PAKISTAN: Muslim leaders who issued decree to kill a Christian woman should be prosecuted

ISSUES: Blasphemy law; judicial prosecution; right to life and religious minority
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission received information that Muslim fundamentalist and extremist groups have advocated publicly that a Christian lady, Aasia Bibi, sentenced to death under the blasphemy laws should not be pardoned even though her pardon was awarded by a session court on the instigation of Muslim religious leadership. Some have offered a cash reward for Aasia’s assassination. Since the introduction of 295-C to the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by a military dictator in 1986, dozens of persons from religious minority groups have been killed or lynched by mobs. Pakistan’s courts have also proved themselves biased on blasphemy law.

Throughout Pakistan, wall chalking and graffiti declare support for killing Aasia, call for death to Aasia, and declare support for blasphemy law. A high profile campaign has also started in the private media channels against reforming the blasphemy law, and participants use filthy words against those persons who are advocating amendment of section 295-C of the PPC.

Please sign the appeal urging the authorities to pardon Aasia and abolish the amendments in blasphemy law. The religious minorities should be given full protection from the misuse of blasphemy law.

CASE NARRATIVE:

Aasia Bibi, 45, a Christian and mother of five, was sentenced to death by a local court in Nankana district, Punjab province, on charges of committing blasphemy. Ms Bibi's case dates back to June 2009, when she was asked to fetch water while out working in the fields and a group of Muslim women labourers objected, saying that as a non-Muslim she should not touch the water bowl. This resulted in exchange of hot words between her and Muslim women against each others’ religious beliefs. Five days after the incident, a local Muslim leader, Qari Salim, jumped into the matter and pressured some people in the area to claim that she committed blasphemy.

When finding no way to get Ms. Bibi to confess, Salim used the loudspeakers of the mosque, as other Muslim leaders usually do in the cases of alleged blasphemy acts, to spread the news of blasphemy and instigate the people of the locality to punish the alleged blasphemer. The people of the locality beat her severely in the presence of her children. The local police came and took her into protective custody, but at the police station the crowd under the leadership of Qari Salim pressured the police to file a charge of blasphemy against her and arrest her for desecrating the last prophet of Islam (peace be upon him).

On November 1, 2010, 16 months after her arrest, the court pronounced a death sentence on charges of committing blasphemy. The judge totally ruled out in his judgment any chance that Aasia was falsely implicated; he said that there were no mitigating circumstances. His comment in his verdict shows that he knew that it was a weak case and that people will oppose his judgment giving a death sentence to a woman in a blasphemy case for the first time in the history of Pakistan. According to the reports, the court relied on the witnesses provided by the Muslim leader of the mosque and Christians were not allowed to produce witnesses. The judge also did not know that according to the 2004 amendment to blasphemy law the investigation of any blasphemy charges should be conducted by an officer who is at least a Superintendent of Police (SP). In the case of Aasia, all the investigation was done by a low rank officer, the Assistant Sub-Inspector.

It has been found that Pakistan’s judges, from the lower courts to the highest courts, are eager to get popularity through their verdicts and comments during the hearing. When the chief justice of the Lahore High Court stopped the government from withdrawing the case of blasphemy against Aasia on the assumption that president of Pakistan would withdraw the case, Ms. Asma Jehangir, the president of Supreme Court Bar Association told the judges that if they want to get popularity through their judgment then they should do some other job rather than being a judge. The judiciary’s attitude towards the blasphemy law is no different than that of ordinary Muslim leaders. When the Chief Justice implored the government not to pardon the sentence, another bench of the same court also asked the government not to amend the blasphemy law.

It is also evident that those persons responsible for extra-judicial killings of persons accused of blasphemy will never be punished by the courts because of the biases of the courts and because of the lengthy period of trial during which witnesses were pressured by the militant groups.

A prominent Muslim leader, Maulana Yousef Qureshi, a hard line Pakistani Islamic cleric, told a rally in the north-western town of Peshawar that his mosque would give Rs. 0.5 million (,000 US dollars) to anyone who kills Aasia Bibi. The Maulana is the leader of Mosque Mahabat Khan, the biggest in the Khyber Pakhtoon Kha province. His announcement was carried by all electronic and print media, yet the government has not taken any legal action against Maulana for inciting people to kill extra judicially. Muslim religious groups all over the Pakistan are holding protest meetings in large numbers, instructing followers that there should be no compromise if the government or courts pardon Aasia’s death sentence.

The governor of Punjab, who met Aasia in jail after her sentence and assured her that he would take her case before the president of Pakistan, advocating to pardon her. However, the Lahore high court suddenly stopped the process and said before the decision of the court that the government cannot do such a thing. All the religious groups and parties maligned the governor as he is violating the basic teachings of Islam or he is an infidel.

Ms. Bibi’s husband and children are hiding. They left the house after receiving threats from the Muslim extremists. It is difficult for them to survive, as the husband and his other brothers are always chased by Muslim groups. There is a strong chance that her family would be attacked and might be killed as these happened in previous cases when persons were accused of blasphemy. In a recent case of two Christian brothers, the AHRC informed the authorities of the threat well before those brothers were killed in custody. Please see the urgent appeal in the case of Rashid Emmanuel and Sajjid.

In another case dating from July 2009, a Christian youth was killed by extremists in November 2010 after being released from charges of blasphemy. Please go to his case by clicking here.

One daily newspaper, Nawa-i-Waqt has written an editorial in favour of Maulana Yousuf Querashi, who issued a decree against Aasia Bibi and announced a cash reward for whomever kills Aasia Bibi. The newspaper wrote that Maulana was great in his decree and his action is according to Islam therefore Aasia Bibi should be killed.

The speaker and legislators of the provincial Assembly of Punjab province who support the move against Aasia Bibi are no better. When Mr. Shara, a minority member of the assembly, wanted to discuss the issue of Aasia and her punishment, the speaker, Rani Iqbal Ahmad, refused to allow Shara to speak on the issue, describing it as "sensitive". Protesting against the speaker's attitude, legislators belonging to minority communities walked out of the House. However, when Ali Haider Noor Niazi of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan party began speaking emotionally on the same issue, the speaker did not stop him. Niazi began shouting within the assembly as he criticised those who were trying to defend the woman. Niazi criticised Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer for raising his voice in favour of Asia Bibi. "The governor has no right to make efforts for Asia's pardon,” he said. Niazi was also of the view that those demanding the woman's release are blasphemers.

It is very much feared that Aasia Bibi or her family members may be killed during her detention or when she is released. The Punjab government is silent on the issue and allowing fundamentalist groups to decide all things.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The deliberate institutionalisation of Islam’s status as protected and predominant promoted the perpetuation of religious intolerance by Islamic fundamentalists. According to data collected by the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP), at least 964 persons were alleged of violating these anti-blasphemy clauses from 1986 to August 2009, while more than 30 persons were killed extra-judicially by the angry mob or by individuals.

Militant Muslim organizations are using blasphemy laws as the best way to keep religious minority groups under pressure and even forcibly take land. The state is failing to protect the lives and property of minority communities. The blasphemy law has made it compulsory that no police officer below the level of Superintendent of Police can investigate the charges but this is rarely adhered to.

Recent cases in Pakistan suggest a criminal collaboration among government authorities, police, and fundamentalist organizations, in which the Muslim clergy, receiving bribes from land-grabbers in the National and Provincial Assemblies, colluded with local police to expropriate land owned by minorities by bringing blasphemy allegations against them. The situation is especially worrying in Punjab province after the formation of the PML-N government, which has a record of intolerant policies against Christians and Ahmadis in particular.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write the letters to the authorities urging them to pardon Aasia and release her immediately. Please ask them to arrest those Muslim leaders who are instigating the people to kill her and have announced rewards for killing her. Please also urge that the children and family members of her be provided protection and employment.

The AHRC writes a separate letter to UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Religious tolerance calling for his intervention into this case.

