Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947, on September 11, 1948 Mr. Jinnah passed away. Just after six months of his death on March 12, 1949 Objective Resolution was passed, literally it buried Jinnah’s legacy and initiated unchecked authority of mullas in Pakistan.
After it in every development in political corridors of our country, our mulla had a stake and an opinion. It blocked land reforms by calling it un-islamic, it exploited religion to serve its masters whether they were military rulers or elected one. It supported killings of innocent Bengalis in 1971 by justifying it from religion. Even today many atrocities and rape allegation are present against our army and religious military units.
During Bhutto’s government it compelled it to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims, Bhutto did it thinking of getting support in return, which was offered to him by portraying him as being solver of 90 years old problem. But sadly had these mullas shown little loyalty to that great solver he would never had been hanged.
In Zia’s era, mulla got the best opportunity that any clergy has got in history to fulfill its dream of Islamization. But sadly it produced nothing but a militant and bigot society, which pursued Jihad in which many religious opponents and innocents were also killed. They helped Zia in terrorizing Indians and blackmailing them by nuclear weapons.
After Zia’s death they saw new horizon of their Jihad because they felt Soviet Union collapsed due to their successful Jihad. But every step that they took put Muslims into more trouble. Had they been successful in helping Afghanistan, millions would not have left and thousands would not have died after Najibullah’s government.
Today just because of their intolerant and barbaric interpretation of Islam, the people who were seen as narrow minded in past are now privileged by their people to legislate to ban hijab in West. Today our World has become most insecure after WWII.
All above happenings compelled me to say that mulla had a very active role in whatever happened in our national life. Nothing happened that our mulla has opposed to, even smart politicians like Bhutto were unable to turn-down their demands, wherever we are standing today, it is with consent of mulla, in fact a result of whatever our mulla wanted. Then why the hell they cry in mosques and in their televised sessions, where they ask their listeners to pray for forgiveness. Can they tell us what sins we as nation did that today we are the most destroyed nation.
Whenever you put this question to a mulla, their reply is that the only solution is to enforce Sharia. Didn’t they get chances in past to enforce Sharia, which Israeli or US agent stopped them from doing anything. Why didn’t they impress our nation to turn into a nation immersed in love of Sharia. Fact is they never struggle for anything good in the name of religion, all their commitments and actions were meant to grab a political and social authority. Time did give them what they wanted but they have failed this country every time and on every point in history.
If we had a communist or socialist or a pure capitalist government, we would have been correct in saying that it is all because the system is wrong. But there was nothing wrong with the system, we always kept modifying it whenever a mulla got out on roads with angered mobs. We declared Ahamdis as non-Muslims, made Friday off, banned alcohal, made hudood ordinance, made blasphemy law, disgraced Dr Abdus Salam by not letting him epitaph of his choice, accepted Swat agreement. We did almost everything that our mullas asked us to do, even then they are angry with the literate class of this country for being pro-secular and pre-democratic and anti-Islam.
Our mulla has got taste of political power under the patronage of our State, whenever it names Sharia as the only solution, it means nothing but just to throw away responsibility of the great mess that we have arrived at in our national life.
I don’t oppose Sharia, in fact I support every solution that can help my country. But to me our society is into so much depth of ignorance and lawlessness that our national attitude will only put a bad name on Sharia. We will be out to behead and cut hands of our opponents on false allegations. In fact after those abundant fatwas of infidels against different sects, I don’t think we as nation will have anything less than a civil war in our country if Sharia is enforced.
So to all mullas, in last 100 years whoever and whenever somebody followed you, he got failed and embarrassed at the hands of their opponents. And whoever dared to get this nation out of trouble, he met with you aggression and fatwas of being infidel and wajib-ul-qatl. Whether it was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Jinnah, Attaturk or anyone. I believe Jinnah was fortunate enough to get opposition from you, had it been opposite he would have never achieved Pakistan.
And for those who want any betterment in Pakistan, please don’t let these mullas decide or affect anything. As long as we have Rehmat ul lil Alameen (P.B.U.H.) as our guider, we don’t need any mulla who orders beheadings, floggings, kidnap for ransom, and reward for killing accused like Aasia bibi.
Amnesty International Report 2010 - Millions of Pakistanis suffered abuses as a result of a sharp escalation in armed conflict between the government and armed groups. Pakistani Taleban and other anti-government groups targeted civilians throughout the country, while security forces used indiscriminate and disproportionate force and carried out suspected extrajudicial executions. In areas controlled by the Pakistani Taleban and allied armed groups, civilians faced severe abuses, including arbitrary arrest and detention; torture and other ill-treatment; a near total absence of due judicial process; stringent restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly; religious and ethnic discrimination; and violence and discrimination against women and girls. Violence against minorities increased, with the government failing to prevent attacks or punish perpetrators. There were no executions, although 276 people were sentenced to death. - Pakistan 28 May 2010 Christian minority member Fanish Masih, aged 19, was found dead on 15 September in Sialkot prison where he had been held in solitary confinement. Prison authorities claimed that he had committed suicide but his relatives reportedly noted bruises consistent with torture on his forehead, arms and legs. Three prison officials were suspended for negligence, but no criminal charges were brought against them. REFERENCE: Amnesty International Report 2010 - Pakistan Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2010 - Pakistan, 28 May 2010, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c03a80cc.html http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c03a80cc.html
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 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/ziaera-deletion-from-objectives-resolution-criticised-cj-lauds-parliament-for-correcting-historic-wrong-960 - 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 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201069\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 http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=29367
Islamization Under Zia
Soon after seizing power, Zia ul-Haq used appeals to Islamic values to legitimize his regime and consolidate his hold on power. He attributed Bhutto's downfall to un-Islamic behavior, and promised to "transform the country's socio-economic and political structure in accordance with the principles of Islam." (34) He first postponed elections promised for 1977, and again canceled those scheduled for 1979 on the grounds that Pakistan's political system was not Islamic. (35) In 1978, Zia expanded the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) (36) to include many conservative ulama. Under the 1973 Constitution, the CII had been authorized to review existing laws and recommend reforms to bring Pakistan's political, legal and economic institutions into line with Islamic principles. Before 1978, that power had not been exercised, but Zia used the CII to give its stamp of approval to his policies, notably his ruling that Pakistan was to continue under martial law without elections or political parties. (37) Zia's Islamization efforts had their greatest impact on Pakistan's criminal justice system. (38) The potential for misuse of power by the police and jail authorities had existed since colonial times, and successive periods of martial law had further increased the powers of the law enforcement agencies and eroded safeguards against abuses. The effect of Islamization was to bring more people, particularly women, into contact with an already abusive and corrupt criminal justice system and, to increase the state's power over the lives and liberties of its citizens. When Zia came to power, Pakistan had two functioning legal systems: the civil courts system, based on Anglo-Saxon common law and the law of the colonial state, and the martial law courts, which were expanded under successive military governments. Zia rapidly took steps to restrict further the jurisdiction of the civil courts and to bring them under the martial law authorities. (39) The May 1980 Constitutional Amendment Order prohibited the High Courts from reviewing the jurisdiction or judgments of the martial law courts. The Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) of 1981 went even further, empowering the martial law authorities to decide whether a case would be held in the martial law or civil courts and retrospectively validating everything done by the military regime since 1977. (40) Article 17 of the PCO required judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to take an oath to abide by the PCO; those who did not, or who were not asked to, were dismissed. (41) The PCO also curbed the power of the High Court to grant interim relief or bail with regard to a detention order on a habeas corpus petition. (42)
Under Zia, the martial law courts had exclusive jurisdiction to consider any crime defined as a violation of martial law. For example, political meetings or anything that could be construed as "defamation" of the martial law regime were illegal. (43) In addition, the martial law courts had discretion to hear any case involving an offense under the Penal Code. Most cases came before summary military courts, but important political cases were heard before special courts that could impose the death penalty. Both courts suspended safeguards against unfair trials and coerced confessions. Writs of habeas corpus could not be obtained from a civil court to review a military arrest or conviction. Defendants' access to counsel was highly restricted, and proceedings were held in camera, usually within the prison. (44) Throughout the martial-law period, all fundamental rights guaranteed under the 1973 Constitution were suspended, political parties and trade unions were banned, and opposition activists were jailed by the thousands. Mistreatment and torture of detainees, including the flogging of prisoners, were widespread. Zia further undermined the independence of the civilian court system with the introduction of the shariat courts (discussed in full in this report's section on the judiciary). In 1978, he established Shariat benches in each High Court to review all laws to ensure that none was repugnant to the Quran or the Sunnah. In May 1980, these benches were reorganized and centralized under the Federal Shariat Court, which consisted of eight High Court judges or persons so qualified. (45) As a system parallel to the civil court, the effect of the Shariat Courts was to weaken the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts, create insecurity amongst superior judiciary and make unnecessary inroads in a judicial system that could have dealt with the Shariat jurisdiction in its existing structure. (46)
In 1981 and again in 1982, the structure of the Federal Shariat Court was amended to reduce the number of civil judges, or persons so qualified, and to add ulama to the bench. (47) In 1983, 150 qazi (religious judge) courts were also established at the district level. (48) Zia took other steps to reinforce the process of Islamizing the legal system. Among these were the promulgation of the Hudood Ordinances (1979) and the Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) Order (1984). Both of these laws have had a devastating effect on the rights of women. (49) Zia's foreign policy interests also had an impact on domestic Islamization efforts. The year after Zia seized power, civil war broke out in Afghanistan. That war intensified with the Soviet invasion of 1979, driving some three million refugees into Pakistan. Zia immediately offered support to the resistance, reorganizing and expanding the military intelligence agency, ISI, as the pipeline for assistance to the mujahidin. (50) The resistance groups favored by the ISI advocated the installation of a radically fundamentalist Islamic state in Afghanistan and Zia hoped that by aiding them, Pakistan would continue to have influence over Afghanistan once they were in power. (51) In December 1984, Zia called for a referendum on his policies and continued rule. Opposition groups called for a boycott, which was declared illegal under martial law. The government claimed to have received widespread support in the referendum, which Zia asserted gave him a mandate to continue in office until 1989. Opposition sources and foreign journalists reported that voter turnout had been very low. In February 1985, general elections (which had been postponed in 1977 and canceled again in 1979) were held for the National Assembly. Political parties were banned from participating in the elections, and many individuals associated with political parties were barred from running as individuals. Again, advocating a boycott was declared illegal, and hundreds of opposition leaders were detained before the elections. Mohammed Khan Junejo, who along with other Pakistan Muslim League party members ran as individuals, became the new prime minister.
