I had tweeted this little uncomfortable truth.

When one criticizes the Shia clerics it does not mean that a community is attacked. Clerics – be they Sunni, Shia or of any other variety – have done more harm than good. If Saudia Arabia has misinterpreted Islam and exported Wahabism, the Iranian clergy has also done no less by turning a great country, with a thousands of years old civilisation into a repressive theological state. Neither can be condoned or justified. If agents of Wahabis are dangerous so are the sympathisers of Iranian regime and its dangerous Mullahs.

Later developments:

After my initial tweets based on the letter above, there was a storm caused by the bullies at LUBP. Luckily a very reasonable and informed tweeter, Mahdi Baloch told me (via Twitter) that the Shia representatives later distanced themselves from the DPC. I have not found any public statements yet. However, Sana Bucha in her TV programme of Feb 4 discussed this issue and the website of DPC does not include the names of these leaders now (http://www.difaepakistan.com/about-us.html) . (Yes they grew apart but on Mahdi Baloch’s insistent tweets I checked on 9 April, 2012 again and I was informed by a source that the leaders were present in the initial meetings, not later though) I even told clarified that many times on Twitter as advised by Mahdi.

Good that clerics are not there anymore and have retracted. But the record of ALL mullahs – Shia and Sunni – has been far from enviable.

In 1974, almost all clerics (including Shia clerics) united to back the state in declaring Ahmedis as non-Muslims and since then a pandora’s box has opened. Sunni extremists such as Dr Israr Ahmed have also called for similar exclusion of Shias.Earlier, a piece I wrote was also condemned for covering the Shia exclusion under the constitutional amendment declaring Ahmedis non-Muslim. Due to a language error the message was unclear or conveyed the different meaning but it was a simple point: the support to Anti-Ahmedi constitution amendment was a death-knell for a tolerant Pakistan and Shia clerics who backed it then, are now becoming a victim of it. On youtube there are many videos which show how some extreme Sunni sects use the Ahmedi-exclusion principle for Shias as well.

In these times, the clerics should remain away from the establishment and its various ploys. As recent as 2009, the Shia clerics apparently backed Nizam e Adal regulation passed to appease the extremists in Swat and which was later reneged by the same militant group[s]. Ali Salman has written an excellent post http://alisalmanalvi.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/identity-assassination-of-shia-community-in-pakistan/ where he gives more detail:

Facing the escalating political pressure to reach a settlement, President Zardari signed the controversial regulation into law on April 13, 2009 after a National Assembly resolution approved of the measure…In a show of rare defiance, only one MNA Ayaz Amir stood up and opposed the regulation valorously despite the grave coercions by Taliban’s spokesman, Muslim Khan, carried by all the daily newspapers in the morning.

As feared the militants took advantage of the peace deal and expanded their territory into other districts and within few days they took control of Buner, Lower Dir and Shangla. Given a free hand to the deo-bandi hard liners, it was evidently understood that the Shia community would suffer the most since Taliban and their supporters firmly believe that Shias are apostates/infidels. Much to the bewilderment of many readers the so called Shia leadership (understandably constituted of religious clerics) gathered in a well known seminary “Jamia tul Muntazir”, located in Model Town Lahore, and fervently endorsed highly controversial Nizam e Adal regulation proposed by Sufi Muhammad vide an announcement letter despite facing such a palpable threat to the community. The letter claimed to have been released with the consent of Sajid Ali Naqvi and it held the support for the regulation as a religious obligation on all the seminaries affiliated with Wafaq ul Madaris Al-Shia Pakistan as well as all the Shias living in Pakistan. It goes without saying that the much extolled Niazm e Adal regulation later yielded in horrific repercussions.

Announcement letter signed by various Shia clerics, at Jamia tul Muntazir Lahore, showing solidarity with Sufi Muhammad is pasted below:

Shia community in Pakistan, bearing in mind that there is no time to lose, will have to find a way out of this absurd state of affairs. Instead of following those who never miss an opportunity to stab in the back, Shias should endeavor to bring forth a leadership that can safeguard their interests and not of those who aren’t anywhere in the picture. Otherwise living peacefully in Pakistan would become a distant dream not only for Shias but for other minorities including Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Ahmadis considering the sense of insecurity ripping through a commoner’s mind.