To support this appeal please click here:

VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah

 —Yasser Latif Hamdani


In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.
To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.
The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”
The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.
Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.
We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?
Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.
There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”
Courtesy Daily Times

Naturalizing’ Blasphemy Laws

Nadeem A. Butt
If you have wrapped some thing like fruit, samosa or sweet in a newspaper, if you deliver (throw) or print a newspaper which has any Quranic Reference or the names like Ibrahim, Kareem, Wakeel, Shafi, Ismail or even Dera Ismail Khan, Lala Musa, or Fazl-ur-Rehman, Mian Muhammad Bakhsh etc. (because they have direct or attributed holy names in them), or you some how express that Muhammad (SAWW) was a “Bashar” and not “Noor” or otherwise, then you should be worried, very worried, because it may cause you to be put to death or at least death trial which may haunt you for years. This is not just an assumption, this has actually happened to several people, Muslims or Non Muslims alike! Any crooked mind can go to police station and gave the meaning of his choice to the situation and lodge an FIR against you under Blasphemy Laws. Police do not really want to get into any controversy in religious matters so they normally file a case. Like wise local courts do not want to be at any mob’s watch, so either they delay or they normally announce punishment, then the accused has to go to the High or Supreme Court to get relief. This takes years out of someone’s constructive life – without bothering anybody!!!  Is that what is really meant by any Religion of Nature or Laws in Its name?
Now coming to the Aasia Bibi and Blasphemy laws, I wonder the laws should be for the benefit of the common people not for the sake of power of a group or class. If the main idea behind the these laws are to save folks from the anarchy and enmity in the name of religion, then it should not be of any worries, but there must be some check and balances so that it could not be a tool to crush or silent someone. Though there are other laws which may be enough to stop violence and anarchy in the society and specific blasphemy laws may not be needed, but repealing them completely may not be possible for the Government at this time, so curbing them to benefit society is quite possible and in fact necessary even though it might be very difficult.
Let us see what the current law says …..Section 298:
Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
298 B and C are directed towards Ahmadies/Qadianis not to pose them as muslims “in any way, what so ever” that may cause 3 year imprisonment and fine.
Also 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings. 295-B forbids defiling the Quran. 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad. Except for 295-C, the provisions of § 295 require that an offence be a consequence of the intent of the accused. Defiling the Quran merits imprisonment for life. Defaming Muhammad merits death with or without a fine. If a charge is laid under 295-C, the trial must take place in a Court of Session with a Muslim judge presiding. (You may easily google more details of these laws if you need)

Here according to 295A,or 298A I believe all religions are entitled to complain against others who try to say something which is not in accordance with their certain beliefs, like a Christian may complain against a Muslim who expresses that he does not believe in divinity of Isa (AS), for hurting his religious feelings. Sunnis will be running against Shias and vice versa. Also to note that in 298 B and C, Ahmadies seem to be under a constant threat because all their practices were or are same as of Muslims (or perhaps they should devise new practices for Pakistan). And I do not understand how the law and justice will react if an Ahmadi/Qadiani under 295A and 298A, lodges a complaint against his opponents to hurt his religious feelings.
Now, you must be thinking I am saying something odd, yes, it is, and the question is if any odd or unnatural law can be Islamic? It actually seems as if intolerance has been legalized and promoted on purpose! Also such laws actually bar the healthy debate or preaching if we really take the law at its current face value. And let’s ask ourselves if The Holy Prophet of Islam (SAWW) was alive today, would he allow such phenomena as this one?
I do understand that it is almost impossible for the government to repeal these laws but they can refine or regulate or balance them without any hesitation, because to have a balanced law is clearly in accordance with the teachings of Islam. Here is what realistically the writer believes, Pakistan should do:
1-     Invite all sections of people including Religious Scholars (included form Minorities), Lawyers, Historians, Journalists, Parliamentarians etc. and have a round table conference. And the proceedings should be recorded and should available for reviews and public awareness. And the media especially urdu print media must help to bring the peaceful Islam forth the world.
2-     Upon the advent of a complaint, A retired Judicial or High Court Magistrate should be appointed (may be under the under the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner or RPO), who should form a sub-committee consisting of A Police Officer of at least SP or DSP Level and one member each from the accused and the accusing parties – or something close to this to be more transparent.
3-     The Blasphemy laws must have no ambiguity and should be crystal clear, that what exactly makes it a crime punishable by law. There should be nothing like “in any way” or “what so ever”.  And the Law should leave the room to differ from each other in the matter of faith.
4-     Any Blasphemy must be done in public, and the accuser should be able to bring at least 10 witnesses to prove that the accused did the act of blasphemy on purpose and also insisted on the same. Writing a book or saying things on mass media which are not true and/or which are expressed to ridicule or to attack others’ faith or religious personalities which would definitely result in hatred and violence. Questioning or reasoning some teachings or replying an objection (within the limits of decency) must not be compromised in this process.
5-     Any law must not be discriminatory or directed towards a specific community or minority, because you cannot promote tolerance if you allow intolerance against one and think that all others will be saved.
6-     Also it is clearly in accordance with Islam and nature that there must be counter punishment for those who fail to prove their case and/or do not provide with enough witnesses – I would suggest 10, which might sound a little extra but a real culprit would definitely say things in public, without caring how many are listening or watching.
7-     The punishment should start from the lower degree to higher – not the opposite. Because if someone does that and then realizes the mistake and seeks forgiveness and stops doing that again, should be forgiven, because this would not only be the victory of the decency and the truth and the society, but this would also be rightly according to the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (SAWW). And if there is a culprit who really insists on his open blasphemy and starts causing chaos by his actions should be face some kind of penalties e.g. fine, offering social service, attending a certain school or getting proper education, social and media boycott … and if there is no chance of betterment then imprisonment or other sentence.
And last but not least, all the laws should confirm peace, sincerity, cooperation and tolerance in the society and must not promote any personal agendas, ethnic or religious clashes, mistrust and violence.
(During writing these lines, I heard that President has formed a committee to review the current laws and to see if there is an thing that is against Islam – My prays are with them).

Why it is impossible to repeal blasphemy laws

By Feroz Khan
Babar Awan’s statement proves that the state of Pakistan is incapable of removing any laws once they are created on the basis of religion. In the last few days, if anyone has noticed, the statements coming from the officialdom have gradually obscured the issue. Therefore, one has to applaud Babar Awan for his honesty and candor for calling a spade a spade. In this sense, Babar Awan stands heads and shoulders above those minions of Pakistani politics, who do not have the moral and intellectual courage to state the truth in Pakistan.
First, Salmaan Taseer proclaims that Asif Ali Zardari will pardon Asiya Bibi and then, the minister for minorities, Bhatti, says that Zardari will pardon her but it will not be an immediate pardon and will take time. Then, comes a statement from Zardari’s office that since Asiya Bibi has filed an appeals, Zardari will wait for the appeal process to run its course and wait for the court judgement, on the appeal, before issuing a pardon. Zardari is a cunning politician and by saying this, he has taken himself off the hook and created a situation, where he does not have to take a decision on the matter. He has cleverly deflected international pressure and opinion by saying that the matter is being considered and he cannot prejudice the legal proceedings by issuing a pardon at this stage.
How long will this process last? The courts in Pakistan are an expletive deleted, when it comes to delivering justice. No judge, in their right mind, will over turn the judgement of the lower courts and risk a premature death at the hands of religious parties. Judges, when they decide cases like this one, think of their families and how to protect them from the backlash and not what the law says on the matter. This means that the proceedings will be made hostage to the procedural nature of the legal system in Pakistan and may take years; while the poor woman continues to languish in jail. In the mean time, as is the wont of our times, a new crisis will emerge and this issue will fade into a quiet, unmourned death.