The new Assembly's first order of business was to adopt the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which ensured that all constitutional amendments, laws and orders promulgated during the martial law period, including all the new Islamic laws, were affirmed, adopted and declared, notwithstanding any judgement of any court, to have been validly made by competent authority and, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, could never be called into question in any court on any ground whatsoever. Adopting the Eighth Amendment was the precondition for the lifting of martial law, which took place on January 1, 1986. With the end of martial law, the PCO was repealed. Under the Revival of the Constitution 1973 Order, the Constitution was restored, but it had been drastically amended to increase the powers of the president over the judiciary and National Assembly and to ensure that President Zia remained in control even after martial law was lifted. (52) Over the next two years, opposition parties began to demonstrate openly, but some restrictions remained and several hundred opposition party leaders remained in prison. Ethnic tension in Sind province between Pathans, Sindhis and Muhajirs continued to escalate, erupting in street gunbattles and car bomb attacks. In a surprise move on May 29, 1988, Zia dismissed the government of Prime Minister Junejo and called for national elections to be held within 90 days. (53) On August 1 of that year, Zia, along with several senior military officers and U.S. Ambassador Arnold Raphel, was killed in a plane crash, the cause of which has never been determined. The president of the Senate, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, became acting president. Following a Supreme Court ruling, elections for prime minister were held on a party basis, pitting the PPP under Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, against an alliance of conservative and Islamist parties known as the IJI (Islami Jamhjoori Ittehad, or Islamic Democratic Alliance) under Punjab Chief Minister Nawaz Sharif. When the election was held on November 16, the PPP won 93 and the IJI 55 of the 205 seats contested. (54) REFERENCE: Double Jeopardy Police Abuse of Women in Pakistan http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/pakistan/ Police Abuse of Women in Pakistan JUNE 21, 1992 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1992/06/20/police-abuse-women-pakistan
In this photo taken on Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2009, a man carries a child out of a house after it was attacked by a mob in Gojra, Pakistan. Non-Muslims make up less than 5 percent of Pakistan's 175 million people. They are especially vulnerable to anti-blasphemy laws that carry the death penalty for derogatory remarks or any other action against Islam, the Quran or the Prophet Muhammad. Minority Rights Group International, a watchdog organization, lists Pakistan seventh on the list of 10 most dangerous countries for minorities, after Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar and Congo. (AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini) - LAHORE, Pakistan | Christians in Pakistan are feeling increasingly insecure after several violent attacks by Muslim extremists in the past two months. In one case, eight Christians were burned to death by a Muslim mob after reports that the Muslim holy book, the Koran, had been desecrated. Growing Talibanization of the country and a blasphemy law in place for two decades make non-Muslims, especially Christians, easy targets for discrimination and attacks, Christian and human rights activists say. "The attacks on Christians seem to be symptomatic of a well-organized campaign launched by extremist elements against the Christian community all over central Punjab since early this year," Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairwoman Asma Jehangir said at a press conference last month. The situation has become so serious that Pope Benedict XVI and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari discussed it during a meeting Thursday at the papal summer retreat in Castel Gandolfo, near Rome, the Associated Press reported. The Vatican said the two stressed "the need to overcome all forms of discrimination based on religious affiliation, with the aim of promoting respect for the rights of all." Most of the attacks on Christians' houses and churches followed claims of desecration of the Koran. Subsequent investigations generally proved the claims to be false. Pakistani Minority Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian himself, said that no Christian would even think of desecrating the Koran. Some elements wanted to create an atmosphere of disharmony, but the government would not allow anybody to play with the lives and properties of the Christians, he said. REFERENCE: Muslim threats to Christians rise in Pakistan 4:45 a.m., Sunday, October 4, 2009 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/04/muslim-threats-to-christians-on-rise-in-pakistan/
Religious minorities, Christian communities in particular, also saw heightened threats to their security in 2002. On March 17, two unidentified men threw six grenades at the Protestant International Church in a diplomatic enclave in Islamabad, killing five people and injuring forty others. On August 5, six Pakistani guards were killed during an attack on the Murree Christian School, a missionary school for foreign students forty miles east of Islamabad, when four gunmen stormed the premises. The gunmen, who had escaped to nearby woods, blew themselves up with hand grenades when they were found and surrounded by police. Only four days later, unidentified attackers hurled grenades at a chapel in a missionary hospital in Taxila, twenty-five miles west of Islamabad, just as the women of the congregation were leaving from the daily morning prayer. Three nurses were killed in the blast, as was one of the assailants, while twenty others were injured. The violence extended to Christian humanitarian aid workers on September 25, when two gunmen entered the Institute for Peace and Justice (IPJ) in Karachi, and killed seven people by shooting them point blank in the head. All of the victims were Pakistani Christians. The All Pakistan Minorities Alliance and the National Commission for Justice and Peace condemned the attacks, asserting that Pakistan's Christians were being victimized for Pakistan's alliance with the U.S. The massacre was followed by a three-day mourning and protest, organized by Christian groups in Pakistan. At this writing, no arrests of the killers had been made, but those protesting had been detained. Pakistan REFERENCE: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/asia8.html
Christians in Danger - Pakistan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3xOf_Fki94 - Feb 2002 - In the dust and ruins of the slums of Islamabad, 500 Christian families cram into tattered tents. "Christians come from the poorest and most oppressed class in society," says the local Bishop. Few can afford proper schooling for their children. Even the traditional route of becoming a cleaner for a Muslim family is under threat. Since the attack on a Catholic church in Bahawalpur, which killed 22 church goers, the entire Christian community in Pakistan in nervous. With American pressure in Afghanistan and the Middle East mounting, the already unpopular Christians are the first victims of increased radicalisation. However, a visit to Rawalpindi girls' school shows a rare sight -- Christian and Muslim children taught together. Despite the armed guards at the doorway, they strive for their motto "work in peace". However, Christians in Islamabad are still prisoners of their poverty and their future is bleak.