In the current scenario, while Shias are being killed some of their religious leaders are chanting the establishment mantra.Nadem Farooq Paracha wrote about it:  http://dawn.com/2012/04/01/smokers-corner-shifting-attentions/

The most interesting is the emergence of the Shia platform, the Majlis-i-Wahdat-e-Muslimeen (MWeM). Constantly harassed and targeted by their Salafi counterparts, Shias finally managed to hold a large religious gathering in Karachi to protest against what many of the MWeM’s leaders assert are the unrelenting murders of Pakistan’s Shias at the hands of the ‘establishment-backed Salafi/Deobandi jihadist outfits.’ The odd thing about this rally was that even during this gathering aimed at Salafi groups and the establishment, many Shia leaders did not miss the opportunity to attack the United States and Nato! This further confirms the fact that anti-Americanism, at least as a political ploy, is now squarely a narrow ruse of Islamic parties and groups of varying sects and sub-sects in Pakistan.

So attacking Mullahs is more difficult and condemning liberals is quicker, easier and wins brownie points by all and sundry. This raises serious doubts and questions about the fake activists and their nefarious agenda. If LUBP and its cowardly, anonymous haters think they can bully people like me they are wrong. Not only that we will counter their campaign, we shall continue to remain true to our firm stand that Pakistani state has to become secular and the influence and role of ALL Mullahs needs to be removed from politics. Activism and advocacy for the cause of Shias, Ahmedis and other endangered communities can only be secular. We have had enough of Mullahs and their ignorance for decades. The hate campaign by fake bloggers: whose agenda they are promoting? Raza Rumi April 11th, 2012 http://pakteahouse.net/2012/04/11/the-hate-campaign-by-fake-bloggers-whose-agenda-they-are-promoting/

Debate of Takfir (Apostasy) - Part 4

The Munir Commission Report (Lahore, 1954) states: “Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, 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, and that definition differs from all others, we all leave Islam’s fold. If we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to everyone else’s definition.” The report elaborated on the point by explaining that the Deobandis would label the Barelvis as kafirs if they are empowered and vice versa, and the same would happen among the other sects. The point of the report was that if left to such religious ‘scholars’, the country would become an open battlefield. Therefore, it was suggested that Pakistan remain a democratic, secular state and steer clear of the theological path. Unfortunately, this suggestion was not heeded and, consequently, the exact opposite happened. Pakistan became hostage to the mullahs and is now paying a heavy price. Our politicians played into the hands of these fanatics for expedient political reasons and overlooked the diminishing returns from such an unwise overture. The journey of politicising Islam began with the Objectives Resolution. Jinnah envisioned a secular Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan made the mistake of adopting the Objectives Resolution in 1949 that stated, “Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.” This stipulation gave the mullahs the chance they were looking for, a chance to flash their religious card and put fear in the heart of the ignorant masses. After moving the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, Liaquat Ali Khan said, “As I have just said, the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.” Although he believed in the power of the people and aimed for a secular, democratic rule, yet by bringing the name of religion into the Objectives Resolution, he gave an edge to the mullahs who later claimed it as their licence to impose the Shariah. And so began the rise of the fanatics. Ulema did not wait long to demand their share of power in running the new state. Soon after independence, Jamat-i-Islami made the achievement of an Islamic constitution its central goal. Maulana Maududi, after the creation of Pakistan, revised the conception of his mission and that of the rationale of the Pakistan movement, arguing that its sole object had been the establishment of an Islamic state and that his party alone possessed the understanding and commitment needed to bring that about. Jamat-i-Islami soon evolved into a political party, demanding the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan. It declared that Pakistan was a Muslim state and not an Islamic state since a Muslim State is any state which is ruled by Muslims while an Islamic State is one which opts to conduct its affairs in accordance with the revealed guidance of Islam and accepts the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of His Law, and which devotes its resources to achieve this end. According to this definition, Pakistan was a Muslim state ruled by secular minded Muslims. Hence the Jamat-i-Islami and other religious leaders channeled their efforts to make Pakistan an "Islamic State." REFERENCE: Source for further reading: Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953 (Lahore: Government Printing Press, 1953), pp. 201-235. Section numbers have been added by FWP. Paragraphs in the original text have been lettered for convenience in discussion, and then broken into shorter ones for ease in reading. Punctuation has occasionally been adjusted for clarity, and small errors have been corrected. All editorial annotations in square brackets are by FWP. All italicized transliterations are those of the original text. Selections from Part IV of the MUNIR REPORT (1954) http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_munirreport_1954/index.html

Munir Commission Report (1954) http://www.scribd.com/doc/100215583/Munir-Commission-Report-1954

Munir Commission Report (1954)

SHK.SYED MERAJ RABBANI TOPIC:QADIANI HI KAFIR KU? PART 4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldybyJH1UzQ

Musalmano Ka Ehteram Karo + Ulema Deoband ka Mehboob Mashghala aur Deen ka Aiham Fareeza...

Daarul Uloom Deoband and British Raj

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]

SHK.SYED MERAJ RABBANI TOPIC:QADIANI HI KAFIR KU? PART 5


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdh9RBPH3b4

MAUDUDI AUR QURAN