Asiya Bibi, to be candid, does not qualify for a presidential pardon as she has not doing anything to deserve it. There are no allegations of corruption, murder, embezzlement or fakery associated with her and the presidential pardon is only reserved for criminals and those in Pakistan, who have the power to abuse the system and get themselves pardoned.
One must applaud Babar Awan for stating the truth and reminding everyone in Pakistan, what the reality is and the reality is that no politician will challenge the blasphemy laws, because they need need the political support of the mullahs to remain in power and no politician or political party in Pakistan, will jeopardize its political options by alienating the one core constituency, which matters in Pakistan and from which deprives all notions of legitimacy – religion.
Another aspect to ponder, by those who cherish hopes and are holding candles alight, is what does Asiya Bibi have to offer the politicians that they should risk their political fortunes for her sake? Can she offer a bribe of 50 crore rupees (confirmed by a very good source as what the going rate of bribes is at the very highest echelons of this government.) Can she rig the elections and give this government and Zardai another term of office?
One only has to listen to the silence of complicity to realize that nothing will happen and this is all a charade to fool the utopians in Pakistan. Where is the cross-eyed chief justice of Pakistan and why is he silent? Simply, because Asiya Bibi has nothing to offer him in areas that matter to him and his patron, Nawaz Sharif. Where is the so-called champion of liberal causes Asma Janghir about whom everyone was waxing lyrical a few weeks back or is the reality true that she takes cases, which only place her in the lime light?
What is important to Asma Jahangir; Asiya Bibi and her plight or the politics of the Supreme Court Bar Association?
Sherry Rehman says that if the blasphemy laws cannot be repealed; they should be made toothless by passing laws, which seek to amend them and curb their worst practices. This is, as a Russian tsar once said, utopian nonsense. The blasphemy laws cannot be amended because to do so, would be going against the strictures of the Pakistani constitutional thought, which says no laws repugnant to Islam or sunnah can be made and therefore, any amendments that seek to modify such existing laws, are by their very intent and purpose, against the idea of Islam and sunnah as enshrined in our laws and cannot be amended or repealed.
The silence of the government, the politicians; those who have the authority to save Asiya Bibi says volumes and if one wants to understand their true intentions on this subject, then one must listen to their silence and become deaf to their words. Pakistan is merrily trotting on the path to hell, because everyone in Pakistan has good intention and our problem as a nation is that we believe the intentions of those who promise us to fetch water from the moon, but never hold them accountable for not delivering it or even bother to ask them, in the first place, how how they hope to do it?

Zain Qureshi Saga: The Shamelessness Of Our Extreme Right Wing

By Syed Wajid Ali

Maybe you’re not familiar with this colorful expression, which is commonly used among some minority groups in the US. The phrase refers to the tendency of some people in a group to do their utmost to keep others from rising to the top – literally clawing their neighbors to prevent their success.

While quintessentially American, this phrase fits Pakistanis to a T. Let’s face it, we tend to make hue and cry over petty issues and outrageously criticize others – regardless of truth – without any knowledge and understanding of things.

I received this email last week about the Foreign Minister’s son along with his Business Card. The subject line of the email reads:

Re: Business Card of Pak Foreign Minister’s Son, Employee of Sen. John Kerry

The email reads:

Please find the Business Card of our Foreign Minister’s son who is employed at the office of Sen. John Kerry, the main sponsor of the controversial Kerry Lugar Bill.
Let’s see how he will deal boss of his son who is on a visit to Pakistan.

The response from a “senior” journalist was:

I think each and everybody who has so far commented on the issue, dont know basics of nature of Assignment of Mr (younger)Qureshi. US think tanks and lobbiests usually attract Research Associates from the respective counties, which are deemed to be benficiary or effectees of the findings of their research which provide foundations of the forthcoming US policy.
So what Mr younger Qureshi had suggested, is very much obvious in shape of K L Bill. Without going into merits or de merits of K L Bills, becoming a reserach associate is an honour for any individual selected for this assignment.

Now you must understand that why the senior Qureshi was declaring it as a “historic achievement”. If father will not appreciate the achievements of his son who else will do?
Cheers to Pir Sain
My response to the initial idiotic email was as follows:

“The business card attached clearly says that the guy is a “Fellow”, which is a glorified internship in a Government office. Just like Fulbright Scholarship, it takes months of study and hard work to land in such a competitive position.

First off, the KL Bill was drafted last year when George Bush was the President. The legislation was approved this year. There is no evidence that young Qureshi had any input in the final bill nor is it likely, given the nature of his temporary job, that he had anything to do with any aspect of its content.

Secondly, any person can apply for a fellowship at the Hill, if he’s up to it. A legislative fellow is either a student or a professional who is sponsored by a US organization to work in the office of a member of Congress or other Government office for a period ranging from 6 to 12 months. The fellows are not employees and are paid a small stipend. The whole idea of the fellowship is to learn the legislative process. They are basically there to learn rather than working as a consultant.

It is good that Zain, being a Pakistani, is working with a Senator who is interested in Pakistan. Zain may actually help the Senator get a better idea of Pakistan, its people and its politics. “

I assumed someone would come forward after realizing the initial misunderstanding of a Fellow’s duties and would say something like: “Oh sorry, I didnt know this” or “hmm – interesting, I never actually thought that way” – but instead the dialogue went rapidly downhill. The responses accused the “Fellow” of all manner of intrigues and suggested that not only did the Foreign Minister get his son hired at the Senator’s office, but that the younger Qureshi hatched a Machiavellian plot to propose a “Kerry Lugar Bill” and incorporate radical anti-Pakistan elements into it. Those who came up with this wild conspiracy theory did not explain why the Foreign Minister would find it necessary to plant his son as a mole, nor did they realize how insulting it was to suggest that it was the son, rather than the father, who called the shots in this important bill, nor what the son’s motivation would be in humiliating his native land. But no matter. If Glenn Beck’s success has proven anything it’s that you don’t have to be educated or informed to get people to listen to what you say; as a matter of fact, trying to engage in rational, civilized discourse actually gets your point of view dismissed.

Later, the instigator of this email chain shamelessly, again without any research, added:

Don’t you guys see this situation as “Conflict of Interest”? One side is people of Pakistan who dont like this bill and other side is his son who works for the sponsor of the bill.
”The News International” has reported that Mr. Zain is no more working with Sen. Kerry. The journalist raised the questions; Why has ZHQ gone into hiding? Did he do something wrong?

Hiding? No one for a second thought that he might have left because of these emails, or undue pressure? Or that he didn’t care what a bunch of ignorant, jealous and petty people on an inconsequential e-mail chain though? Or that maybe he just finished his fellowship and went on vacation? Is this arrogance, ignorance or merely sheer stupidity?

I ought to say someone cost Pakistan a talented guy who now has valuable knowledge of the inner workings of the legislative system of the world’s most powerful country. It doesn’t matter whose son he is. But if one of you is the conspiracy theorist, congratulate itself: You just proved yourself more patriotic than the rest of us.

Tackling Extremism

By Maajid Nawaz

From Dawn Online Sunday, 25 Oct, 2009

HARDLY a day now goes by without some new development linked to terrorism in Pakistan. Thousands have lost their lives and millions have had to flee their homes. Even the army GHQ, Pakistan’s most heavily fortified institution, has not been spared attack and schools and universities are no longer considered safe.

However, it is important to remember that the seeds of this current malaise were sown much earlier than today — I know this because I am living testimony to it. In 1999, when the Pakistan military was preoccupied with Kargil and the cricket team had lost the World Cup final to Australia, I was particularly interested in another development the year before — the country’s newfound status as the seventh nuclear-armed state in the world.

The news of this ‘Islamic bomb’ was what drew me from Britain to Lahore in the summer of 1999, not yet 22 years old. Spurred on by revolutionary zeal and dreams of erecting an Islamist caliphate, I arrived as part of a vanguard to set up a Pakistani branch of the global Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir (HT). The plan was to radicalise the country and foment a military coup against the democratically elected ‘client’ ruler Nawaz Sharif, so that our future caliphate could go nuclear. I was determined not to let anything get in my way, and nothing really did.

During the following decade everything changed. Having spent four years as an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in Egypt I had time to think, question and gain perspective on the extremist cause I had dedicated my life to.

