Moment of Introspection.
Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.
New York Times contributor Ahmed Rashid’s recent write-up:
Terror in Pakistan’s Punjab Heartland
From NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS. (JUNE 4 2010)
My thoughts on it.
The author basically talks about Qadiani-Ahmadis, when he uses word ‘Ahmadis’ in his write-up.
Author writes:
“The Ahmaddiya movement is a sect that follows the teachings of a nineteenth-century religious reformer and promotes the peaceful propagation of a variant of Islam.”
I think he is confused on the status of founder of Ahmadiyya Movement i.e. Mirza Ghualm Ahmad sahib of Qadian (MGAQ). As it is Lahori-Ahmadis who consider him to be a ‘reformer’ where as Qadiani-Ahmadis consider him a “prophet”.
Author very aptly wrote:
“Ahmadis are by far the most persecuted minority in Pakistan by Islamist parties and right wing media, and they are widely portrayed as subversive and cultish in school text books. Prominent journalists and politicians think nothing of publicly reviling the Ahmadis or Christians, describing them as agents of foreign powers or anti-Pakistan, while the state has again and again demonstrated its unwillingness or inability to protect them and other religious minorities. Moreover, while Christians have prominent bishops and community leaders who are outspoken about their tribulations, and the Shia priestly hierarchy is influential and is supported outside Pakistan by Iran, nobody is willing to speak up for the Ahmadis. On Friday some of the local TV channels even refused to name their sect, calling them instead “a religious minority.” Senior government officials declined to meet with Ahmadi representatives or visit hospitals where the wounded were being treated.”
I think it is also a moment of ‘introspection’ for Qadiani-Ahmadis. They need to find what went wrong on their side and situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Senior government officials declined to meet with (Qadiani) Ahmadi representatives or visit hospitals where the wounded were being treated. Is it not possible that senior government officials are also hurting inside by some thing Qadian-Ahmadis have done?
From ikram:
Laws that stoke violence [Dawn, By Kunwar Idris Sunday, 06 Jun, 2010]
“…Rubbing salt into the wounds of the grief-stricken Ahmadis have been the expressions of sympathy for them and condemnation of killers coming from some religious leaders who have been incessantly preaching hatred and, of late, inciting violence against them through a section of the press and TV talk shows. It is hard to deny where lies the responsibility and with whom for the ever-increasing targeted killings of Ahmadis that culminated in the Lahore carnage. The government looked on as anchormen and muftis debated death as the only penalty for their heresy…”
A good analysis about the bigoted role of clergy, government and politicians in victimization of Ahmadis and possible remedies.
From Rashid:
Laws that stoke violence
By Kunwar
Dawn editorial
June 6, 2010
“Thirdly, the state must not legislate in matters of faith. No modern democracy does. All differences were freely debated till the time the National Assembly determined in 1975 [1974] that Ahmadis were not Muslims.”
“A greater irony was that the [Objective] resolution found its most forceful spokesman in the foreign minister, Zafrulla Khan, whose community in later years became its chief victim.”
(See link in comment above.)
From homo sapien:
The kind of thinking displayed in the last para of the article does the LAM a great dis-service. I see it wherever members of the movement comment. It did not occur to them not to make the morally bankrupt argument even on the day of the massacre itself.
“I think it is also a moment of ‘introspection’ for Qadiani-Ahmadis. They need to find what went wrong on their side and situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Senior government officials declined to meet with (Qadiani) Ahmadi representatives or visit hospitals where the wounded were being treated. Is it not possible that senior government officials are also hurting inside by some thing Qadian-Ahmadis have done?”
Do you really think this is justification… for even ‘a moment of introspection’? Just because you don’t like qadianis saying something about MGA that you do not agree with, is NO excuse for making the preposterous suggestion, in extremely poor taste, that they themselves are to blame for any of this to any extent at all. Not just the dead and dying, and the wounded – adult and children – in the mosques and hospitals, but any qadiani.
I’m neither ahmedi nor is my spiritual status – if any – relevant here. I am a human being who is quite upset seeing this regrettably inhumane side of LAM all over cyberspace. I can only assume that these members of LAM did not learn anything about compassion nor true fairness and justice from their own teachers and elders.
From Zahid Aziz:
Thanks for your thought provoking comment, Homo Sapien. Please read the unconditional and unreserved condemnation of this attack by the head office of LAM as posted in this blog at this link.
Victims of acts of terrorism often ask themselves, or others ask them to ponder, whether their own nation or community has done anything to earn hatred of the groups that the attackers belong to.
As another type of example, when the general Muslims in Pakistan suffer such an attack, and totally innocent people die, the question is often discussed whether it is their society or country which has fostered conditions that led to the violence. Such a discussion is not meant to detract from the barbarity of the violent act or to blame the victims.
From homo sapien:
Thank you Zahid Aziz. The problem is that your conclusion or implied conclusion is even more perverse as your timing of and insisting upon asking the question. I am not Ahmedi so I do not know what Qadianis or Lahoris say or differ about, NOR AM I INTERESTED in finding out. It is irrelevant to the present discussion, as far as I am concerned.
So what if Qadianis call Non-Qadianis Non-Muslim or ‘Kafir of MGA’ or whatever other permutation of that? This who feebly link US foreign policy to, say, 9/11, at least can point to actual deaths resulting from US military action – whether justifiable or not (that is a separate issue). But how do Qadianis physically injure or kill anyone by calling them kafir? So, how is anything other than perverse to link any introspection about that to an incident where they were killed and maimed?
There are people who say a woman who gets acid thrown at her might also introspect about not covering her face. Or one raped, about her less than modest dress. Your argument – unworthy of the name – is just as perverse and medieval as that.
From Zahid Aziz:
I think we need to read again the original post and the comments that appeared before your first comment.
1. Rashid wrote, as you quoted him:
“…situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Senior government officials declined to meet with (Qadiani) Ahmadi representatives…”
He is asking them to reflect as to why government officials are reacting like this despite these atrocious killings. He never wrote that they should reflect on whether their beliefs brought about the attacks.
2. Rashid’s post is followed by Ikram’s comment. He quotes from an article beginning: “…Rubbing salt into the wounds of the grief-stricken Ahmadis …” and says that:
“good analysis about the bigoted role of clergy, government and politicians in victimization of Ahmadis…”
Ikram’s comment is to the favour of the Qadianis.
3. Then Rashid quotes from the same article, agreeing with its observation that:
“A greater irony was that the [Objective] resolution found its most forceful spokesman in the foreign minister, Zafrulla Khan, whose community in later years became its chief victim.”
Surely he is writing in Zafrullah’s favour. The Objectives resolution of 1949 was supported by Lahoris and Qadianis.