The struggle of Pakistan's Christians
CARING: Christians in today's Pakistan (2% of the population) have paid a high price for being in the minority. In Islamabad, the capital, a community of 5,000 of them live in extreme poverty, literally walled-off from the rest of society. REFERENCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSvZYxlFzhQ
Christians in Pakistan are suffering relentless persecution
Christian persecution in Pakistan
Burning Questions
1 - A JUDGMENT by the High Court in Lahore is worrying Pakistan's Christians. The court decided recently that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are applicable to all the phrophets of Islam. Jesus is a prophet in Islamic teaching. By worshipping Jesus as the son of God, Christians are, it could be argued, committing a blasphemy. The Bible itself, which Islamic scholars regard as not strictly factual, might be reckoned to contain blasphemies against Abraham, Noah, David and Jacob, all of whom are in the Islamic canon. Blasphemy carries the death sentence in Pakistan. Reference: Prophet and loss: Pakistan. (blasphemy law) The Economist (US) May 7, 1994. http://www.encyclopedia.com/The+Economist+(US)/publications.aspx?pageNumber=1
2 - The two cleaners from Jhang district, 300 miles south of Islamabad, were jailed by a Faisalabad court in 1999 under Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws, having been wrongly accused of burning a copy of the Koran. Because the law can be invoked on the word of just one witness, it is frequently manipulated by Muslims to settle scores or rouse religious tensions. Reference: Pakistan's blasphemy laws used to persecute non-Muslims Massoud Ansari in Lahore and Michael Hirst Published: 12:01AM BST 25 Jun 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1522285/Pakistans-blasphemy-laws-used-to-persecute-non-Muslims.html
3 - Lahore: March 2, 2009. (SLMP report) Two Christians named Wallayat Masih son of Saraina Masih alias Sala resident of village Maloki District Kasur and Mushtaq Masih son of Sooba Masih resident of Kareem Park Bank Stop Lahore have been charged under blasphemy law vide case registered vide First Information Report (FIR) No. 33 dated 1st March 2009, under section 295 B & C with police station Theh Shaikham District Kasur, both have been arrested and presently detained in the local police station. 7 team members from CLAAS and SLMP visited village Maloki for fact finding today on 2nd March 2009. Mr. Joseph Francis the National Director Center for Legal Aid Assistance & Settlement (CLAAS) and Chief Coordinator Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan (SLMP) led the team. Reference: Two Christians Charged Under Blasphemy Law in Kasur, Punjab. July 6, 2009, 2:36 pm http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=1003
4 - Pakistan's human rights commission has reacted strongly after the country's military ruler gave up plans to change the way in which a controversial blasphemy law is implemented. A number of Islamic organisations had threatened to hold demonstrations on Friday to protest against the proposed changes. But General Musharraf has said that he now plans to leave the laws completely unchanged. Bishop John Joseph killed himself in protest at the blasphemy laws. Reference: Pakistan's blasphemy law U-turn Wednesday, 17 May, 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/751803.stm
5 - Faisalabad (AsiaNews) – Bishop John Joseph, who committed suicide in 1998 to protest the blasphemy law, was recalled today in a mass in the Cathedral of St Peter and St Paul in Faisalabad. Mgr Andrew Francis of Multan and Mgr Joseph Coutts of Faisalabad participated in the celebration, together with dozens of priests. In his homily, the bishop of Multan described Mgr Joseph as a "perennial voice of ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue", who "preached the words of the Gospel with all his life". Reference: Mgr John Joseph, blasphemy martyr, remembered by Qaiser Felix 05/06/2006 17:59 http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=6099 - Analysis: Pakistan's Christian minority Monday, 29 October, 2001 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1625976.stm
6 - "As it was the unanimous demand of the Ulema, Mashaikh and the people, therefore, I have decided to do away with the procedural change in registration of FIR under the blasphemy law" (General Musharraf, Dawn 17.5.2000). How was public opinion determined? No one asked me! Is the reference to ulema and mashaikh to the self-proclaimed ones or men and women of Islamic learning? And did populism prevail over Islam? Why was no attempt made to enter into a debate, or at least a learned Islamic discourse? What was the role of the two ministers (religious affairs and law) who are primarily concerned with this issue? One does not recollect any valuable contribution from these two sources. Reference: NEED TO CHECK MISUSE OF BLASPHEMY LAW (28 May 2000) EDITOR'S NOTE: An article entitled "Need to Check Misuse of Blasphemy Law" by Qazi Faez Isa, was published in DAWN, Karachi, on Sunday, May 28, 2000 http://ecumene.org/INRFVVP/blasphemy.htm
8 - The barbaric murder of Jagdeesh Kumar, accused of blasphemy by some of his workmates at a garment factory in Karachi, brings out in sharp focus once again the exposed and vulnerable situation of non-Muslims in a Pakistan still wedded to the legacy of General Zia-ul-Haq. When the police finally intervened, the body of the 22-year-old victim had been mutilated and disfigured beyond recognition: among other things the eyes had been gouged out. The reports published indicate that he was a quiet man, from a poverty-stricken Hindu family belonging to some obscure village in the Sindh desert. People with such a depressed and vulnerable background come to factories to seek out a miserable living, not to engage in religious controversies. In the days and weeks ahead, we will learn that some petty personal quarrel or irrational hatred of a Hindu was the real reason for his murder. Reference: Blasphemy and persecution by Ishtiaq Ahmed Saturday, April 26, 2008 http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=108906
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Text/Report to support questions.
... It is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order ... wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality.
Constitution of Pakistan
Preamble
Subject to law, public order and morality (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
Article 20
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 18
No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any state, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief.
Reserved seats for minorities in parliament
The system of reserved seats for minorities and women introduced by President Musharraf in 2002 failed to fulfil the required objective of giving a political voice to minorities. The minorities’ representatives in the assemblies usually followed the line of the party that got them elected and not the interest of their communities. In early February, the World Minorities’ Alliance Convener, Mr. J. Salik, said the current system did not allow any minority person to contest elections independently on the minorities’ seat. He had challenged that process in the Supreme Court in 2002 but to date no hearing had been set. (N, Feb 6) A minority representative said: “When the Hasba Bill was approved in the NWFP, two persons elected by the MMA on reserved seats also voted for it. This instance showed that representatives of religious minorities elected on reserved seats were not free to pursue private agendas”. (DT, Feb 24)
Freedom of Religion
Ahmadis
As in previous years, the spread of hatred against the Ahmadis continued. At least six Ahmadis were murdered because of their faith during 2008.
An anchorperson of a popular TV channel held a prime-hour discussion commemorating the 1974 amendment to the Constitution declaring Ahmadis as “not Muslims”. The programme ended with a verdict by a participating mufti, of an extremist school, that the Ahmadis deserved to be murdered for deviating from the view of the finality of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Neither the TV channel nor the anchorperson was chastised by the government for the virulent broadcast. Following the TV discussion, three Ahmadis were shot dead in early September – Dr. Abdul Mannan Siddiqui in Mirpurkhas, Seth Yusuf, a Nawabshah trader, and Sheikh Saeed at his pharmacy in Karachi. (D, Sep 21)
In Lahore in late May the International Khatm-e-Nabuwwat Movement (IKNM) announced a moot to be held at the Aiwan-e-Iqbal. IKMN Ameer MPA Maulana Ilyas Chinoti added the moot would mark a hundred years of successfully countering Qadiyaniat. (N, May 23)
In Faisalabad in early June, a mob of 300 college students barged into the rooms of Ahmadi students, beat them up and threw their belongings out of their rooms. The boarders also stole valuables from the Ahmadi students. The Punjab Medical College (PMC) through a notification rusticated 23 Ahmadi students on the report of the disciplinary committee. It was alleged that they were preaching and distributing Ahmadi literature. (DT, Sep 9) The students suffered harassment and interruption in their studies for months before they were allowed to resume their studies. In Shabqadar, Charsadda district, local clerics refused to lead the funeral prayers for a man believed to be an Ahmadi. The local clerics issued a fatwa (decree) that the deceased had become an Ahmadi and, therefore, no one would lead his funeral prayers. (DT, Sep 23)
Christians
The Christian community was discriminated against and the marginalisation of an already poor and disenfranchised community continued with the State offering virtually no protection. In early January, dozens of Christians held a protest outside the Lahore Press Club against the occupation of their homes in Bakar Mandi by influential people with the support of the government. The protesters said they had been living on the government property since pre-partition time but now they were being forced out. They said that the residents were very poor and had no means to buy houses; they had no shelter and had been left with no option but
to commit suicide along with their children. (N, Jan 7)
In late February, the Christian residents of Chananpura, Bakar Mandi, claimed that they were under siege by “land grabbers” who continued to harass and threaten them despite an ongoing civil lawsuit to decide ownership of the disputed land. The residents claimed that armed men, acting on behalf of the alleged land-grabbers, stripped and beat one of their young men, Faqirah Masih. They also hurled threats at him of bulldozers demolishing their prepartition homes. (D, Feb 23)