It led me to finally understand the crucial difference between the faith of Islam and the political ideology of Islamism — a realisation that necessitated my leaving HT as I no longer believed in their ideas and the ‘Islamic’ justifications they used to support them. I thus decided to return to Pakistan this year, this time to push back against the insidious spread of Islamist extremism that I myself was partly responsible for.

Pakistan’s university campuses were the natural choice for me to start. Aided and supported by the local youth development NGO Bargad, I embarked on a four-week, nationwide university tour to address thousands of students on the bankruptcy of Islamist ideology. Along the way I was asked several times, often by students themselves, why I hadn’t chosen to go to madressahs first — after all, it seemed to be what everyone was doing.

My response was always the same: while it is true that the madressah system has supplied a steady stream of jihadists over the years, a little-highlighted fact is that the leading ideologues of Islamist movements have invariably been educated, are elite and socially mobile. After all, Bin Laden is an engineer and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, a doctor.

Many of the pseudo-intellectuals of HT are also highly educated, including the nuclear scientist and computer and telecom engineers who were recently arrested along with other HT activists during a police raid in Islamabad. It came as no surprise to me that nuclear scientists were among those accused of belonging to HT, considering that this is exactly why I was sent to Pakistan as far back as 1999. In the year 2000, I had also personally met Pakistani Army officers in London, who had been training at Sandhurst. HT had recruited them to its cause, and then sent them back to Pakistan.

Back to the future, travelling across Pakistan’s provinces, visiting key campuses along the way, I had the valuable opportunity to engage directly with students on such issues. I told them my life story, my reasons for joining HT, my time in prison and why I eventually left.

In return, I heard from them about how they think and feel about Pakistan’s problems, and their aspirations for the future of their country. We discussed the need to tackle extremism on an ideological level, and the steps Pakistan would have to take towards a more democratic and pluralistic society and government. The reactions I received were mixed, but they spoke volumes for those who populate Pakistan’s universities.

Students from Sindh tended to be hugely receptive to my message, whilst those in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, from where the majority of British Pakistanis hail, expressed much greater hostility towards the West. In Quetta, the prevailing preoccupation was with ‘Punjabi hegemony’; here I encountered popular revolutionaries with little time for religious extremism but a hardened resolve to secede from Pakistan, in some cases through violence.

I was accused by some of being a ‘foreign agent’, while others wholeheartedly embraced my stance. I sometimes encountered a denial of Pakistan’s role in allowing extremism to breed within its borders, but also an acceptance that religion had been misused by various elements within the country. Irrespective of their leanings, in every university, people had something to say.

Ironically, the most violent opposition to my efforts didn’t come from Pakistani students at all — it came from a British-Pakistani member of HT who decided to punch me one evening in a cafe in Lahore. I later learned that he, like several others, had left the UK to recruit students in Pakistan, and to do this had started teaching at a private university in Lahore.

It was sad evidence to the fact that British citizens continue to export Islamism to Pakistan, along with playing a crucial role in exporting the ideology to countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritius, India, Egypt and Denmark. Only when the governments of Britain and Pakistan wake up to take responsibility for the rot on their doorsteps will we ever be able to reverse these trends.

As violence in Pakistan surges and ordinary Pakistanis feel increasingly insecure in their own homes, we cannot afford to stop at just a military response to this problem. Greater emphasis needs to be given to winning the struggle for ideas; to foster an understanding that taking a stance against Islamism does not equate to a rejection of Islam.

This requires greater civil society engagement, popularising counter-extremism narratives through the media, and the promotion of secular spaces within society and the state.

While it is true that such measures rarely have quantifiable results and require great resources in terms of time and effort, we can ill afford not to implement them, for without this vision it is unlikely that Pakistan can overcome the current moral dilemma and political crisis it finds itself in.

The writer is director of the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think tank based in the UK.

The Undefined Equilibrium between Pakistan and Islam. Part 2

Our Founding Father’s Vision

By Adnan Syed

A widely circulated ideology of Pakistan that is heavily promoted by the right wing section of the Pakistani society maintains that Pakistan was attained in the name of Islam for the Muslims of the Sub-Continent. Pakistan was created so that the social order can be created based on Islamic principles and people can live their life in accordance with their religious values. A variation of Nazaria Pakistan uses a popular slogan used by the Muslims during the 1946 elections: “Pakistan means there is no God except Allah”.

There is no doubt that the terms Islam and Muslims were used interchangeably by Muslim League in the elections of 1946, which were fought for Pakistan. However, Nazaria Pakistan (NP) while acknowledges a separate homeland for Muslims, it introduces Islam as a way of life that encompasses not just the private lives, but also the public affairs for the Muslims living within the geographical boundaries. Our founding fathers were aware of the distinction; the thorny discussion about the role of religion in the affairs of the state was alive among the ML leadership.

There have been instances when Quaid specifically mentioned that religion in the affairs of state was not acceptable. We see that even though Quaid did not come out explicitly in favour of one mode of state policy, Quaid was explicit in mentioning what Pakistan would not be: Theocracy (complete rule of religion into the affairs of the state) will not happen in Pakistan.

At the same time, we see Quaid invoking Islamic principles frequently in his speeches, even after the creation of Pakistan. While the vagueness regarding the role of Islam in the affairs of the state, maintained by Quaid in pre-Independence communal environment was tactically required, some may argue that Quaid unnecessarily kept up the vagueness post independence; a fact that has come back to haunt Pakistan again and again.

Since Quaid towered above every other leader in the Muslim League, most Pakistanis try to find the meaning of Pakistan in Quaid’s words. Many have pounced on the vaguness embedded in Quaid’s statement; General Zia-ul-Haq frequently used selective Quaid’s quotes to justify the complete Islamization of Pakistan during his dark decade of rule.

THE TWO NATION THEORY AND THE CONDITIONAL DEMAND FOR PAKISTAN:

Why would a state still be unsure of its exact identity of being a Muslim or an Islamic State? In a rather strange way, Pakistan was a conditional demand employed by Jinnah and Muslim League leadership. They wanted to ensure that Muslims have adequate representation and safeguards and Muslims would not fare poorly even when they made up 30% of the total population of the United India. “Brother Gandhi has three votes, Brother Jinnah has one vote” was one of Jinnah’s famous quips to pound on the fact that despite their sheer numbers, Muslims had no say in the affairs of the government of the United India.

The idea of Pakistan was based on single or multiple states with Muslim majority within the United India, and Quaid showed willingness as late as 1946 to accept Pakistan with United Punjab and Bengal within the Indian Federation boundaries.

Importantly, the Liaqat-Desai coalition in 1945, and the acceptance of Cabinet Mission in 1946 were clear indications that if demands of Muslim League about representation of Indian Muslims within United India were met, they were prepared to remain in the United India.

Pakistan was as much a consequence of Muslims struggles for their rights and self interest, as it was due to the attitude of the leaders of Congress. Viewing Jinnah with disdain and contempt, they called him out on his demand, and to their disdain, Pakistan became a reality.

So what was the raison-d’être of Pakistan? Was it just a result of cataclysmic politics of the early 20^th century, a turbulent decade of 1940s as Britain had lost will to govern India after fighting a great World War, or a result of genuine Muslim disenfranchisement that was expressed as early as 1870s by Sir Syed and Ameer Ali?

Most certainly all of the above were the cases. Muslims as a distinct nation was an idea that started appearing at the dusk of Mughal Empire, and gained steam as Muslims started lagging behind their Hindu counterparts in the British India. The Two Nation Theory certainly explains the genesis of Pakistan quite well.

I would venture here that the concept of Muslim Nationalism for the creation of Pakistan completely suffices the reason behind the creation of Pakistan. However, separating Muslim identity from all encompassing Islamic influence was left unclear, and the ambiguity distorted the subsequent vision of Pakistan.