I see nothing in these particular comments that justifies your conclusion about them.
In my response I referred you to the unconditional and unreserved condemnation of this attack by the head office of LAM as posted in this blog, in fact posted by myself.
From homo sapien:
“He is asking them to reflect as to why government officials are reacting like this despite these atrocious killings.”
The author of the article uses the word introspection and not mere reflection. There is an obvious difference.
“He never wrote that they should reflect on whether their beliefs brought about the attacks.”
Now, considering that the word used is ‘introspection’ and not mere reflection, what is that he wishes to point to when he says about the qadianis “what went wrong on their side”? I really do not see how it is not an attempt to try and blame the victim for the callousness of the senior govt officials and political leaders. Hence my examples of the acid attack victim is entirely relevant.
I am not speaking of the LAM leadership or official position. I am sure it is the correct position entirely sincerely taken. But my revulsion is in response to members of the movement taking this as an opportunity to score points by going on about ‘introspection’ as if the victims are in any way at all to be blamed for either the murder or the callousness and failure of duty on part of the members and senior servants of govt.
As for Lahoris and Sir Zafrulla Khan supporting the OR, it is ironic indeed – entirely separate from the latter’s great services to the country and good intentions but lack of foresight on part of both and many other muslim members of the Constituent Assembly. If only they had listened to and tried to empathise with the legitimate concerns and cries of the non-muslim members of the CA… Pakistan would have not gone this road where who knows who will feel like a minority – instead of just a Pakistani – and a persecuted minority next.
From Rashid:
Dear Homo Sapien, I NEVER condoned act of murder of Qadiani martyrs by Mullah-Mafia on a Friday.
After fall of Dacca and defeat from India in 1971 war, government of Pakistan held an inquiry commission headed by Justice Hamud-ur-Rehman. What was that? It was an act of introspection by Pakistani nation. There is nothing wrong with, and one should not be ashamed of introspecting so that mistake is not repeated again. Unfortunately, Qadiani Jamaat had chance to introspect in 1953, but they missed it. Then came 1974. Again a chance of introspection was missed by Qadiani jamaat and then came 1984. Again it was missed.
Now to answer your question: Do you really think this is justification… for even ‘a moment of introspection’?
Yes, I think it is a high time for Qadiani jamaat to introspect now.
If Qadiani jamaat misses this chance too then, please mark my words this Mullah-Mafia in Pakistan will repeat the Friday massacre. Unfortunately. They are already sending threatening letters to families.
I am little encouraged to see that Qadianis have started some sort of introspection by making statements to appease the Mullah-Mafia in Pakistan. But unfortunately, they are not being fully open about the issues. Qadianis should accept mistakes made by their elders and embark on a new beginning in their relations with Muslims, particularly of Pakistan. And this should come from the top i.e. Qadiani jamaat Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad.
From Rashid:
@Homo Sepian:
“But my revulsion is in response to members of the movement taking this as an opportunity to score points by going on about ‘introspection’ as if the victims are in any way at all to be blamed for either the murder or the callousness and failure of duty on part of the members and senior servants of govt.”
Pakistanis are also blaming their country men for voting into offices the elected representatives who are supporting, by their acts of omission in controlling, Mullah-Mafia that killed qadianis.
Similarly, it is responsibility of Qadianis to NOT let their Khalifas to make hurtful statements towards Muslims.
Can you please suggest what Qadiani Jamaat friends should do on their part to prevent repetition of another act of mass killing like May 28, 2010?
From homo sapien:
1. Frankly, I am shocked at the Humood ur Rehman example! West Pakistanis were not the victims here! It would have been just as perverse as your suggestion to Qadianis if someone had insisted that the Bengalis engage in introspection about why they were massacred and raped without any sympathy or concern about their plight amongst the West Pakistanis.
2. It is equally disappointing to see you claim that you are “encouraged” to see “appeasement” of murderers and those who incite murder!
3. The govt functionaries and leaders should have visited the victims because it is their duty to do so. Full stop. If there should be any introspection needing to be done, it is amongst those who failed in carrying out their duty..
4. I see you have an issue with Qadianis. I would have had far more respect for the claims of LAM regarding da’wa and all if you had displayed superior self-control in deciding not to mention your differences with them for two weeks, or even one month. Then, outsiders like me would have had no reason to feel offended and repulsed.
Regards
P.S. Why do comments have to go into moderation? Lets have greater freedom of speech and allow things to be published and then if something is clearly less than civilised it can be deleted afterwards. Instead of leaving it at the discretion of just one person/agency with no room for any transparency. We are all adults here, are we not?
From Usman:
@Homo Sapiens
Not sure why you are so eager to paint the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in a negative light. The official stance of the organisation and the vast majority of its members is evident and should suffice for any one wanting to know the position of the Lahori Ahmadis. Your implied conclusion of one individual’s thoughts based primarily on the technical difference in the dictionary meanings of “reflection” and “introspection” may be valid, but not necessarily an accurate reflection of that individual’s thought process. Even if it is accurate I don’t see the point in discussing it so vigorously, as how do we know what all the individuals of any organisation may be thinking on any matter (in the current case it would include members of the Qadiani Ahmadis as well! Indeed some members have raised some questions that would seem to be introspective or reflective in nature). The only accurate reference point is the stated position of that organisation or the stated opinions of the majority of the individuals of that organisation.
Lastly, just to add some perspective, many Ahmadi families are divided between the Lahori and the Qadiani groups, and I personally know of Lahore Ahmadis who lost loved one’s in these horrific attacks.
From homo sapien:
Usman
It would have been much better use of your time to concentrate on the points (numbered 1, 2 and 3 in my last post, for example) I have raised rather than try to claim for me your imagined intentions. I’m afraid, it seems like you are more interested in casting aspersions on my intentions than engaging with my arguments. Regrettably, I see little that is rational and healthy about this approach.
I am concentrating on one man’s opinion in one article here because this is the thread I have issues with which I would like to debate. In case you have not noticed, I am posting in the comments section of this specific thread. If you do not wish me to do so, all you have to do is tell me to get lost.
Indeed the system you have of moderating comments here gives the impression or appearance of bias, unintentionally as it may be (in matters of fairness, intention is irrelevant and appearances count as much as reality). So if the moderator decides not to let through my comments in future, no one except him/her or myself would get to know about it. Whereas letting them through without control, and moderating them afterwards would be a more mature approach to fairness in terms of freedom of speech. This, in essence, makes it not an open forum. To me, this seems insular and insecure and counter-productive to and at cross purposes with the LAM emphasis on da’wa and intellectual engagement.