In Lahore, two minority councillors were injured during a scuffle in a meeting of the Lahore district council when they had attempted to move a resolution against a blast that damaged a church and also draw attention to the Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 7 7
illegal occupation of the Church of Christ in Garden Town by land grabbers. (D, Mar 17)
In late May, Christians protested against the Defence Housing Society, Lahore, for desecration and bulldozing of the graves in a Christian graveyard situated on Walton Road. The Christians alleged that they were being stopped from burying their dead in the graveyard. In June, 20 minority members of the Christian community, in Peshawar, were kidnapped and beaten up at a charity dinner for the members. The attackers, who came in land cruisers and pick-up trucks, attacked the Christians who were in the middle of their prayers. The attackers threatened them of similar attacks in the future if the “Christian community did not mend its ways”. (D, Jun 22)
Hindus
The Hindus of the scheduled class were neglected and ignored in every walk of life. At a conference at the Lahore Press Club, the Haray Rama Foundation and Guru Gorakh Naath Sewa Mandal director protested that there was no lower caste Hindu or other caste MPA or MNA representing the non-Muslims in Punjab. He stated that the lower caste was given no representation in the 10 national assembly and 23 provincial
assembly seats. (N, Jan 5) In Hyderabad, the low caste Hindus staged a demonstration outside the press club protesting discrimination towards them by successive governments. They said that the lower caste constituted 95 percent of the Hindu population; the 5 percent upper caste Hindus became MPAs and MNAs and patronised only their own class. (D, Oct 26)
Sikhs
The Sikhs had no representation in parliament and could not hope to have their issues taken up. In Lahore, Dr. Swaran Singh of the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara stated Sikhs in the country (about 12,000 in
number) faced social and political problems because of a lack of direct access to the government. While Christians and Hindus had representations in the government, Sikhs had none. Many Sikh youths were deprived of quality higher education because there was no scholarship quota in the Higher Education Commission. Further, the poor Sikhs did not receive financial relief from the government. Christian and Hindu widows received Rs 5, 000 per month but the Sikh widows were deprived. (DT, May 3)
Blasphemy laws and their victims
In Karachi, a Hindu factory worker, Jagdeesh Kumar, was killed outside his workplace by a mob, which comprised of many of his colleagues. He was allegedly accused of blasphemy. The law enforcement agencies did nothing to save the young man. (D, Apr 26, May 11) In early May, Dr Robin, of Hafizabad, who had lived and served in that town for thirty years was booked under Section 295- C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The doctor was charged with blasphemy when he joked with a patient about the latter’s unruly beard. After incitement by a local Imam, hundreds of residents marched to Dr. Robin’s residence threatening to kill him and his family. While the mob encircled Dr. Robin’s house, law enforcers stood by and watched the whole episode silently. A Christian welfare organisation rescued the doctor and Jagdeesh Kumar: Done to death by his co-workers. State 7 8 ate of Human Rights in 2008 his family from likely death. Dr. Robin was put in jail and the uprooted Robin family had to go into hiding to escape the anger of religious extremists.
Demolition of places of worship
In Lahore, members of the Christian community protested against the demolition of a church in Garden Town, desecration of the holy Bible and illegally occupation of the land. The Church of Christ was constructed in 1963 and had been a place of worship since then. (DT, Jan 25). In protest, Sunday prayers were offered on the road in front of the demolished church. The participants said the police and d i s t r i c t administration had remained silent spectators despite the desecration. (D, Feb 15)
Recommendations
1. The blasphemy law was promulgated in 1985 and in 1990 the punishment under this law, which sought topenalise irreverence towards the Holy Quran and insulting the Holy Prophet (PBUH), was life imprisonment. In1992, the government introduced death penalty for a person guilty of blasphemy. Immediate abolition of ‘blasphemy’laws is needed as these provisions are often used against non-Muslims as well as Muslims to settle personal scores.
2. School curriculum has to be sensitised toward non-Muslim Pakistanis so that children feel safe, secure and equal.
3. The Ahmadis have been denied the benefit of the joint electorate system which was revived in 2002. The discrimination should be ended.
4. The Commission on Minorities should be made functional by reinforcing its independent status and providing it with the necessary resources, human as well as financial.Christians demand end to occupation of a church by the land mafia.
Children of General Zia-ul-Haq, i.e., terrorists of the Sipah-e-Sahaba, under the patronage of Pakistan’s ISI and Shahbaz Sharif’s government in the Punjab province, are back in action once again.
Today (19 July 2010), Muslim extremists belonging to the Sipah-e-Sahaba (an affiliate terrorist organisation of the Taliban and Jamaat-e-Islami) shot dead Rahid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people in district courts compound in Faisalabad today.
There were rumours on July 18, 2010, that both of Christian brothers are free to go home from Civil Lines Police Station Faisalabad where they were detained on July 4, 2010, under blasphemy charges on complaint of one Muslim businessman (an affiliate of Jamaat-e-Islami) of Railway Bazar because police told friends of Rashid and Sajjid that there is no proof found against them which may extend their detention.
Today, investigation officer Mohammad Hussian produced Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel before Judge in District Courts where he testified that police have investigated allegations leveled against them but found no proof that they may be charged under blasphemy.
Police investigating officer Mohammad Hussian told court that complainant Mohammad Khuram Shehzad lodged FIR alleging Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel producing a handwritten leaflet which he stressed is defiling Prophet Mohammad but police have report of Handwriting expert that pamphlet handwriting presented by Mohammad Khuram not match with handwriting of accused Christian brothers. Police further submitted that they have nothing to investigate against them and find no proof to remand them in custody.
The court ordered to send Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel to Judicial custody till next date to issue further orders.
As there were rumors that Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel are found innocent and will be released, the extremists Muslims, terrorists of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, reached in District Courts Faisalabad and were waiting for them to come out of court house.
As Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel were walking towards district courts custody cell with police, the unidentified gunmen opened fire and Rashid Emmanuel felt on ground.
Sajjid Emmanuel stepped to safe his brother but gunmen shot him down too. When police tried to fire back on gunmen, they also came under attack and Inspector Mohammad Hussain felt down on ground.
In minutes, masked gunmen fled from scene, till medical aid reach, Rashid Emmanuel died on spot while Sajjid Emmanuel and police officer were rushed to hospital, where they were pronounced dead till our posting this sad incident.
The leaders of Christian Lawyers Foundation CLF, Rao Naveed Zafar Bhatti Advocate reported that adequate security was not in district court which made easy for killers to fled from scene.
Pastor Rashid Emmanuel was 32 years of age and running a Ministry while his brother Sajjid Emmanuel was helping him in Lords word.
.According to PCP reports, a blasphemy case was registered on 1st July, 2010, under section 295- C PPC, against Rashid Emanuel and Sajid Emanuel of 30 years of age who were residents of Street No.5 Daud Nagar, Faisalabad, Pakistan and arrested by police on July 4, 2010.
Muhammad Khuram Shezad merchant of Railway Bazar, Faisalabad, had complained that his servant told him that both Christian accused were distributing pamphlets in open bazar which is desecrating Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and their numbers are under the writing of the Pamphlet. He went to PS and told fabricated story to police to charge 2 Christian young men under blasphemy.
The Muslims took out a procession on July 10, 2010, when they burnt tires and pelted stones on Catholic Church Warispura Faisalabad. The mob threatened that if these brothers are not executed according to Muslim law, the mob will exact revenge not only on them, but the entire Christian community.
Mr. Khalid Gill, Chairman Christian Lawyers Foundation CLF, have strongly condemned target killing of Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel.
Dr. Nazir S Bhatti, President of Pakistan Christian Congress PCC have condemned brutal daylight murder of Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid Emmanuel and termed it heinous crime against humanity.
Nazir Bhatti urged Punjab government to adopt necessary security measure of Christians and arrest killers to punish under law.
“We demand government and President of Pakistan to repeal blasphemy law by executive order to end genocide of Christians in Pakistan pretext to blasphemy law and other discriminatory laws” said Nazir Bhatti
Let me start by saying – as a disclaimer- that opposing Jinnah, the Muslim League or Pakistan is not an unpardonable crime. Support for Pakistan’s creation is not sine qua non for its citizenship. However an exception must be made in the case of Jamaat-e-Islami given its latter day claims about being the guardians of Pakistan’s ideology. Maulana Maududi claimed and his “Jamaat-e-Islami” still claims to be the guardian of Pakistan’s ideological frontiers as it were. They have been at the forefront of religious bigotry against all minority groups of Pakistan. They abuse those who stand for a peaceful settlement of Kashmir dispute and they hurl abuses at groups like Agha Khanis and Ahmadis- the two of the most actively pro-Pakistan groups during partition- and accuse them of being the enemies of Pakistan.