THE FREE USE OF ISLAM BY MUSLIM LEAGUE, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MOVES TO PAKISTAN:

Importantly, the events after 1937 were moving at a breakneck speed. In a matter of 7 years, Pakistan turned from a visionary ideal to a geographical reality. During the time leading up to Pakistan creations, two important factors had started to influence the new state:

1) Muslim League frequently invoked Islam during the campaign leading to the creation of Pakistan. During the pivotal 1946 elections “Muslim League activists toured the countryside (and) personal commitment to Islam became fused with an assertion of Muslim community solidarity. As one election official reported ‘wherever I went everyone kept saying, bhai if we did not vote for the League, we would have become a kafir (infidel)’ “.[1]

While the distinction between a Muslim majority secular state and a Muslim majority Islamic state is a lot clearer today, for the 1940s Muslim, the distinction was not as cut and dry. A Muslim living in early 20^th century was seeing the majority community prosper, and had genuine fears about being dominated by the majority Hindus, with whom Muslims developed at best an uneasy community relationship. The Muslim nationalism espoused by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was developing into a full blown movement, as Congress failed to realize the fear and power of the sizeable Muslim minority.

In that environment, Muslim League rode the public opinion when it gave voice to the Muslim fears. The two words “Islam” and “Muslims” were used interchangeably. From various statements of Quaid and Liaqat Ali Khan, we can establish that their idea of democratic Muslim state did not involve theocratic rule. Yet Islam was a necessary symbol, and the references to Muslim ideas were expressed freely in leadership rallies.

At the same time, the religious right in India was moving to Pakistan, and they were determined to purposefully use the words “Muslim” and “Islamic” together, exploit the logical consequence of mixing religion and nation together.

2) Islamic right wing parties under Jamaat-e-Islami, Majlis-e-Ahrar, and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, who had vociferously opposed the Muslim League and their Pakistan platform before, started moving en-masse towards Pakistan. By all indications, around the time of partition, the religious right spearheaded by Abu-al-Ala-Moudoudi was weary of the secular credentials of Muslim League Leaders. Mr. Moudoudi, in his various writings was warning against the western disposition of Jinnah and his colleagues, and was rightly worried that the Muslim League leadership was looking for a democratic Pakistan, but not a Sharia ruled state. In several of Mr. Moudoudi’s writings, he wrote against Muslim League and the Quaid:

“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”

“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”.

“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.” [2]

Mr. Moudoudi equated “Muslim Nationalism” with chaste prostitution, and scoffed at the ideas of modern democratic Muslim state.

Before partition, Muslim League’s main rival was Indian National Congress. After partition, the religious right had started positioning itself as one of the bigger rivals. The fight for Pakistan entered new grounds when Quaid died too soon after the independence. From then onwards, we see a haphazard approach towards Islam by the state, leading us to the present times.

Historians Thomas and Barbara Metcalf caught the dilemma facing Pakistan in the following words: “Pakistan was a modern nation state for India’s Muslim population. At the same time, however, as a symbol of Muslim identity, Pakistan transcended the ordinary structures of the state. As such it evoked an ideal Islamic political order, in which the realization of Islamic life would be fused with the state’s ritual authority. This Pakistan would not be simply an arena in which politicians, even if Muslims pursued their every day disputes. During the bloody upheavals of 1946 and 1947, Pakistan underwent a transformation from visionary ideal to territorial state. Yet it could not, after independence, shake off the legacy of its origin as a ‘pure’ land at once of Muslims and of a confessional Islam”[3]

QUAID’S REFERENCES TO THE ROLE OF ISLAM:

Pakistan’s uneasy relationship with Islam had started to brew even when Pakistan was a demand, not a state. Pakistan as an Islamic state idea was advanced by a small faction inside Muslim League, whose most visible face was Raja of Mahmudabad. He formed Islami Jamaat cell within the Muslim League. Raja Sahib mentioned to Jinnah that since “Lahore Resolution was passed earlier in the year, and when Pakistan was formed it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunnah and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution. Mr. Jinnah banged his hands on the table and said: We shall not be an Islamic State but a Liberal Democratic Muslim State.”[4]

Raja Sahib Mahmudabad ended up getting expelled from the Muslim League. His relationship with Quaid deteriorated to such an extent that he saw Quaid just once after the independence. In his last years “Quaid’s prodigal child” admitted that his “insistence on Pakistan being an Islamic state and taking recourse to violence” was wrong[5]. Yet his ideas in the early 1940s show signs of visible discomfort shown by the Muslim League leaders as they were freely mixing the terms of Islamic and Muslim state.

The above episode was one of many where Quaid was clear in one aspect; that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state. He clearly mentioned in his message to the people of the United States that “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission”. [6]

Or the famous speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 where he laid down what many perceive as his clearest and unequivocal message to the lawmakers of the newly formed country “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”

To emphasize how shocking Quaid’s speech was for everyone in Pakistan, Maulana Shabbir Usmani immediately yet subtly condemned Quaid’s words. He reminded that if it was not for Islam (the unifying force), religious leaders would not have entered the freedom struggle, and no political party (including the Muslim League) would have been able to mobilize the masses. He called for declaring the new country an Islamic Republic. Other leaders were less guarded in their remarks. Jamaat Islami leader Ahsan Islahi called a Pakistan based on Quaid’s August 11 speech principles a devil’s creation[7]

Muslim League used the slogans of “Pakistan ka Matlab kiyaa, La Ilaha Illallah (Pakistan means There is no God except Allah)” and “Muslim hai to Muslim League main aa (If you are a Muslim then you should be in the Muslim League)” during the election campaigns. Yet, we do see a documented case where Quaid admonished a Muslim League worker for using the slogan of Pakistan means no God except God in Muslim League first post Pakistan meeting in Karachi. Quaid said that individuals may have used that slogan for garnering votes, but no such slogan was approved by the Muslim League’s central committee.[8]

Some of the clearest signals about the equality of the creeds was coveyed by Quaid’s actions as Governor General of Pakistan. He appointed J.N. Mandal as his first Law Minister. Setting up a scheduled caste Hindu to head the pivotal ministry of law was a clear sign that Quaid was looking for the laws of the state to rise above the creeds. Sir Zafarullah Khan was appointed the first Foreign Minister, despite protests from the religious right for belonging to the Ahmedi sect. It is well documented that Quaid asked for a Hindu poet Jagan Nath Azad to write the first national anthem of Pakistan. With his actions Quaid was showing that a Muslim majority Pakistan belonged equally to every sect and creed. “Minorities will cease to be minorities in the new state .. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – this has nothing to do with the business of the state”. Isn’t that what he was saying, in words as well his actions?

As Dr. Ayesha Jalal said “Jinnah’s resort to religion was not an ideology to which he was ever committed or even a device to use against rival communities; it was simply a way of giving a semblance of unity and solidity to his divided Muslim constituents”[9]

However, at the same time we do see instances where Quaid included Islam with the state. And this is where the same right wing leaders who bitterly opposed Jinnah and his party, come to the forefront to make him nothing sort of a religious leader. For example, in the same speech to the people of the United States in February 1948 he described Pakistan as a “premier Islamic State”. In another instance, Jinnah called Khan Brothers’ claims untrue that “PCA (Pakistan Constituent Assembly) will disregard the fundamental principles of the Shariah and Quranic laws”.

There were instances when Jinnah replied to the question of democracy by saying that Muslims had learnt democracy thirteen centuries ago. There have been various references to Quran and Sunnah in Jinnah speeches as well.

His speech to the State Bank of Pakistan in July 1948 stated: “We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind”

THE BACKDROP OF A TUMULTOUS NEW BORN PAKISTAN:

What do we make of the conflicing statements from Quaid? Most likely, Quaid’s use of term “Islamic” was used in lieu of the Muslim democratic state. However, a glance at the tumultuous years preceding and following the creation of Pakistan do explain the choice of words on Quaid’s part.

Partition brought with its bloody communal rioting that left up to a million people dead. Majority of those killed were Muslims that were looking to move to their new homeland. The body count was huge and by every indication, consumed the new government’s efforts. The state was strapped for cash and fighting for its very survival against a much larger and supremely unhappy neighbour. Kashmir mess was beginning to brew into a major conflict, and any considerations to set aside religion from the affairs of the state was put aside for a while, as the state tended to more urgent needs.