Your points about the official position or reference to the reality of members of each community having loved ones within the other is, frankly, irrelevant to the points I have raised. That is not to claim that my arguments are somehow unanswerable! Just, that they remain unanswered because an answer has not been attempted so far.
From homo sapien:
@Rashid
“Can you please suggest what Qadiani Jamaat friends should do on their part to prevent repetition of another act of mass killing like May 28, 2010?”
Nothing. It is not easy to tell someone not to take the law into their own hands when the state has deliberately failed to uphold the law. In fact, the state is an accomplice since it has subverted the law, in bold letter! I could not be as arrogant and callous as to presume that I could somehow tell the victim they themselves are in any way at all to be blamed for the crime! Or for the fact that it is tolerated or ignored by so many, and that the state is an accomplice by subverting the law!
They can get greater security, try and have armed security. But really all these burdens are further wrongs against them.
As for asking them to change or otherwise modulate their religion or religious ideas, why should they?? Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan gives all citizens an equal right to FREELY profess her/his religion and practice and propagate it. The 2nd amendment illegally took away this right from all Ahmedis and 298b/c criminalised their right to practice and propagate their professed religion.
The fact that they call themselves muslims or consider non-qadiani muslims to be non-muslim is of no consequence or relevance to the Constitution – as per article 20 – and the duty of the state to uphold its own law. It was a more fundamental duty of the state, of course, to ensure that the laws were and remain equal to all in the first place.
From Zahid Aziz:
You write: “So if the moderator decides not to let through my comments in future no one except him/her or myself would get to know about it….” (etc.)
I have let through each and every of your comments, unedited. As to “getting to know”, you could start a blog (it is free to do so) and post those messages which I would have not allowed. You want an open forum while you hide behind an anonymous name.
As to “freedom of speech”, I as moderator have far less freedom of speech on this forum than you do. Anything I say, I can be held accountable for since I am a known individual. Anything I say would reflect on the LAM itself, since I am editor of many of its publications. But you have the freedom that you can say anything whatsoever and you could not be held to it as you are an unidentifiable person.
Any “defeat” I suffer against your arguments, and people would know who has lost. But if you make a fool of yourself, no one knows who it is.
You say: “To me, this seems insular and insecure and counter-productive to and at cross purposes with the LAM emphasis on da’wa and intellectual engagement.”
But you are so insecure that you post anonymously! Who are we having the intellectual engagement with?
You say to Usman that he is “in casting aspersions on my intentions”. But no one in the world knows who you are, so how can any aspersions stick to you, and how can your reputation be damaged by them?
It is amusing to see that you are (unknowingly) exposing yourself more and more with each post. So I have no objection to posting your comments!
From Rashid:
@Homo Sepian:
My answers to your points:
1- West Pakistanis lost half of their country, in addition to humiliation and POW. Hamud ur Rehman commission was looking for causes that could have prevented fiasco in 1971.
2- Yes, it is encouraging to see when Qadianis in important positions in their organization try to explain to their Muslim critics that they are considered a Muslim by them. Although, they do it without acknowledging and renouncing mistakes made by their elders.
3- I agree with you that Pakistani officials should have visited the victims…etc. after all Qadianis are tax-paying citizens of Pakistan. Yes, on one hand we can say Pakistani officials do not have decent ethics. On the other hand we cannot ignore the human nature. Pakistani officials love Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS and his family and companions more than they love their biological fathers, fathers’ families and friends. And the fact is that Qadianis have said and done things to Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS and his family and companions that hurt these officials.
4- I wrote post on ‘introspection’ now, as the issue is hot and moment is now. I hope and pray this introspection prevents another incident like May 28th. Just the way fiasco of 1971 has been prevented from repeating so far in Pakistan.
HS, you do not know my many posts get edited and not let through by moderator. I’m NOT able to say what I would like to say about Qadiani Jamaat leadership, history, policies and practices.
From Rashid:
@ Homo Sepian,
“The fact that they call themselves muslims or consider non-qadiani muslims to be non-muslim is of no consequence or relevance to the Constitution – as per article 20 – and the duty of the state to uphold its own law. It was a more fundamental duty of the state, of course, to ensure that the laws were and remain equal to all in the first place.”
To me you seem to be a lawyer, and my guess is you’re Yaseer Latif Hamdani blogger and moderator of Pakistan Tea House. Welcome. Actually, I plan to hire your services to repeal 2nd constitution amendment, after current Supreme Court repeals 18th amendment and sets the precedence of repealing constitutional amendments.
I give you a scenario and would like to read your opinion: If you start teasing your neighbor dog, and you tease him to such an extent that he bites your hand. Can you take position in court that your neighbor should have controlled the dog and prevented him from biting you, no matter how much you teased the dog, since the law says owners are held responsible if their dog bites?
From homo sapien:
@Zahid Aziz
Amongst rational, objective people, the argument is important not who makes it. You would only insist on a poster’s identity if you thought the identity of the speaker is more important than what is being said. That, to me and in general, forms no relevant or even fathomable part of intellectual engagement.
Again, my point about the system of moderation is not about its reality nor intention, but the appearance it gives. This is not just my point, but a general and universal rule for judging standards of fairness and openness. You, as a blog, do not have to meet the highest of these standards, if that is what you choose.
“It is amusing to see that you are (unknowingly) exposing yourself more and more with each post. So I have no objection to posting your comments!”
I don’t know what is this cryptography here. Well, you claim I do not know about it. So be it. I don’t care about it either. As long as you find it as good reason not to censor, fine.
I had never suspected that there would be any reason to censor anyone. I had just pointed out a very basic and universal rule about fairness and appearance of fairness. Like I said, it is purely a function of the structure used. It has absolutely nothing to do with intentions, which I have never doubted not have any reason to do so. It is what they teach you in Law 101.
Now, if you have issues with people posting anonymously, just let me know. That, hopefully, would remove any cause or need for ad hominem comments. Or, you can choose to use my anonymity to make ad hominem comments to try and support some kind of conspiracy theory that you are starting to try and develop. It is up to you. I am not interested.
I would prefer engaging with and sticking to the points. By the way, arguments win or lose, not people, in an intellectual debate. The objective is to know more and better, not win or lose. To remind you, I was disappointed because my points were left without a response, not because they were not invincible.
Regards
From homo sapien:
@Rashid
Thank you for the response.
1. West Pakistanis were victims in the same sense as the white citizens of Germany of having to face defeat and division of their country at the end of WWII. I rather see the similarity as asking the interned Jews to introspect! I can see that you have a different take on this. One that I do not share. That’s all.