What a turn around. Maududi was the most vociferous opponent of Mr. Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement. I reproduce here some of his referenced works here from his “Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III) First Edition published from Delhi. Jamaat-e-Islami claims that the whole Two Nation Theory project was derived from Maududi’s writings which is completely untrue. Maududi described the idea of Muslim Nationalism as unlikely as a ”chaste prostitute”. Here he wrote: ” Who are the Muslims you are claiming to be a separate nation? Here, the crowd called Muslims is full of all sorts of rabble. There are as many types of characters in this as in any (other) heathen people”. (Vol. III, P.166) “If you survey this so-called Muslim society, you will come across multifarious types of Muslims, of countless categories. This is a zoo with a collection of crows, kites, vultures, partridges and thousands of other types of birds. Every one of them is a ’sparrow’. (Ibid. P.31)
One of Jamaat-e-Islami’s latter day claims has been that Mr. Jinnah wanted an Islamic state. Ironically this is what Jamaat-e-Islami’s philosopher in chief Maulana Maududi was writing back then: “Pity! From League’s Quaid-e-Azam down to the lower cadres, there is not a single person who has an Islamic outlook and thinking and whose perspective on matters is Islamic“. (Ibid. P.37) “To pronounce these people fit for leading Muslims for the simple reason that they are experts of Western type politics and masters of Western organizational arts, and are deeply in love with their people, is a manifestation of an unislamic viewpoint and reflects ignorance of Islam”. (Ibid. P.70) “Even with a microscopic study of their practical life, and their thinking, ideology, political behaviour and style of leadership, one can find not a trace of Islamic character.”
Jamaat-e-Islami now claims claims that the Muslim League won the elections because it promised Pakistan as an Islamic state. Here is what Maulana Maududi said then: “In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it has it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.” (Ibid. P.130-32)
One of the main arguments in favor of separate federations in India put up by Muslim League was that parliamentary democracy would not work in United India given the permanent minority that Muslims were with their own majority zones. Thus Pakistan – as a separate federation- had to be a democratic state. Jinnah’s vision, as Gandhi concluded after his abortive meetings with Jinnah in 1944, was of a perfect democracy in Pakistan. This vision was rejected by Maulana Maududi and his party. The fact that Jinnah used electoral methods and strengths of numbers for his politics also upset Maulana Maududi quite a bit. He wrote: “For these reasons, the great numbers (of Muslims) that we find. (listed) in the census records has become worthless for purposes of Islam. Anything done on the strength of these numbers will result in acute frustration.” (Ibid. P.56)
Had these great numbers supported Maududi he would have gladly accepted their strength. In 1947, he moved to Pakistan and brought here with him his cancerous Jamaat-e-Islami too. He remained however a committed opponent of the Pakistani national causes including the Kashmir struggle calling it unIslamic. Today the Jamaat-e-Islami castigates anyone and everyone who wants a peaceful settlement in Kashmir. I suppose Maududi could not call the Kashmir struggle a Jihad because then Ahmadis were involved in fighting there under their Al-Furqan brigade.
A few years later Maududi in cahoots with the old anti-Muslim League and anti-Pakistan group Majlis-e-Ahrar started the anti-Ahmaddiya movement in Pakistan with the main objective of getting Zafrulla dismissed from his post as the foreign minister. This is the same Zafrulla who was the author of the Lahore Resolution and had been appointed by the Quaid to plead Pakistan’s case before the boundary commission and the United Nations. The movement led to a death sentence being handed down to Maulana Maududi which was not carried out.
At the Munir Report hearings the Jamaat e Islami described Jinnah’s vision of the state as expressed on 11 August 1947 as kufr and evil. Today Jamaat e Islami claims that 11th August speech was actually according to Islamic Law. Ofcourse they would never agree to its implementation in letter and spirit but perhaps we could consider this an improvement. Some Jamaat-e-Islami wallahs point to Maududi’s half hearted support to Fatima Jinnah’s bid for presidency as proof of his patriotism and love for democracy. The truth is that Jamaat-e-Islami had nothing against dictatorship and indeed military coup seems to be Jamaat’s preferred method of change of government. What alienated Maududi from Ayub was the latter’s insistence on taking lead in Islam-related matters from Allama Parwez and the modernist Harvard scholar Fazlurrahman instead of him.
The Jamaat-e-Islami expected to sweep into power in 1970 through elections (wait isn’t this a contradiction?). Maududi’s son even visited Ahmaddiya headquarters and told them to vote for Jamaat-e-Islami for “safe passage out of Pakistan”. However the election results didn’t quite turn out the way Maududi wanted it to. So he went about it another way forming Al Badr a militant organization which is distinguished in its role in East Pakistan. Those who accuse Bhutto of being power hungry by collaborating with army should also consider the fact that had Bhutto not played footsie with the dictator, it would have been an abject surrender of both East and West Pakistan, in the East to India and in the West to Maududi.
Given this history and Jamaat-e-Islami’s role in aid of General Zia, all their claims of democracy seem hollow. Had it not been for Aitzaz Ahsan’s sagacious leadership, they would have hijacked the Lawyers’ Movement. We must be on the look out for any meetings between Jamaat-e-Islami’s current chief and the Pakistan Army and the patriots of Pakistan must remember that Jamaat-e-Islami will always persecute those who actually stand for Pakistan. A few years ago they even started a campaign to have Aga Khanis declared Non-muslims. Ofcourse the fact that Aga Khan was the first president of the Muslim League and Jinnah himself was an Agha Khani by birth is too inconvenient for them.
It is therefore in this context that the slander, abuse and lies posted by a third rate newspaper “Daily Ummat” against PakTeaHouse and myself must be read. It is because we speak up for Pakistan, it is because we expose the Fitna-e-Maududiat, it is because we speak for Jinnah’s Pakistan and because we speak for the minorities of Pakistan and because we feel Pakistan deserves a shot. The Fitna-e-Maududiat will never attack those who abuse Pakistan day in day out because that group doesn’t challenge their lies or their claim to speak for Pakistan. We do.
Pakistan TV talk-show hosts like Zaid Hamid and Amir Liaquat Hussain peddle anti-American conspiracy theories and bash minorities.
By Issam Ahmed,
When Taliban militants stormed two minority-sect mosques in Lahore last month, Pakistani television crews swung into action, breaking police lines to document a dramatic siege that left 95 people dead. What they left out of the coverage highlights the Pakistani media’s increasingly belligerent bent.
Reporters refrained from honoring these victims, part of the frequently persecuted Ahmadi sect of Islam, with the title shaheed, or martyr, as they had done for thousands of others killed in militant violence in recent years. Nor did they refer to the places of worship as mosques. TV news programs downplayed the sectarian nature of the attack. Some instead accused India of trying to undermine Pakistan on the anniversary of successful nuclear tests, or America for fomenting instability to expand its presence in the country.
While Pakistani media are banned by law from recognizing Ahmadis as Muslims, their apparent lack of sympathy for the victims underscored the growing dominance of a worldview that’s rooted more in the country’s conservative religious seminaries than its Western-oriented universities. Nowhere is this more evident than in a bevy of news and talk shows that promote anti-Americanism, the idea of a transnational Islamic government, and minority bashing.
“These [programs] need to be looked at and reviewed. Instead of demonizing the Taliban, they glamorize them,” says Sherry Rehman, a lawmaker from the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and former minister of information.
As in Pakistan, American media has its share of rabble-rousers, such as radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News host Glenn Beck, whom the Anti-Defamation League has called America’s “fearmonger-in-chief.” But they don’t talk openly about links with religious militants.
Pakistan’s new firebrands raising eyebrows include televangelists such as Amir Liaquat Hussain, who hosts the popular “Alim Online” show on Geo Television, Pakistan’s largest private TV network; the fez-sporting ex-jihadi Zaid Hamid who famously coined the term “Hindu Zionist” to describe what he sees as the unholy alliance of Israel and India in their quest to undermine Pakistan; and Hamid Mir, host of “Capital Talk,” who counts among the country’s most respected journalists and who interviewed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her last visit to Pakistan, and is currently in the midst of scandal regarding his alleged ties with the Taliban uncovered in a taped phone recording.
Dozens of private cable channels sprouted during the early 2000s under the rule of former President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who liberalized the country’s strict media laws. The newly-empowered broadcast media has played a key role in shaping public opinion on matters ranging from the militancy to the long-standing power struggle between the executive and judiciary which eventually helped lead to General Musharraf’s ouster.
Today, every evening, millions of viewers tune-in to watch their preferred nightly hosts. According to industry insiders, Hamid Mir consistently rates No.1 as Pakistan’s most popular talk show host, with advertisers paying about $2,400 a minute for air-time during his slot – a princely sum in impoverished Pakistan.