By all indications, Quaid was under intense pressure during his last year due to the problems facing Pakistan. Pakistan seemed to be fighting for its own survival. We catch Quaid’s foreboding words in his speech in Lahore University on October 30, 1947.

“We are in the midst of unparalleled difficulties and untold sufferings; we have been through dark days of apprehension and anguish…We have been the victims of deeply-laid and well-planned conspiracy executed with utter disregard of the elementary principles of honesty, chivalry and honour…Do not be afraid of death, our religion teaches us to be always prepared for death. We should face it bravely to save the honour of Pakistan and Islam. There is no better salvation for a Muslim than the death of a martyr for a religious cause”[10]

In the extremely uncertain formative year of Pakistan, the state was beset with too much uncertainty and fear. The fight for Pakistan was invoked as fight for Islam. The Islamic concepts of martyrdom were used for Pakistani martyrs. We simply cannot fathom a months old republic facing so many threats as soon as it came into being. Quaid kept invoking Islam in his official speeches. For a Muslim majority new born state in 1940s, can we seriously blame Quaid for doing that? Half a million Muslims had died during the partition violence. The next door giant of a neighbor was waiting for Pakistan to collapse. The uneven standards were applied by India when it laid claim to Kashmir; over time it would annex Deccan and Junagadh, all on one pretext or another.

It is quite clear from his statements that Quaid sincerely wanted a democratic Muslim Republic that would be inspired by Islamic ideals, but would not promulgate Islam as a state religion. He did give us clear occasional references about his ideals of Pakistan based on secular, humanist principles. Unfortunately, we have to make do with his words that were both a product of catastrophic uncertainty for the new nation, as well as Quaid’s personal ideals. I would go one step further and say his statements are not as mutually contradictory ideals sixty years ago as they may seem right now. Quaid was invoking Muslim ideals to rally the majority Muslim nation under the banner of Pakistan. But constant message we hear from his words and actions is that he wanted Pakistan to be a Liberal Democratic Muslim State. I would get to this point in detail in the final conclusion, and would also say for now that sixty years have shown that our founding fathers’ well meaning idea of a democratic Liberal Muslim Republic seemed nice on paper, but is anything but practical in the real world.

Sixty years later, as the inexactness of religion within the state offices of Pakistan takes its toll on the nation, we wonder if Quaid needed to be more firm in publicly specifying the exact role of religion in the affairs of the state. He was rapidly dying of consumption mixed in with a deadly form of lung cancer. We do get plenty of his statements that imbue his vision of democratic progressive Pakistan. But apart from the important Constituent Assembly speech on August 11, 1947, we have to make do with his actions, his statements spread across various speeches and interviews and meetings with different leaders.

It is an undeniable fact that the Quaid had united the disparate group of the political union of the Indian Muslims under one banner of Muslim League. Despite clear references to exclusion of religion from the state (or at best laws were to be inspired by the religious lessons), Quaid never explicitly came out in putting his personal stamp on the exact role of religion. Since Quaid remained such a pivotal figure in Pakistan’s genesis, his death effectively left the whole country searching for its exact identity.

We learn from his biography by Stanley Wolpert that Quaid was obsessed with drafting of the new constitution of Pakistan in his last year. We can imagine had he lived up to the completion of the constitution, Pakistan would have achieved a much revered document outlining the exact place of religion in the affairs of the state. It was not to be; we see barely 6 months into his death, the leadership had set itself on a confused path that haunts us even today. One non Muslim member of Assembly remarked on the Objectives Resolution: “What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan – the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honourable Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land”.

Women Can't Drive Here, But Children Can!

Susie of Arabia

I drove cars legally in the United States for 40 years before moving to Saudi Arabia. I got an "A" in my Driver's Ed class in high school (shout out to Coach Sharp!) and I have always passed my driver's tests on the first try. I have an excellent driving record. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however, bans women from driving, although out in the sparsely populated areas, women are known to drive there. To my knowledge, it is the only country in the world where it is illegal for women to drive. The most common excuse given for why women are not allowed to drive here is that it's for their own safety and protection. Now this excuse of safety doesn't really refer to the dangers of having or causing accidents. What it actually refers to is the potential for women to have more freedom and to not be under the direct control of a man. The thinking is that a woman driver would have more of a chance to hook up with someone of the opposite sex if she wanted to, which is a big no-no in this country. The funny thing is that I have spoken to many Saudi women who drive outside this country, and they have all managed to avoid becoming sluts - which is what some Saudi men think of all women drivers elsewhere in the world. You can read a previous post I wrote about this subject not long ago.

Granted, the driving conditions here in Jeddah are horrendous. Just imagine all that testosterone gunning those engines in a land where only men are allowed behind the wheel! Traffic laws seem to be non-existent here, and if there ARE traffic laws, nobody follows them and no one visibly enforces them either.

But what really galls me is the fact that I - a responsible female driver with a proven track record of safety and skill and years of experience - am not allowed to drive here in Saudi Arabia, yet frequently I have seen children - specifically young boys - driving who are definitely not old enough to have a driver's license. I have tried to find out the legal driving age requirement here in Saudi Arabia, but that information is as elusive as the traffic laws. I've seen various accounts that range from 17 up to 25, and just about every age in between. All I do know is that many of the drivers I have seen here are nowhere close to approaching their 17th birthday, let alone 25.

One day I was crossing the street in a quiet residential section of town, and I was almost run over by a car driven by a boy who looked as though he couldn't have been a day over 10! These young boys drive, stretching and craning their necks in an effort to see over the steering wheel. Many of them have to sit on pillows. I don't know how they can possibly reach the gas pedal, or more importantly, the brake pedal! This is not something I see every day because I am not out and about every day, but it happens with enough frequency that I am not shocked any more when I see it - just angered that I am not allowed to drive here, yet these spoiled little brats CAN. As in many countries of the world, most boys here are raised to believe that they are superior to their sisters and are given special privileges just because they were born with a little extra appendage that girls don't have.

Even though the photos accompanying this post are of poor quality, hopefully you can see that there is a child - I'm guessing he's about eight years old - driving this big SUV on the busy streets of Jeddah AT NIGHT, during Ramadan, when traffic is especially heavy.

In the front passenger seat is a bearded grown man, probably his father, visible in the photo below.

It's hard to make out, but there are two other children in the back seat. None of the vehicle's occupants are wearing their seatbelts, of course. Most Saudis do not wear seatbelts as a rule, nor do they impress upon their children the importance of doing so.

I really resent the fact that I am not permitted to drive here in Saudi Arabia while young boys, who aren't even into double digits in age, can and do, without penalty or objection. I am NOT one of the many fortunate women here in this country who is provided with her own driver and vehicle. Consequently I am stuck at home much of the time with not much to do. My life has been reduced to accepting invitations only when my husband agrees to drive me, which he HATES to do, or when I'm lucky enough to be invited by one of my friends who can send her driver for me. My mobility here is severely restricted, and it is something I cannot get used to. To go from having my own car and the ability to drive where and when I wanted all my life to a country where I cannot is disheartening. Women who are caught driving in Saudi Arabia are usually hauled down to the police station, arrested, and can only be released to their male guardian (see corroborating news article).

To me this whole system makes no sense. Not allowing women to drive causes many hardships on a family, financial burdens if the family has to hire a driver, added stress on the man of the family to drive the women around, inconveniences for everyone, makes it difficult for women to get to and from work (so most women do not work here), and more. Women here in Saudi Arabia face many challenges and barriers created by the men which make it difficult for the women with desires for a more meaningful life to become more valued contributing members of this society. When men here say women cannot drive for their own protection, yet they turn around and permit little boys to get behind the wheel in busy traffic on the streets of Jeddah, putting everyone in their paths in harms way, there is no other word for it than "preposterous." The intended purpose behind not allowing women to drive here is totally flawed and unreasonable. It all boils down to a control issue, aimed at treating women like children and at keeping women at home.