2. “mistakes of their elders”: They may be mistakes to you, and you might see the present position, as you read it, as “repentance” and consider it “encouraging”. These positions mean nothing to me; neither yours, nor present day qadianis, nor their elders, nor even any theological position of non-ahmedi muslims or any other religion or lack thereof. My concern is that religion is no business of the state, let alone taking theological positions!
3. I understand religious sensibilities and that they can be and are often (and all too easily) offended. Just like I understand a whole lot of other subjective but entirely human sensibilities and emotional sensitivities. But I cannot allow any of these feelings to be used as an excuse for dereliction of duty or, even worse, retaliation in breach of law (subverting law, to me, is a breach of law).
I strongly endorse the Lahore High Court’s view in the case of the condemned murderer Ghazi Ilmdin, who had killed a person for blaspheming Prophet Muhammad. The lower court had awarded life, allowing ‘provocation’ as a mitigating circumstance. The defense appealed. The HC, justly and correctly, not only refused the appeal but converted life to death. The court observed that it could not allow and thereby encourage the use of ‘religious sensibilities’ as any kind of mitigation of the heinous crime that had been committed. In fact, the excuse made the crime even more heinous and dangerous to society and peace. A misuse of freedom of speech can only be responded to with a correct use of freedom of speech and NOTHING else. One amongst many possible correct uses of the right to freedom of speech would be to simply reserve the right – ie to ignore provocation.
4. I have already responded to this as part of 1 above. West Pakistanis being asked to introspect is like asking the TTP, mullahs and majority non-ahmedi muslims to engage in introspection about how they could avoid acting like animals or heartless morons in future in order to prevent the universal shame and condemnation it brings their country (and religion). Asking the Qadianis to introspect is like asking the Bengalis to introspect. Like I said, I have no intention of going on about this and am happy to agree to disagree here. This is the last I’ll mention it.
As for your posts getting edited, I am sure the moderator is a most perfectly just and fair and open minded person. That was never the point I made, which was only supposed to have been a minor mention made in passing, by the way.
Britain’s senior-most judges are also members of the Westminster Parliament. Recently, the UK govt brought in a reform by which in future there would be a supreme court separate from the legislature. Now nobody ever suggested that these highly respected judges were anything but entirely impartial. Indeed, British justice has been held in the highest regard for 100 years and more. But what was criticised was the structure that was less than transparent. That was my whole little point that got blown up into all sorts of silly things. I even stated that being just a blog, it was up to the owners to decide how high a standard they wished to have in this regard.
Best regards
From homo sapien:
@Rashid (re. June 17th, 2010 at 4:16 pm)
I’m not YLH. ‘Hope that doesn’t make me any less welcome 🙂
By the way, the Ghazi Ilmdin example is mentioned in the Munir Report, is it not? Or am I mistaken? Many suspect that the report was actually substantially the work of J. Kayani – one of the best legal minds Pakistan has produced.
If I may respond to your second point first, there is a difference between animals and humans. Bad example, I am afraid. Law does not and must not make any allowances for the ‘animal’ side of humans. Many men may wish to kill or otherwise harm a cheating wife, and/or her lover. The law has nothing but utter disdain for such ‘sensibilities’.
Now coming to your point about the 18th Amendment, I would rather hope the SC leaves the 18th Amendment and, therefore, Parliamentary supremacy well alone. If the court asserts a ‘basic structure’ doctrine then we would be stuck with the basic structure of the 1973 constitution till such time that there is a total enough upheaval in Pakistan that an entirely new constitution comes in.
The Islamic nature of the present constitution is part of its fundamental structure. The ‘basic structure’ doctrine would mean retaining it. With Parliament having its supremacy upheld, at least there is a theoretical chance that majority of Parliament might, some day (before it’s too late), effect a separation of state and religion.
From Zahid Aziz:
HS wrote above to me: “Amongst rational, objective people, the argument is important not who makes it. You would only insist on a poster’s identity if you thought the identity of the speaker is more important than what is being said.” etc.
The history of this blog shows that we have frequently had discussions with anonymous posters, and are happy to do so. However, when, as has happened before, such a poster assumes an air of superiority, as if he is an authority from on high, and denigrates and belittles us, makes accusations against us, then we have a right to know who our accuser is, and who this great and mighty critic is.
Since the beginning Homo Sapien has hurled a series of accusations against us, starting with the allegation that we show no humanity to the Qadiani suffering. Then just read your haughty response to Usman beginning: “It would have been much better use of your time …” The whole response sounds like a teacher putting down a student. Just read what you wrote at the end:
“That is not to claim that my arguments are somehow unanswerable! Just, that they remain unanswered because an answer has not been attempted so far.”
So you are so clever that you know the answers to your own arguments but we are such lesser mortals that we don’t.
In that same comment you accused us of lacking fairness, hindering intellectual discussions, being insecure, not being open, etc.
By knowing who you are, we may be able to judge you by the standards you are laying down for us.
From Rashid:
@HS:
“I strongly endorse the Lahore High Court’s view in the case of the condemned murderer Ghazi Ilmdin, who had killed a person for blaspheming Prophet Muhammad. The lower court had awarded life, allowing ‘provocation’ as a mitigating circumstance. The defense appealed. The HC, justly and correctly, not only refused the appeal but converted life to death. The court observed that it could not allow and thereby encourage the use of ‘religious sensibilities’ as any kind of mitigation of the heinous crime that had been committed. In fact, the excuse made the crime even more heinous and dangerous to society and peace. A misuse of freedom of speech can only be responded to with a correct use of freedom of speech and NOTHING else. One amongst many possible correct uses of the right to freedom of speech would be to simply reserve the right – ie to ignore provocation.”
WONDERFUL! GREAT!
May I remind you of another Lahore High Court Judgment:
Decision of Honorable Lahore High Court F. W. Ckemp , Honorable Judge of Lahore High Court. Dated September 23, 1937.
The honorable judge gave decision in murder trial of Fakhar ud Din Multani Shaheed. Because the victim questioned some “holy” personality in India.
If you’re interested I would LOVE to give you the details. Actually, I’m dying to share details with people like you, who believe in supremacy of the law.
From Rashid:
@HS:
You’re always welcome.
“These positions mean nothing to me; neither yours, nor present day qadianis, nor their elders, nor even any theological position of non-ahmedi muslims or any other religion or lack thereof. My concern is that religion is no business of the state, let alone taking theological positions!”
Well dear people who blog/ comment on this blog are mostly interested in for/against of religion/Islam, and HMGA/LAM. Where as you seem to be interested in secular vs theological political forces in Pakistani society. Some thing like Pak Tea House. Nothing wrong with that. I’m not sure you will find many sharing your interest on this blog. Anyways, you’re always welcome.