But of the three new firebrands, Zaid Hamid, who counts rock star Ali Azmat and fashion designer Maria B among his fans, has perhaps the largest youth following, with some 58,000 fans on Facebook.
Mr. Hamid has advocated the Pakistani conquest of India as a solution to poor Indian-Pakistani relations. Other bold declarations include an insistence that, if left unmolested by foreign powers, Pakistan would place a man on the moon within five years. Late last year, he claimed on his show to have evidence that Israel was on the verge of bombing Pakistan – an event that never came to pass.
“One of the reasons why he is beloved is because he’s someone who helps absolve self-reflection. His insistence is that we were destined by greatness but we were robbed by America, by the Jews and the Hindus,” says popular radio-show host and columnist Fasi Zaka.
Hamid has also used controversial (and widely discredited) religious texts to bolster his claims of being the savior of Islam – citing one as saying that the revival of Islam will come from South Asia, and another which says the savior Islam will wear a red hat (much like the hat Hamid is famous for).
Audience appeal
Much of Hamid’s target demographic – young middle-class professionals – grew up after widespread Islamization measures imposed by military ruler Gen. Zia-ul-Haq during the 1980s. Policies include demonizing India and minorities and promoting Islamic government as the only solution to political problems, says Taimur Rahman, a political science lecturer at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. “It’s easy then to relate to what Zaid Hamid says because that’s what they’ve grown up with. It takes more reasoning to challenge that.”
Kamran Zia, a trader in the city of Karachi, says that for him, Zaid Hamid’s show is about “believing in yourself, your culture, your religion and your identity, and not assuming that because something is Western it’s automatically superior.”
Mr. Hamid’s show often references the accomplishments of the Muslim empires that ruled India for close to a thousand years before being supplanted by British rule.
Mr. Zia says when he returned to Pakistan from university in Britain in 2007, “there was a lot of despondency” because of political unrest and a failing economy. “He gave us back that self-belief. It’s good for us.”
Hashim Malik, an officer with Pakistan’s National Bank, adds: “We do have a glorious past and today people look back and only remember the negative things. I like Hamid’s shows because though I do believe in live-and-let-live, we still need to keep ourselves morally intact.”
Despite his substantial following, Hamid’s show was recently cancelled owing to a torrent of opposition of right-wing student groups who felt Hamid has strayed too far in his self-aggrandizement, while allegations resurfaced that Hamid had been a close follower of Yusuf Kazzab, a man who claimed to be Islam’s final Prophet in the late 1990s. He is also being investigated in a murder case, and at present Hamid’s appearances on television are sporadic.
Calls to violence
While Hamid generally reserves his venom for what he perceives as Pakistan’s external enemies, others, like televangelist Amir Liaquat Hussain openly call for violence against Pakistan’s minorities. In a show recorded in 2008, the Karachi based religious-scholar, who held the post of minister of state for religious affairs in the Musharraf regime, said it was incumbent on all true-believers to kill Ahmadis.
Within two days, a prominent Ahmadi doctor and an Ahmadi rice trader were shot dead in Sindh province.
Though Hussain’s membership in the secular MQM political party was terminated, no further action was taken against him or his channel, Geo, owned by Pakistan’s largest media group.
Pakistani media outlets generally refrain from engaging in criticism of each other. But some liberal papers did criticize veteran reporter Hamid Mir – who has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times – when an alleged tape recording linked him to the execution of a Taliban hostage in May.
“We all know that journalists have sometimes to ingratiate themselves with dubious people who can provide them information. But you may want to ask yourself, how much information is Mir’s ’source’ actually sharing and how much of the conversation is the ‘reporter’ informing his ’source,’ ” wrote a blogger on Café Pyala, an anonymous media watch blog that helped break the story.
In the tape, Mir brands Khalid Khawaja, a former intelligence agent being held by the Taliban at the time, a “CIA collaborator” as well as an Ahmadi sympathizer. He also advises the Taliban spokesman not to let Khawaja go but instead interrogate him further. Khawaja was executed days later.
Mir hotly denied the allegations and called the tape faked. “They took my voice, sampled it, and manufactured this conspiracy against me,” Mir told the UK’s Guardian newspaper. Khawaja’s son, meanwhile, announced he would take Mir to court.
After an initial storm of publicity, Mir has retained his show and to date no formal investigation has been launched.
Contrary voices silenced
In such an atmosphere, few hold out hope for positive change. There are no liberal personalities of comparable standing to counteract the right-wing voices, says Mr. Zaka, and the liberal press is largely restricted to English-language newspaper, channels, and blogs – all of which reach only highly-educated Pakistanis.
According to Abbas Nasir, editor of Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English daily, Urdu newspapers outsell their English counterparts in Pakistan by approximately a 10:1 ratio.
“The dangerous thing … is that the middle and upper class are [falling] hook, line, and sinker for these conspiracy theories. The fringe argument has become the mainstream,” says Mr Zaka.
And how it could become one. By Pervez Hoodbhoy Himal South Asia, June 2010
Pakistan has been a state since 1947, but is still not a nation. More precisely, Pakistan is the name of a land and a people inside a certain geographical boundary that is still lacking the crucial components needed for nationhood: a strong common identity, mental make-up, a shared sense of history and common goals. The failure so far to create a cohesive national entity flows from inequalities of wealth and opportunity, absence of effective democracy and a dysfunctional legal system.
While it is true that most Punjabis think of themselves as Pakistani first and Punjabi second, this is not the case with the Baloch or Sindhis. Schools in Balochistan refuse to hoist Pakistan’s flag or sing its national anthem. Sindhis, meanwhile, accuse Punjabis of stealing their water, the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) runs Karachi on strictly ethnic grounds, and in April the Pashtun of NWFP successfully had the province officially renamed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (against the wishes of other residents). In getting a job, caste and sect matters more than ability, and ethnic student groups wage pitched battles against each other on campuses throughout the country.
The lack of nationhood can be traced to the genesis of Pakistan and the single factor that drove it – religious identity. Carved out of Hindu-majority India, Pakistan was the culmination of the competition and conflict between natives who had converted to Islam and those who had not. Converts often identified with Arab invaders of the last millennium. Shah Waliullah (1703-62), a ‘purifier’ of Islam on the Subcontinent who despised local traditions, famously declared ‘We [Hindustanis] are an Arab people whose fathers have fallen in exile in the country of Hindustan, and Arabic genealogy and the Arabic language are our pride.’
The founder of Pakistan, Mohamed Ali Jinnah, also echoed the separateness of Muslims and Hindus, basing the struggle for Pakistan on the premise that the two peoples could never live together peacefully within one nation state. But Jinnah was unrecognisably different from Waliullah, a bearded religious scholar. An impeccably dressed Westernised man with Victorian manners, a secular outlook and an appreciation of fine foods and wines, Jinnah nevertheless eloquently articulated the fears and aspirations of an influential section of his co-religionists. Interestingly, he was opposed by a large section of the conservative ulema, such as Maulana Maudoodi of the Jamaat-e-Islami, who said that Islam must not be confined to national borders. But Jinnah and his Muslim League won the day by insisting that Muslims constituted a distinct nation that would be overwhelmed in post-British India by a larger and better-educated Hindu majority.
Thus Pakistan, in essence, was created as the negative of India: it was not India. But what was it, then, beyond being a homeland for Muslims? Decades after the horrific bloodbath of Partition, the idea of Pakistan remains hotly debated. It did not help that Jinnah died in 1948, just a year after Pakistan was born, with his plans still ambiguously stated. He authored no books and wrote no policy paper. He did make many speeches, of which several were driven by political expediency and are frankly contradictory. These are freely cherry-picked today, with some finding in them a liberal and secular voice; others, an embodiment of Islamic values. The confusion is irresolvable.
After Jinnah, the Objectives Resolution of 12 March 1949 was the first major step towards the transformation of Pakistan from a Muslim state into an Islamic state. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This obviously limits the legislative power of a representative assembly, since the fundamentals are already defined. Another consequence was the grudging concession that ‘Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures. ‘ This created the concept of minorities in the Pakistani polity, and hence negated the right of equality – a basic requirement of modern democracy.
The basis in religious identity soon led to painful paradoxes. An overbearing West Pakistan was to ride roughshod over East Pakistan, and become despised as an external imperial power. Jinnah’s ‘Two Nation’ theory was left in tatters after the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, and the defeat of the Pakistani military. The enthusiasm of Muslim Bengalis for Bangladesh – and their failure to ‘repent’ even decades after 1971 – was a deadly blow against the very basis of Pakistan. Nevertheless, contrary to dire predictions, the Pakistani state survived. Its powerful military easily crushed emerging separatist movements in Balochistan and Sindh.