Top Saudi cleric: OK for young girls to wed

Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh says it's OK for a girl age 10 or 12 to get married.

(CNN) -- The debate over the controversial practice of child marriage in Saudi Arabia was pushed back into the spotlight this week, with the kingdom's top cleric saying that it's OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.

"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative kingdom in recent weeks.

Late last month, a Saudi judge refused to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man.

The judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, rejected a petition from the girl's mother, whose lawyer said the marriage was arranged by her father to settle a debt with "a close friend." The judge required the girl's husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty.

Al-Sheikh was asked during a Monday lecture about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.

Don't Miss

• Saudi judge refuses to annul marriage of girl, 8

"We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls," he said, according to the newspaper. "We should know that Shariah law has not brought injustice to women."

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, recently told CNN that his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.

"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger -- especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.

Wilcke explained that while Saudi ministries may make decisions designed to protect children, "It is still the religious establishment that holds sway in the courts, and in many realms beyond the court."

Last month, Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi government-run Human Rights Commission, said his organization is fighting against child marriages.

"The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia," al-Harithi said. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed." He added that his organization has been able to intervene and stop at least one child marriage from taking place.

Wajeha al-Huwaider, co-founder of the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, told CNN last month that achieving human rights in the kingdom means standing against those who want to "keep us backward and in the dark ages."

She said the marriages cause girls to "lose their sense of security and safety. Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."

The Saudi Ministry of Justice has made no public comment on the issue.

Dictators and their sons

Ahmad Nadeem Gehla

I have no experience of dealing with dictators or even their sons. Our generation however witnessed the brutality of former dictator Zia ul Haq against media, civil society, poets, writers and political workers. It has been two decades since former dictator burned in skies and things have changed drastically. Media and information technology has not only made information easily available but also developed a culture of civilized debate. The civil society has reorganized itself and has shown that it can stand firm against dictators during lawyer’s movement.

What has not changed is the mind set of dictator’s sons and their cronies. We are witnessing the retired generals and brigadiers coming to electronic media with revelations and defending their unconstitutional acts. Similarly, the ‘general’s sons’ turned politicians are not behind retired officers. They leave no opportunity to arrogantly defend their much hated fathers terming them martyrs and holy warriors. In a similar effort Ijaz ul Haq, a former parliamentarian and son of a former dictator Zia ul Haq tried to proved ZA Bhutto an executed leader and his own father a holy warrior and ‘Shaheed in an article published in ‘Daily News”.

I sent a letter to Editor of ‘The News” expressing my views, it was published today as under; “This is with reference to Muhammad Ijaz ul Haq’s article “A conspiracy against my father” (Sept 8). General Zia’s son seems to live in the past, otherwise he would not have distorted facts. In a country which has millions of internet users information is just a click away. It is quite hypocritical of him to say that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was an ‘executed leader’. I wish Mr Haq had courage to realise and acknowledge that the same execution made his father one of the most hated persons of this country. The truth is that General Zia gave this country its Kalashnikov culture and the blood-thirsty Taliban.

The response I received from Mr. Ijaz ul Haq was shocking as one cannot expect such language being used by a man who has been a Member of Parliament for over a decade. It states as under; ” For you he should be hanged twice over for killing prof. Nazir Shaheed and khawaja Rafiq and people like you are shitting all over and look what NRO prof are doing to our country. Sick people like you are all over. – Ijaz ul Haq. Sent via BlackBerry from Mobilink” mijaz@mobilink.blackberry.com

To what level the general’s arrogant sons turned ‘test tube leaders’ can fall is not difficult to judge from his response and language used. Mr. Ijaz ul Haq seems unable to come out of dictator’s mindset and show a little civilized behavior towards critics of his father’s hypocritical dark regime. This is undeniable that the mess we are in as a society is gift of Zia ul Haq. It is also a fact that no other person in Pakistan is hated as much Mr. Ijaz ul Haq’s father. But the former parliamentarian while living in denial is not only to deny facts but feel comfortable to use curses against critics of his traitor father who worked and died as an imperial agent. He not only destroyed the secular and tolerant culture of our society but bread extremism from which Mr. Ijaz ul Haq is also suffering today.

Once an American puppet that killed brutality every sane voice is being portrayed as a ‘holly warrior’ by an obedient son. The business empires built by sons of holy warrior are still unaccounted for and sources never declared. Even if his death was staged by CIA and Mosad as claimed by Ijaz ul Haq, it always happened to all imperial puppets around the world. Mard e Momen Junir has to get out of disillusion and recognize what people think about his hypocrite father. He also needs learns that how much society has transformed as such making speech more free than the standards set by his brutal father. He needs to spend some time with civilized people to learn how to take criticism and respond in a civilized manner. But then if he does so – he won’t be a true son of a hated dictator. It is again for us to realize and accept – the way the sons and cronies of dictators are!

Newspaper advertisements call for the murder of a human rights lawyer in Punjab; police silently spectate

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-115-2009



9 September 2009
------------------------------------------------------
PAKISTAN: Newspaper advertisements call for the murder of a human rights lawyer in Punjab; police silently spectate

ISSUES: Threats; human rights defenders; religious minorities; blasphemy laws
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a human rights lawyer who offers free legal counsel to victims of the country's harsh blasphemy laws, has escaped an attempt on his life and is receiving continual death threats from Muslim fundamentalist groups. Local police officers have repeatedly rebuffed his requests for help and protection. Announcements have been allowed to be published in newspapers that call for the lawyer's murder as a service to Islam. The willful negligence by the police and the failure of the Pakistani government to address the rights of religious minorities is allowing radicals to intimidate and attack with impunity. The AHRC is gravely concerned for the safety of the victim, and of human rights defenders in Faisalabad.

CASE DETAILS:

Mr. Rao Zafar Iqbal is the executive director of the National Council for Human Rights. According to information provided by the Cathe Foundation Pakistan, a fatwa (religious declaration) was published in the local newspaper Daily Pavel on 4 August (pictured, click for larger image) which stated that Mr. Iqbal is liable to be killed for helping detainee Mohammad Ayube. Ayube is under arrest for claiming to be the prophet (peace be upon him), and a Fatwa was earlier published against him in the Daily Express newspaper and the Daily Pavel.

The fatwa also referred to Iqbal’s legal support of a Christian, Imran Masih, who was falsely charged and wrongly arrested under blasphemy laws earlier this year. (The AHRC issued UAC-089-2009 in support of Masih in July, and his case is currently being personally reviewed by the Chief Minister of Punjab). The fatwa declared that to murder Mr. Iqbal would be doing a service to Islam.

In late July two extremist groups, Jan Nisaran-e-Nabuwat and Aqeeda-e-Tahafuz-e-Kathme Nabuwat, sent threatening letters to the lawyer demanding that he stop giving legal help to religious minorities. Iqbal took one to the City Chief Police Officer (CCPO) in Faisalabad, Punjab province to apply for some form of protection, but says that he was soundly rejected. He suspects that this was because of a grudge held by the district's high ranking police officers. (He has exposed the misconduct of local officers in the media as part of his human rights work).

Five days later the lawyer was shot at twice by two men near his house. A call to police received no response and a case was not lodged until Iqbal approached the CCPO Faisalabad to insist on one being taken against the gunmen (FIR#465 /09 under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code). But two months later no investigation has started. Iqbal continues to receive threats from anonymous callers who tell him that he will not escape so easily next time. He has tried to report them to the CCPO but says he has been met with dismissive remarks and advice to simply stop his activities as human rights defender.

This is a curious response from a senior law enforcement officer asked for protection by a victim of violent crime, and it shows how cleanly the system in Pakistan has broken from the path of law and order. It also begs the question: what exactly are the police for? To see almost no adherence to criminal procedure and no will to confront extreme acts of religious hatred--in the streets and in newspapers--is a grave sign, as is the apparent comfort of the official in this role and his easy abuse of his position to satisfy a vendetta. This incident of police inaction, like many reported by the AHRC (including recently, UAC-045-2009 and UAC-097-2009) makes a case for a widespread reform and review of policing.