From homo sapien:
@Zahid Aziz
“However, when, as has happened before, such a poster assumes an air of superiority, as if he is an authority from on high, and denigrates and belittles us, makes accusations against us, then we have a right to know who our accuser is, and who this great and mighty critic is.”
Actually, superiority is an entirely relative term. Between two points of reference, relativity is mutual. If one arguer sticks to objectivity and the other resorts to ad hominem conjecture, then the difference is bound to show without any one having to take any airs.. of any kind.
If accusations are mere sweeping statements, they can be pointed out. Any arguments that do not hold water can be pulled apart one by one, quite calmly and without a need for the slightest ad hominem context. This need not be shown to the accuser, who may or may not be capable of seeing it, but to the (albeit imaginary) objective and independent reader.
Given the above, nobody – no person – can denigrate or belittle us as long as objectivity is maintained on our side. Objectivity ensures that nothing other than our own words and deeds can denigrate or belittle us. Objectivity allows us total control, so there can be no need to lose calm.
In my view, you have hardly made an argument, or anything worthy of the name, about your “right” to know who the person making the opposing argument is. It should not matter. But since you insist, I have no issues whatsoever giving you this absolutely irrelevant and useless information: My name is Usman Khan. I’ve lived in Pakistan for the first 20 years of my life and have been living in the UK for the last 20. I am a quintessential nobody, in every sense of the word. What other totally irrelevant details do you wish to know about me?
“Since the beginning Homo Sapien has hurled a series of accusations against us, starting with the allegation that we show no humanity to the Qadiani suffering.”
That is an exaggeration on your part and forms no part of what I actually put forth.
“Then just read your haughty response to Usman beginning: “It would have been much better use of your time …” The whole response sounds like a teacher putting down a student.”
I can only repeat that it would have been better use of time to respond to and analyse the points made rather than try and psychoanalyse the person making the points. The latter is inconsequential and, therefore, a waste of time.
Usman wasted only a tiny bit of time. You, I am sorry to see, have wasted more time in this silly pursuit. By the way, Rashid responded to my points and him and I had a fruitful discussion. I may not have ended up agreeing with him but that is so unimportant as to be irrelevant. Hopefully, I learnt something from him, speaking from a rather selfish point of view.
““That is not to claim that my arguments are somehow unanswerable! Just, that they remain unanswered because an answer has not been attempted so far.”
So you are so clever that you know the answers to your own arguments but we are such lesser mortals that we don’t.”
Neither do I need to be clever nor (even more ridiculously) already know the answers to my own arguments to know that they are not unanswerable. I, like most other people, know that by definition. The reason that I put forward an argument is precisely because I do not already know how to answer it, and shall not know until an answer is put forward and convinces me. Even an argument that is claimed to never have been answered throughout known history cannot be claimed absolutely unanswerable till we reach the end of time – if there is such a thing as the end of time. At least, such is the total lack of infallibility of mere mortals.
Now please do not complain that the above was like a teacher explaining to a student. Had you not put up a ridiculous statement, there would have been no need for a ridiculously basic explanation.
“In that same comment you accused us of lacking fairness, hindering intellectual discussions, being insecure, not being open, etc.”
Pointing out that a structure is less transparent than another possible structure or system is doing no such thing as you suggest. I have already explained this in my response to Rashid. It was an entirely minor point but twisting nor exaggerating it would make it invalid, rebutting it might very easily though.
“By knowing who you are, we may be able to judge you by the standards you are laying down for us.”
I am a nobody with little capable of showing my ‘standards’ other than I am a fellow human. Please do ask whatever else you wish to ask about me, since you seem to imagine it to be highly relevant.
Regards
From homo sapien:
@Zahid Aziz
“However, when, as has happened before, such a poster assumes an air of superiority, as if he is an authority from on high, and denigrates and belittles us, makes accusations against us, then we have a right to know who our accuser is, and who this great and mighty critic is.”
Actually, superiority is an entirely relative term here. Between two points of reference, relativity is mutual. If one arguer sticks to objectivity and the other resorts to ad hominem conjecture, then the difference is bound to show without any one having to take any airs.. of any kind.
If accusations are mere sweeping statements, they can be pointed out. Any arguments that do not hold water can be pulled apart one by one, quite calmly and without a need for the slightest ad hominem context. This need not be shown to the accuser, who may or may not be capable of seeing it, but to the (albeit imaginary) objective and independent reader.
Given the above, nobody – no person – can denigrate or belittle us as long as objectivity is maintained on our side. Objectivity ensures that nothing other than our own words and deeds can denigrate or belittle us. Objectivity allows us total control, so there can be no need to lose calm.
In my view, you have hardly made an argument, or anything worthy of the name, about your “right” to know who the person making the opposing argument is. It should not matter.
But since you insist, I have no issues whatsoever giving you this absolutely irrelevant and useless information: My name is Usman Khan. I’ve lived in Pakistan for the first 20 years of my life and have been living in the UK for the last 20. I am a quintessential nobody, in every sense of the word. What other totally irrelevant details do you wish to know about me?
“Since the beginning Homo Sapien has hurled a series of accusations against us, starting with the allegation that we show no humanity to the Qadiani suffering.”
That is an exaggeration on your part and not what I actually put forth.
“Then just read your haughty response to Usman beginning: “It would have been much better use of your time …” The whole response sounds like a teacher putting down a student.”
I can only repeat that it would have been better use of time to respond to and analyse the points made rather than try and psychoanalyse the person making the points. The latter is inconsequential and, therefore, a waste of time.
By the way, Rashid responded to my points and him and I had a fruitful discussion. I may not have ended up agreeing with him but that is so unimportant as to be irrelevant. Hopefully, I learnt something from him, speaking from a rather selfish point of view.
““That is not to claim that my arguments are somehow unanswerable! Just, that they remain unanswered because an answer has not been attempted so far.”
So you are so clever that you know the answers to your own arguments but we are such lesser mortals that we don’t.”
Neither do I need to be clever nor (even more ridiculously) already know the answers to my own arguments to know that they are not unanswerable. I, like most other people, know that by definition. The reason that I put forward an argument is precisely because I do not already know how to answer it, and shall not know until an answer is put forward and convinces me. Even an argument that is claimed to never have been answered throughout known history cannot be claimed absolutely unanswerable till we reach the end of time – if there is such a thing as the end of time. At least, such is the total lack of infallibility of mere mortals.
Now please do not complain that the above was like ‘a teacher explaining to a student’. Frankly, had you not put up a ridiculous statement, there would have been no need for a ridiculously basic explanation. Sorry!
“In that same comment you accused us of lacking fairness, hindering intellectual discussions, being insecure, not being open, etc.”