For a while after 1971, the question of national ideology fell into limbo. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto attempted to create a Pakistani identity around the notion of revenge for the loss of the East Wing. He promised ‘war of a thousand years’ against India, and started Pakistan’s quest for the atomic bomb in 1972. While this served temporarily as a rallying cry, the military coup of 1977 that sent him to the gallows was to revive the identity issue.
Zia’s project
Soon after he seized power, General Zia ul-Haq announced his intention to remake Pakistan, and end the confusion of the country’s purpose and identity once and for all. In a sense, he wanted to emulate Napoleon Bonaparte’s achievement of creating a nation from a nation state. Eric Hobsbawm, the influential Marxist historian, persuasively argues that the state of France made the French nation, not vice-versa. Similarly, Zia sought to create a nation – albeit one based on religion rather than on secular principles – using the power of the state. The word soon went out that Pakistan was henceforth not to be described as a Muslim state. Instead, it was now an Islamic state, where Islamic law would soon reign supreme. To achieve this re-conceptualisation, Zia knew that future generations of Pakistanis would have to be purged of liberal and secular values.
Thus began a massive, decade-long state-sponsored project. Democracy was demonised and declared un-Islamic, culture was purified of Hindu ‘contamination’, Urdu was cleansed of Hindi words to the extent possible, capital punishment was freely used, dress codes were introduced, university teachers had their faith examined under a microscope, and religion was introduced into every aspect of public and private life. Education was the key weapon for Zia’s strategy. In 1981, he ordered the education authorities to rewrite the history of Pakistan. All new school textbooks would now ‘induce pride for the nation’s past, enthusiasm for the present, and unshakeable faith in the stability and longevity of Pakistan’. Jinnah and other icons of the Pakistan Movement had to be portrayed as pious fundamentalists, whether or not they carried beards; their lifestyles had to be hidden from public view. To eliminate possible ambiguities of approach, a presidential order was issued to the University Grants Commission that, henceforth, all Pakistan Studies textbooks must:
Demonstrate that the basis of Pakistan is not to be founded in racial, linguistic, or geographical factors, but, rather, in the shared experience of a common religion. To get students to know and appreciate the Ideology of Pakistan, and to popularise it with slogans. To guide students towards the ultimate goal of Pakistan – the creation of a completely Islamised State.
In a matter of years, Pakistani schoolchildren grew up learning a catchy but linguistically nonsensical jingle about the ‘ideology’ of Pakistan: ‘Pakistan ka matlab kya? La illaha illala!’ (What is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no god but Allah!) Although the purported answer has nothing to do with the question, Zia’s strategy soon began to show results.
Barely a decade was needed for Pakistan’s transformation from a moderate Muslim-majority country into one where the majority of citizens wanted Islam to play a key role in politics. The effects of indoctrination are now clearly visible. Even as members of the Sharia-seeking Taliban were busy blowing up schools in Swat and elsewhere, a survey in 2008 by the online World Public Opinion found that 54 percent of Pakistanis wanted strict application of Sharia, while 25 percent wanted it in some more dilute form. Totalling 79 percent, this was the largest percentage in the four countries surveyed – Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan. A more recent survey, of 1226 young Pakistanis between 18 and 29, was carried out across Pakistan by the British Council in 2009. It found that ‘three-quarters of all young people identify themselves primarily as Muslims. Just 14% chose to define themselves primarily as a citizen of Pakistan.’
Clearly, the country’s youth is deeply worried by lack of employment, economic inflation, corruption and violence. In this turbulent sea, it is not surprising that most see religion as their anchor. For some, violent change is the answer to the country’s problems. This is precisely what Zaid Hamid, one of Pakistan’s fiery new demagogues, advocates. Hamid, a self-proclaimed jihadist who claims to have fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, builds specifically on the insecurity of the youth, enthralling college students who pack auditoriums to listen to him. Millions more watch him on television, as he lashes out against Pakistan’s corrupt rulers and other ‘traitors’. Hamid promises that those who betrayed the nation’s honour by joining the US-led ‘war on terror’ will hang from lampposts in Islamabad. In his promised Islamic utopia, speedy Taliban-style justice will replace the clumsy and corrupt courts established by the British. Just as Adolf Hitler dwelt on Germany’s ‘wounded honour’ in his famous beer-hall oratory in Munich (where he promised that Germany would conquer the world), Hamid calls for the Pakistan Army to go to war against India and liberate Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya and Afghanistan. One day, he says, inshallah, Pakistan’s flag shall fly from Delhi’s Red Fort. The students applaud wildly.
Still no Islamic state?
Notwithstanding the enormous impetus given by Zia, final success still eludes Pakistan’s Islamists. The explosion of religiosity did not produce a new Pakistani identity, and a Sharia state is nowhere to be seen. Why? Ethno-nationalism is part of the answer. This natural resistance against melding into some larger entity is the reflexive response of historically constituted groups that seek to preserve their distinctiveness, expressed in terms of dress, food, folklore and shared history. Assimilation of Pakistan’s diverse peoples into a homogenised national culture is opposed by this force that, like gravity, always acts in one direction.
Ethno-nationalism is, of course, vulnerable. It can be overcome by integrative forces, which arise from the natural advantage of being part of a larger economy with correspondingly greater opportunities. But for these forces to be effective, it is essential that the state machinery provides effective governance, demonstrates fairness and is indifferent to ethnic origins. Pakistan’s ruling elite, unfortunately, is both incompetent and ethnically partisan, drawing its roots from the powerful landed and feudal class. The army leadership and the economic elite had joined forces after Partition to claim authority, but they were transparently self-serving and therefore lacked legitimacy.
Dangling the utopia of an Islamic state raised expectations but did little else. To the chagrin of the political and army establishment, it ultimately backfired and became the cause of infinite division. The post-Zia generation – which believes that every issue would be solved if the country were to go back to the fundamentals of Islam – muddles on in a state of deep confusion and deadly divisiveness. It believes that adherence to ‘true Islam’ will solve all problems and lead to a conflict-free society. But, in reality, the Quran and Hadith can be interpreted in multiple ways, and ‘Islamic fundamentals’ can be defined in many contradictory ways. These differences fuel violent political forces, each convinced that they alone understand god’s will. Murderous wars between Sunni and Shia militias started during the late 1980s. Today, even those favouring the utopian vision of an ideal Islamic state are frightened by the Pakistani Taliban, which seeks to impose its version of Sharia through the Kalashnikov and suicide bombings.
All this was easily predictable, as sectarian divides are almost as old as religion itself. Basic questions are fundamentally unanswerable: Which interpretation of Islam, for instance, is the ‘right’ Islam? Of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafii, Maaliki, Hanbali), which version of the Sharia should be adopted? Will all, or most, Pakistanis accept any non-elected amir-ul-momineen (leader of the pious), or a caliph? And what about the Shia? Democracy is excluded in any theocratic state, which, by definition, is a state governed according to divinely revealed principles wherein the head of state, elected or otherwise, interprets such principles and translates them into practical matters of the state. So, for example, although Abul Ala Maudoodi, in his Islamic Law and Constitution, states that ‘Islam vests all the Muslim citizens of an Islamic state with popular vice-regency,’ he is quick to point out that all vice-regents need not be of equal consequence. He demands that constitution makers should:
Evolve such a system of elections as would ensure the appointment of only those who are trustworthy and pious. They should also devise effective measures to defeat the designs and machinations of those who scramble for posts of trust and are consequently hated and cursed by the people in spite of their so-called ‘victories’ in the elections.
In this ‘state without borders’, any Muslim anywhere can be a citizen. It will be the best governed not only because its leaders are pious, but also because the only ones who will vote will be the pious themselves.
In fact, religion cannot be the basis of Pakistan, or move it towards integration. This can be said categorically, although religion was undoubtedly the reason for Pakistan’s formation. Coming over a half-century after Partition, Pervez Musharraf’s call for ‘enlightened moderation’ was indeed a tacit admission of this fact. He realised that a theocratic Pakistan could not work, even though this conflicted with his other responsibility, that of being chief of the Pakistan Army. Since the days of Zia, the army had arrogated to itself the task of ‘defending Pakistan’s ideological borders’ and, since the end of the 1980s, had consciously nurtured radicalism as an instrument of covert warfare in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Although Musharraf’s successor, General Pervez Kayani, also seeks to distance the army from its past, it is unclear as to what extent he or other senior officers actually have control. The Islamists, for their part, hope for, and seek to incite, action by zealous officers to bring back the glory days of the military-mullah alliance led by Zia.