However lasting change will not come until there is real political will behind it, and recent history has shown little interest from the Pubjab government in tackling radical religious discrimination. Instead political expediency appears to take priority. During the most recent provincial elections the chief minister ran uncontested; there were many reports alleging the intimidation of potential opposition candidates by groups such as Sipaha-e-sahaba, notorious for its virulent attacks against Shiite Muslims, Ahmadis and Christians.
Without political reform and stronger restrictions to prevent ministerial corruption, religious minorities and human rights defenders will continue to live and operate in fear.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the relevant authorities urging them to investigate the attack on Mr. Rao Zafar Iqbal, and reminding the government and law enforcement officials of their responsibilities to protect minority groups and human rights defenders.

The AHRC has written to the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders informing her of this case.

To support this appeal please click here:

Organized Crime in Pakistan Feeds Taliban

Michael Kamber for The New York Times

A laborer worked on a security wall being constructed by a local business association in Karachi, Pakistan.

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

Published: August 28, 2009

KARACHI, Pakistan — Taliban fighters have long used this city of 17 million as a place to regroup, smuggle weapons and even work seasonal jobs. But recently they have discovered another way to make fast money: organized crime.

Enlarge This Image

Michael Kamber for The New York Times

Pashtuns fleeing violence have flocked to Karachi areas like Sorabgoth, where poverty may bolster crime and militancy.

The police here say the Taliban, working with criminal groups, are using Mafia-style networks to kidnap, rob banks and extort, generating millions of dollars for the militant insurgency in northwestern Pakistan.

“There is overwhelming evidence that it’s an organized policy,” said Dost Ali Baloch, assistant inspector general of the Karachi police.

Jihadi-linked crime has surfaced in other Pakistani cities, like Lahore. But Karachi, the central nervous system of Pakistan’s economy, and home to its richest businessmen, is the hub. It has been free of the bombings that have tormented Pakistan’s other major cities this year, and some officials believe that is the result of a calculated strategy.

“This is where they come to hide, where they raise their finances,” said a counterterrorism official in Karachi. “They don’t want to disturb that.”

The danger is not of a Taliban takeover — Karachi is run by a powerful secular party that despises the Taliban — but of an urban sanctuary for financing and equipping the insurgency from this southern port.

These criminal syndicates helped drive kidnappings in Pakistan last year to their highest numbers in a decade, according to the police, and they have also generated a spike in bank robberies. Eighty percent of bank heists are now believed to be related to the insurgency and other militant groups, authorities say.

“The Taliban are a group of thieves,” said a currency exchange owner here who was robbed of nearly $2 million last year and who did not want to be identified for fear of further trouble. “If it was God, they’d steal from him, too.”

Pakistani counterterrorism officials say they believe that kidnapping for ransom may have been the single largest revenue source for the Taliban’s top commander in the country, Baitullah Mehsud, before he was killed this month in an American drone strike.

Last year, Mr. Mehsud’s network may have held as many as 70 hostages, said a Pakistani counterterrorism official who did not speak for attribution for reasons of protocol. Control over these criminal networks and the money they generate may have been at the center of what seemed to be the struggle over who would succeed Mr. Mehsud.

“The world thinks this is about religion, but that’s a mistake,” said Sharfuddin Memon, director in Karachi of the Citizens Police Liaison Committee, a crime watch group run by members of the business community. “It’s about money and power. Faith has nothing to do with it.”

The kidnappers who took Shawkat Afridi, a prominent businessman, last year, did not make a single mistake, the family said. A caller breathed his demands into the phone in a bewildering array of accents. First he sounded like an Afghan. Then like a Mehsud tribesman. After more than 50 phone calls over five months, Mr. Afridi’s family finally agreed to pay $2.5 million for his release.

“We understood he was not an ordinary kidnapper,” said Gul Afridi, the victim’s brother. “There was no way out.”

Typical of such cases, the group, which the police said was Taliban-related, had chosen its target carefully: the Afridis are rich businessmen who supply fuel to NATO forces in Afghanistan. Other recent cases include a prominent film distributor, the owner of a textile mill and a personnel manager at a pipe manufacturer.

Though just 10 percent of kidnappings are connected to the Taliban, according to the police, the ransoms they generate — generally $60,000 to $250,000 each — collect more money than all the other cases combined.

“They’re real professionals,” said Ahmed Chinoy, a textile manufacturer who is the deputy head of the citizens committee, which was established in 1989 by the business community to protect against encroaching crime. “They know for sure that whoever they take can afford to pay.”

The same goes for bank robberies. Raja Umer Khattab, a senior police officer in Karachi’s Special Investigations Unit, noticed something strange early last year. The robbers had beards and bigger than usual guns, and, unlike ordinary thieves, they tended to kill the security guards. They were taking the banks’ surveillance systems, along with the cash.

“We started seeing a different kind of crime — more professional, more aggressive,” he said in an interview. “We realized these criminals were linked to jihadis.”

Mr. Khattab dug further. These criminals switched cellphone SIM cards like bus tickets, and had a code word for every neighborhood. Last August he made a series of arrests and a bomb exploded under his car. Shrapnel scars still mark his neck.

Enlarge This Image

Michael Kamber for The New York Times

A laborer built a wall to protect a textile factory in Karachi, Pakistan, a southern port city where kidnappings and robberies are used to finance the insurgency.

A recent influx of people in Karachi displaced by the military’s offensive in the northwest has expanded opportunities for the Taliban. Many are Pashtuns, the ethnic group most closely associated with the Taliban. Fanned by local politicians, ethnic tensions erupted in clashes that killed dozens this spring in Karachi. The authorities say Taliban-related crime has dropped greatly since then, with the arrests of the crime leaders breaking networks, among them, the gang that kidnapped Mr. Afridi.

But many of the networks are still in place, crisscrossing the city like a web, with strong links to Taliban sanctuaries in the northwest.

In the case of the heist at the money exchange last year, two security guards, who were from the Mehsud tribe, carried out the robbery. The exchange’s owners believed the men were working directly for Mr. Mehsud. They were uneducated and had been told that the exchange was taking money from the C.I.A. and that its dollars were the proof.

“They were brainwashed,” said one of the owners, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. “They were told, if you do this, it’s good for Islam.”

In many ways, it is the Pashtuns who suffer most. Militants extort money from the biggest oil traders to the smallest house servants, and Pashtuns can do little to resist, because their families remain in areas that the militants control.

Shahid, 22, a shy servant in Karachi, squirms when he describes how half of his $100 monthly salary goes to the local militant commander in his village, near the Afghan border. He did not want his full name used for fear of Taliban retribution. The commander was once a bus conductor, but has grown rich in his position, hoarding more than 200 sport utility vehicles, Shahid said.

Refusing has consequences: Four who recently fought the extortion turned up dead, Shahid said. Their bodies were not allowed a burial in the village, a sign of shame.

“If we give, we’re in trouble, and if we don’t give, we’re in trouble,” said Abzal Khan Mehsud, a member of the Oil Tanker Owners Association, who said he had not been able to go to his village for years out of fear of the militants who control it. “We’re being ground down in between.”

In a gritty industrial area of north Karachi, businessmen have taken matters into their own hands. Idrees Gigi, a textile manufacturer, is building a tall cement wall along the edge of his property. On the other side is Sorabgoth, a bone-poor Pashtun neighborhood.

The hope is that the wall will help shield his factory from crime, but security precautions do nothing to address the real problem, which Mr. Gigi believes is poverty. Parts of Sorabgoth lack roads and running water.

On a recent Saturday, young men scrambled past the wall over a river of red wastewater across a footbridge made of drainage chutes. Mr. Gigi employs thousands of residents, and has built four schools, but it is not enough.

“The worse the economy is, the more jihadis it will create,” he said. “This is a money war.”

Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan, and Dania Khan from Karachi.