Pointing out that a structure is less transparent than another possible structure or system is doing no such thing as you suggest. I have already explained this in my response to Rashid. It was an entirely minor point but twisting nor exaggerating it would make it invalid, rebutting it might very easily though.
“By knowing who you are, we may be able to judge you by the standards you are laying down for us.”
I am a nobody with little that is capable of showing my ‘standards’ other than I am a fellow human. Please do ask whatever else you wish to ask about me, since you seem to imagine it to be of the utmost relevance.
Regards
From Usman:
@homo sapien
Ignoring the apparent arrogance in your statement, I can only say that I am not really concerned with your points 1,2, 3 as they have nothing to do with the LAM or its position on this matter. The point of my post was simply to clarify what the LAM position actually is on this matter, as your contention seemed to be based on you encounters with, most probably, anonymous individuals on the internet which showed you the alleged “regrettably inhumane side of LAM all over cyberspace.” I was just worried that some persons reading this blog may form an in-correct opinion about LAM which would be based on rather flimsy grounds, so I made a clarification. Apart from that you are welcome to post your views (do keep in mi
I am sorry if you got offended at the fact that I implied your intentions; it was not imagined but based on your choice of language. It is possible I misread the same, so if your intention is not what I “imagined,” then I am glad you have clarified and I have no hesitation in admitting that you are a better judge of your intentions than I am. Incidentally you also assumed my intentions when you said , “you are more interested in casting aspersions on my intentions!”
Most of what you originally stated was more of an opinion rather than an argument. If you carefully read the posts immediately following yours, you will notice that they were caterogical in clarifying that it is not the LAM position that the victims were to blame in any way. If you are forming opinions about the humanity of LAM or the lack thereof by interacting with some people on the web whose opinion is at variance with this, then you are acting in haste and in my opinion being overly judgemental.
From homo sapien:
@Rashid
“I’m not sure you will find many sharing your interest on this blog.”
Your own post of June 6th, 2010 at 7:52 pm gave me a different impression. I suspect many here probably do share this interest with me, or I with them. Also, we might find that I share interests other than this one with other bloggers here.
Thanks for the welcome 🙂
From homo sapien:
@Usman
Thanks for your response and objective evaluation.
The good thing is that all comments are there, in full, for anyone to read. Since I believe in the fundamental bona fide of all contributors here, almost by definition, the collective contribution must be nearer to what is fair than any individual contributor’s effort. Basic principle, I guess. (Which includes the writer of this thread whose last paragraph I took exception to. My issue is with content – word or deed. I am not interested in the person nor the intention behind it.)
If I may point out, with your permission: What you quote me as having said here “Incidentally you also assumed my intentions when you said , “you are more interested in casting aspersions on my intentions!” was not based on any assumptions whatsoever but entirely on these words of yours: “Not sure why you are so eager to paint the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in a negative light.”
While I can understand your legitimate urge and duty to clarify any false impressions being given about LAM, perhaps there was much within my original post to allay such fears. Had I believed what I found objectionable formed any part of LAM teachings or what it was all about I would not have said “the last para of the article does the LAM a great dis-service.” ie to quote just one example.
You quote me again: “the alleged “regrettably inhumane side of LAM all over cyberspace.” This is a common enough phrase and construct which is used frequently to mean to include the implication that such a side is NOT an integral or true part of the whole. That I saw it as a false side and a dis-service was again further clarified had only it been read in the full context: “I am a human being who is quite upset seeing this regrettably inhumane side of LAM all over cyberspace. I can only assume that these members of LAM did not learn anything about compassion nor true fairness and justice from their own teachers and elders.” Kindly, note that the sentence immediately following the one you quote, flags up the notion as alien to LAM.
BR
From Zahid Aziz:
To put it briefly and simply, Homo Sapien’s view is that it is wrong for the constitution and state in Pakistan to implement Islamic teachings, and this is what has caused trouble for Ahmadis, and therefore the solution is to make these institutions purely secular.
Our view in LAM is that it is not Islam but the wrong interpretation of it which is causing the trouble. Islam has laid down simple, objective tests (not subjective or theological) for determining who is a Muslim, and the Pakistan constitution has rejected these. Otherwise, we support a constitution based on Islam.
The Qadiani Jamaat also believes that a state of Muslims should follow Islam (i.e. their view of Islam). It does not accept Homo Sapien’s view that the state should be secular. In fact, the Qadiani Jamaat claims to have set up a model of Islamic governance within its own community, covering all aspects of life.
So since the Qadiani Jamaat does not accept the solution to its plight offered by Homo Sapien, it means he must think that these victims are suffering because of their own wrong actions!
The clients are rejecting their (self-appointed) attorney’s advice.
Then further on the question of victims’ own responsibility, it is widely believed (even by some Qadianis) that the 1974 events came about due to the Qadiani Jamaat’s support for Bhutto in the 1970 elections. That support further inflamed the Islamic parties against Qadianis, and Bhutto saw political advantage in meeting their demands against the Ahmadiyya Movement.
So how would one describe those people who say that the foray into partisan politics by the Qadiani Jamaat in 1970 was a major cause of the 1974 act of injustice against them? Are such people callous, heartless, lacking in humanity because they are laying some responsibility on the victims of injustice?
From homo sapien:
@ZA
Hi! Homo sapien here!
My criticism was about the timing. Nothing wrong with saying a well deserved ‘I told you so!’… just that occasionally, it might not be the right time since it might give the wrong impression to a more distant observer. For any and all future mentions you wish to make of this, please refer back to this every time. Thanks!
“Our view in LAM is that it is not Islam but the wrong interpretation of it which is causing the trouble.”
Indeed, it is.
“Islam has laid down simple, objective tests (not subjective or theological) for determining who is a Muslim, and the Pakistan constitution has rejected these.”
The Pakistani Constitution is guilty as charged.
“Otherwise, we support a constitution based on Islam.”
And how would that stop a twisting and perversion of Islam and its objective principles taking place again in the future? Are you suggesting taking the right to legislate away from the majority? Suggesting something along the lines of the Objectives’ Resolution that has been a preamble to our Constitution since 1949 and a substantive part of it since 1984/5? How has ‘sovereignty belongs to Allah’ and ‘no law shall be repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah’ prevented a perversion, in interpretation, of the Quran and Sunnah’ itself, in the name of Allah and His sovereignty?
“The Qadiani Jamaat also believes that a state of Muslims should follow Islam (i.e. their view of Islam). It does not accept Homo Sapien’s view that the state should be secular.”
Like you said, no different than LAM, so far, nor from most non-Ahmadis.
“In fact, the Qadiani Jamaat claims to have set up a model of Islamic governance within its own community, covering all aspects of life.”