While it is true that religious political parties have yet to receive any sizeable fraction of the popular vote, the secular system of power was never regarded by Pakistan’s citizens as just, appropriate or authoritative. So, by default, Islam became accepted as the basis of Pakistan, and any suggestion to the contrary continues to evoke a fierce public reaction. On the other hand, any serious move in the direction of making Pakistan a Sharia state would almost certainly lead to civil war. Why so? This is because while the Sharia is considered a panacea for Pakistan’s multiple problems of corruption, inequity and poor governance, its true nature is revealed only once there is an actual move towards its implementation.
In the past, terrible and uncontrollable forces have been released against the people. As in Swat, the Pakistani Taliban’s Wahabi-Deobandi-Salafi understanding of Sharia calls for forbidding females from leaving their houses, being educated or holding jobs. Men must have beards, wear shalwars rather than trousers, and never miss prayers. Killing apostates, decapitations, floggings and amputation of limbs are an essential part of the Taliban’s penal code. Fortunately, those who defend this notion of Sharia constitute no more than perhaps ten percent of Pakistan’s population. Of course, that still means millions.
Pakistan must remain
In common parlance, the ‘state’ refers to the government, and an entity in international law. Recognition by other states of the state’s claim to sovereignty enables it to enter into international agreements. Moreover, it needs a government to control its internal affairs. A more standard political-science definition of a nation state goes something like this: A state is an organised political community, occupying a territory and possessing internal and external sovereignty, which enforces a monopoly on the use of force. Max Weber, the political economist, defined the state as ‘a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.’
Pakistan is a nation state by the above definition and must continue to remain one. In effect, it must be because it is! The cost of the disappearance or destruction of this nuclear-weapon state is too awful to contemplate. Pakistan can indeed become a nation; moreover, it will almost certainly become one in time. Although religion will certainly remain an important part of Pakistan’s social reality for the foreseeable future, it must seek new roots lying within the country’s social reality rather than religion.
Look at it this way: rain inevitably grinds down stony mountains over centuries, and ultimately creates fertile soil. Similarly, nations are inevitably formed when people experience a common environment and live together for long enough. How long is long enough? In Pakistan’s case, the timescale could be fairly short. Its people are diverse, but almost all understand Urdu. They watch the same television programmes, hear the same radio stations, deal with the same irritating and inefficient bureaucracy, use the same badly written textbooks, buy similar products and despise the same set of rulers. Slowly but surely a composite, but genuine, Pakistani culture is emerging. Of course, stable nationhood is still not guaranteed. Both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke apart after seven decades. If Pakistan is to stay together and chart a path to viable nationhood, it must identify its most pressing problems and seek their amelioration. What might be a suitable manifesto of change?
First, Pakistan needs peace. This means that it must turn inwards and devote its fullest attention to ending its raging internal wars. The sixty-year conflict with India has achieved nothing beyond creating a militarised Pakistani security state that uses force as its first resort even when dealing with its own people. Attempts to solve the Kashmir issue militarily have bled the country dry, leaving it completely dependent on foreign aid. The army’s role must be limited to defending the people of Pakistan, and to ensuring that their constitutional and civil rights are protected. Indeed, given that the country could otherwise be rapidly overwhelmed by extremists who openly declare their disdain for democracy, the army is obligated to fight its progeny – the Taliban. There should be no illusion that extremism can be defeated by purely peaceful means. Indeed, the way ahead must be subtle and complicated. How can one develop the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and ameliorate the anguish of their people when the insurgents are out to stop development, bomb schools and kill doctors? In such a situation, Pakistan must say yes to negotiations, but no to surrender. It currently appears that the future will be one of ‘talk, fight, talk, fight’.
Second, Pakistan needs economic justice. This is not the same as flinging coins at beggars. Rather, it requires organisational infrastructure that, at the very least, provides employment but also rewards according to ability and hard work. Incomes should be neither exorbitantly high nor miserably low. To be sure, ‘high’ and ‘low’ are not easily quantifiable, but an inner moral sense tells us that something is desperately wrong when rich Pakistanis fly off to vacation in Dubai while a mother commits suicide because she cannot feed her children.
A welfare state in Pakistan is a distant ideal. India abolished feudalism upon attaining independence. But the enormous pre-Partition landholdings of Pakistan’s feudal lords remained safe and sound, protected by the authority of the state. The land reforms announced by Ayub Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were eyewash. In later years, with the consolidation of military rule in national politics, the army turned itself into a landlord-and-capitalist class. Military officers own assets that have no relation to national defence. This includes vast amounts of farm lands and valuable urban real estate, banking, insurance, advertising companies, cement and sugar industries, airlines and ground transportation, cornflakes and commercial bottled water. Most countries have armies but, as some have dryly remarked, only in Pakistan does an army have a country.
Third, Pakistan must shed its colonial structure of governance. Different historically constituted peoples must want to live together voluntarily, and see the benefits of doing so. A giant centralised government machine sitting in Islamabad cannot effectively manage such a diverse country. The demand for creating more provinces should be carefully examined and not peremptorily rejected, as is currently taking place. Having smaller administrative units does make sense, especially due to the rapidly rising population. On the other hand, to fan the flames of nationalism can hardly be a good thing.
As in India, Pakistan should be reorganised as a federation in which provinces and local governments hold the critical economic and social powers, while defence and foreign affairs are held in common by the Centre. In particular, Islamabad’s conflict with Balochistan urgently needs resolution, but using political sagacity rather than military force. Blaming India will not achieve anything – the Baloch are angry for good reason. At a recent lecture to senior Pakistan civil-service officers in Peshawar, this writer was taken aback at the intensity with which senior officers from Balochistan spoke. They said that Baloch wounds are too deep, and that the time for healing and reconciliation with Pakistan had passed. A decade ago, one would only have expected this language from student radicals – now, it is the mainstream Baloch who articulate such sentiments (see accompanying story, ‘The question of Balochistan’).
Fourth, Pakistan needs a social contract and economic justice. This is a commitment that citizens will be treated fairly and equally by the state and shall, in turn, willingly fulfil basic civic responsibilities. But today, Pakistanis are denied even basic protections specified in the Constitution. The poor suffer outright denial of rights – such as personal security and access to water in cities – while the rich are compelled to buy these. Rich and poor alike therefore feel no obligation to fulfil their civic duties. Most do not pay their fair share of income tax, leading to one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in the world. Seeing that the rulers flagrantly flout the very laws they claim to espouse, it is no surprise that the common citizen does the same.
Fifth, the country’s education needs drastic revision in the means of delivery and content. Money goes some way towards the first – better school infrastructure, books, teacher salaries, etc. But this is not enough. Schools teach children to mindlessly obey authority, to look to the past for solutions to today’s problems, and to be intolerant of the religion, culture and language of others. Instead, students need to be taught to be enquiring, open-minded, creative, logical, socially responsible, and to appreciate diversity. Pakistan paid a very heavy price because its leaders could not understand that a heterogeneous population can live together only if differences are respected. The imposition of Urdu upon Bengal in 1948 was a tragic mistake, and the first of a sequence of missteps that led up to the awful slaughter of Bengalis by the West Pakistani military in 1971. A myopic education system is squarely responsible for the fact that ethnic and religious minorities are viewed with suspicion and disdain by the majority. This must change.
In the end, for Pakistan to succeed, it must want to become a nation held together by mutual interests rather than by some abstract Islamic ideology. This is the only way to deal with the multiple civil wars that have started in the country. The path to creating a Pakistani nation is doubtless difficult. As the population explodes, oceans of poverty and misery deepen, limbless beggars in the streets multiply, water and clean air become scarce, education is stalemated, true democracy remains elusive, and the distance from a rapidly developing world increases. One is strongly tempted to step aside, give up and admit helplessness.
But surely that is wrong, for what we fear will then actually come to pass. The political philosopher Antonio Gramsci spoke of ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will’. Indeed, with the pessimism of the intellect, one must calmly contemplate the yawning abyss up ahead. But then, after a period of reflection, one should move to prevent falling into it. Pervez Hoodbhoy teaches at the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.
WE’VE MOVED!
-
Dear Friends, We’ve moved (well, mostly) to our new domain
www.faithpromotingrumor.com. All posts and comments made before March 6,
2009 have be transferre...
زمیں جنبد نہ جنبد
-
*زمیں جنبد نہ جنبد*
اپنی روزمرہ زندگی میں ہم جو الفاظ استعمال کرتے ہیں وہ اپنے اندر معانی کے
اعتبار سے اکثر مختلف مفاہیم کے حامل ہوتے ہیں لیکن ہمارا مخاطب ...