This is one serious issue I have with the model. They do not believe in universal adult franchise, as far as I know. They are not fellow democrats.
“The clients are rejecting their (self-appointed) attorney’s advice.”
This is an interesting way of putting it, indeed, but needless and mistaken conjecture, nonetheless.:)
“it is widely believed (even by some Qadianis) that the 1974 events came about due to the Qadiani Jamaat’s support for Bhutto in the 1970 elections. That support further inflamed the Islamic parties against Qadianis, and Bhutto saw political advantage in meeting their demands against the Ahmadiyya Movement.”
And what had inflamed the mullahs in and coming up to 1953? Despite Daultana’s callous play, Nizamuddin’s weak ministry, and the inordinate delay, the state not only did not allow its hand to be forced by blackmailers, it imposed its writ. Bhutto, in comparison, hardly faced a riot, in the case of Rabwa Railway station, and had a convincingly politically powerful ministry.
The difference was that ZAB was a scoundrel, afflicted with self-destructive myopia. It was another such Maudoodian scoundrel – Ch M Ali – who allowed Maudoodi to escape the hangman’s noose. No wonder that his followers describe it as a ‘miracle’. But Maudoddi had been awarded the death penalty, at least.
Which do you prefer to see in a state – the name and title of Islam? Or, the real benefits of Islam – the results? Let me try a metaphor.
If God has given you the ability and the means to provide free healthcare to the poor through building a hospital for them, which would you prefer – the hospital be called ‘Zahid Aziz Free Hospital’ or just ‘A Free Hospital’?
If you go for the former, there is at least a theoretical danger that at some point, long after you are gone, some administrator might decide that those called Aziz will get preferential treatment at the hospital. Then, it is decided that administrators and senior staff can only be people called Aziz. Later, the preference is further ring-fenced to people named Aziz whose first initial must be Z, and eventually, to people called Zahid Aziz only. So it ends up being a free hospital for the poor in name only.
Or, putting it another way, which would you prefer: that people know you as a Muslim first and then judge whether you are courteous, convincing and pleasant and calming or not? Or, that they experience you as all of that first and then either become curious or through some accident find out that you are in fact a Muslim? Which is a wiser and more humble approach to da’wa? Which is likely to be more effective?
Please do support and achieve a constitution based entirely and nothing but on Islam. But does this struggle and, especially, the achieved constitution have to mention Islam and declare itself Islamic? Can we not humbly enjoy the fruits without the facing the dangers inherent with a chest-beating declaration as the Islamic Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? If religious freedom in all its diversity is a fundamental human right then the constitution must not claim or own any religion. I don’t think Islam has any problems with this kind of generosity. In fact, I think Islam sees it as I see it ie to have separation of state and theology is an Islamic requirement. Islam requires the state to be blind to religious difference amongst its citizens.
Islam is the source of inspiration and guidance for Muslims. This source will guide them in matters of legislating and statecraft just as in other aspects of their public and private lives. The spirit and fruits of Islam must be their objective, not putting the label of Islam on everything. What does that achieve? At the level of state and law, Islam must be just like and no different than any other religion, as far as the state and its laws are concerned. To me this would be the practicable, wise and magnanimous way to approach the issue and prevent mischief (the kind of mischief that the Objectives’ Resolution has unleashed).
In general legal theory, you bring a law for a purpose. In old common law terminology, in order to be better able to interpret the law, the judge asks himself what was the ‘mischief’ that this law was meant to address. So can you give me three examples of Islamic laws, with a clear purpose for each, and why the purpose cannot be achieved without attaching the label ‘Islamic’ to the law? What’s in a name? I will try and prove to you for each of your three examples that the same law, with a secular label, can achieve at least the same purpose.. and in many instances, it can do it even better.
Or, using another approach, what do you think is wrong with US law, Turkish law, Indian law and French law?
From ikram:
A bit late to the discussion because:
Duniya nay teri yaad say bay-gaa-na cur diya
World (-ly needs) pretermitted (me) from reminiscing about You
Tujh say bhi dilfraib hain gham rozgaar kay
Enticing more than You are the demands of livelihood [Faiz Ahmed Faiz]
——-
The way I read this discussion thread is that it is all about whether or not Qadianis should self-Reflect and Introspect after the recent Lahore carnage and whether or not its is immoral to ask them to do so.
Definition: Introspection: “a reflective looking inward : an examination of one’s own thoughts and feelings” and Reflection: “a thought, idea, or opinion formed or a remark made as a result of meditation.” [Merriam-Webster]
Before I make any comment, I am very clear that no one on this thread [Zahid, Rashid, Usman] condones the visible, invisible, implied or perpetrated atrocities against Qadianis (or anyone else). Actually it is the exact opposite. They clearly feel the pain and injustices suffered by the victims and condemn it and speak against it in plain words.
Home sapiens seems to be an idealist and a non-pragmatist rebel without cause. Lets assume for a moment that he is a Qadiani who lives in a la-la land with serendipity everywhere. As the urdu saying goes “where sheep and lions drink from same stream in peace.”
But fact is that Qadianis are living in Pak-land where bigotry, double standards, arrogance, injustice and immorality are the norms of the day, not much different than the Makkan society in early Islam.
In history, Makkan Muslims – the victims, self-reflected and introspected their victimization and migrated to Ethopia and Medina and in that Muhammad was the last to leave (not the first like Qadiani Khalifas, and who also discourage migration of their followers)
Out of this self-reflection and introspection by Makkans, arose the indelible Great Islamic movement, empire, science, art and literature.
As a practical matter, I know of some young men of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat (Qadianis + Lahoris) who were denied admissions into professional schools in Pakistan solely for their beliefs. They and their families then self-reflected and introspected the situation. Now they are professionals living successful lives outside Pakistan, are still Qadianis and Lahoris by faith and the same Qadianis are free to call non-Qadianis kafirs. Problem solved, faith preserved and lives saved!
In the context of current discussion, when one mentions Qadianis, it is not the rank and file that is addressed but it is their Khalifas and higher ups who are implied, because it is the latter that have stranglehold on the thinking and decision making of their Jamaat members. The ordinary chanda-paying Qadiani is too small a minion to have an opinion, or to question or criticize his Khalifa and his policies. He cannot even walk up to and talk to his Khalifa (unlike Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Ali). Even a handshake with Khalifa is taken as a rare blessing by his followers.
This question of “Reflection” and “Introspection” is primarily for the Khalifa. By a secular analysis of the situation, one outcome is obvious that the Khalifa is making money and political capital off these atrocities against the rank and file of his Jamaat. He or his predecessors (II-IV) created a rift and antagonism towards non-Qadianis, and reaped the benefits from such a division and consolidated their power base and assured a boon for their blood relations.
No matter how much we slice and dice the Lahore incidence, one fact remains: why has Khalifa not yet sued the abettors and perpetrators, be they individuals or institutions for their transgression against his followers in a western court. While living in London, why has he not been able to raise the plight of his followers that it becomes part of foreign policy and human rights issues of the Western nations just like the cause for Tibet? What steps has he taken for present and future safety of his parish? Why has he not started a dialogue with his opponents? Why does he not debate the situation on an open forum? Why does he not write op-eds in newspapers? Aren’t these moral and fudiciary duties of the head of an organization? The silence is deafening.
Answer is simple. He gains from such suppression of his followers. Period!
Muhammad PBUH gives us a practical example for peace when despite protests from Muslims, he with his own hand deleted the word “Rasul” from the peace treaty of Hudaybbiah.
For good governance, non-issue must not be made into an Issue. Qadiani Khalifa does the opposite. He makes the Issue (i.e. peace and muslim brotherhood) a non-Issue, all based upon non-Reflection and non-Introspection. Mr. Sapiens at least seems to be abetting this in-action of the Khalifa. Maybe he is speaking for the Khalifa – I hope not.
From Usman:
@HS
I think you have basically reflected my point. Your assumption of my intention was based on my words which actually asked a question of sorts and gave you the opportunity to clarify your intent. While I appreciate your effort to contextualise your statements and clarify their meaning, I am afraid there is a chance not all persons reading this blog may have been able to do so right away. You say that the phrase “regrettably inhumane side of LAM all over cyberspace” “is a common enough phrase and construct which is used frequently to mean to include the implication that such a side is NOT an integral or true part of the whole.” Frankly speaking this connotation of the phrase was not known to me, no doubt due to my own lack of knowledge of the Eglish Language which is not my first language. In fact I, in my imperfect understanding, took it to mean that by implication there pre-exists an inhumane side of LAM which is now being exposed on cyberspace. Considering that there is chance that there may be others who like me do not understand the underlying meaning of certain phrases, a clarification was necessary. The sentence immediately following the one quoted did absolve the founders and elders of LAM of being inhumane, but did not clarify if the current LAM has an inhmane side or not; or at least to me it did not and perhaps to others as well.
From ikram:
It is obvious from above that Usman Khan (Home Sapiens) has taken the discussion of this thread into philosophical area of what makes good governance.
To quote him:
– I’ve lived in Pakistan for the first 20 years of my life and have been living in the UK for the last 20
By the standards of modern democracies, at least for the first 20 years he lived in a country that has a written constitution, a country that factually is no more than a banana republic. Whereas, for 20 years subsequent, he lives in a constitution-less country, which can be rightfully called a model of a democratic society. With this paradox, at least it proves the point that mere presence of a constitution does not assure good laws or good governance.
Because the National Assembly of Pakistan is a body of elected officials, those officials are charged with carrying out the will of the people who elected them. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, parliament ensures “the government is bound by the fact that the law must originate in the consciousness of the people.” By its definition, then Parliament is free to act any law by majority. So it did by declaring Ahmadis (Qadianis + Lahoris) as non-Muslims. At least they had the majority right to do so. But does any fair-minded person in a constitution-less country willing to accept that it was right thing to do? Answer is no because it defies the collective moral conscious. And it is that collective conscious which forms the basis of laws in U.K. It is the dearth of this very collective moral conscious that is the root cause of the dire straits of Pakistani society. I would encourage Mr. Usman Khan to open Quran, read it as a book for its secularity (and morality) and tell us if its theory of Law and Retribution is incongruent to the collective moral conscious? For a start he can begin with:
30:30. So pay your whole-hearted attention to (the cause of) faith as one devoted (to pure faith), turning away from all that is false. (And follow) the Faith of Allâh (-Islam) to suit the requirements of which He has made the nature of mankind. There can be no change in the nature (of creation) which Allâh has made. That is the right and most perfect Faith, yet most people do not know (it).
It is the above spirit that Zahid Aziz points to when he states – “Our view in LAM is that it is not Islam but the wrong interpretation of it which is causing the trouble.” I personally would have referred to Quran instead of Islam, because Islam as a concept is implementation of Quran is one’s thinking, actions and the society that one lives in.
Now the question – who is to interpret Quran as a source of Laws. It is the moral and intellectual ineptitude of Pakistani society that it delegates it to the illiterate Mullah. On the contrary, in United States there is a whole legal empire to interpret a page of its constitution, President Obama being one as a former professor of constitutional law. Whereas, distinctly in Islam, each and every citizen has the right to interpret the Quran and in doing so get a large scale moral uplift and then debate before any decision-making. But the irony is that if you ask any Muslim friend of yours as to when was the last time they picked it up and perused a few paragraphs out of it? Not surprisingly, most would not have done so. Whom to blame, the Quran or the people who do not read it? One of the pre-qualifications to benefit from Quran is:
13:03. Verily, in all this there are messages indeed for people who think
It is this verse, which forms the core basis for the very existence and mission of LAM, at least in the context of above discussion.
From Rashid:
@HS:
“So can you give me three examples of Islamic laws, with a clear purpose for each, and why the purpose cannot be achieved without attaching the label ‘Islamic’ to the law? What’s in a name? I will try and prove to you for each of your three examples that the same law, with a secular label, can achieve at least the same purpose.. and in many instances, it can do it even better.
Or, using another approach, what do you think is wrong with US law, Turkish law, Indian law and French law?”
HS, to me its clear that it’s you who has problem in understanding Islamic law. In your mind Islamic Law is the one that Taliban applied in Afganistan and in recent years in some parts of Pakistan. I would go on to say, “US law, Turkish law, Indian law and French law are Islamic Laws”. And country like US should be renamed as “Islamic Republic of America”. Doesn’t USA, UK, France etc apply the very same principles that Holy prophet Muhammad pbuh applied in the first welfare state i.e. Madina?
In 1980s when general Zia was embarking on “Islamization” in Pakistan and thinking of introducing “Islamic law” in the land. Maulana Maudoodi addressed senior lawyers in the country, in old Supreme Court building, on Peshawar Road in Rawalpindi. My father, a Supreme Court lawyer, there he proved to Maududi that Pakistan’s current “unislamic law” is indeed an Islamic law. Islam gives spirit and principles of law. Rest all is just a procedure. So laws of countries like US law, Turkish law, Indian law and French law are Islamic laws, with perhaps some differences in procedures.
From homo sapien:
@Ikram
1. Makkan muslims did not emigrate as a result of introspection. What had they done wrong? It was a result of a pragmatic analysis of the threat they faced, the possibilities of self-preservation they had, a cost-benefit trade-off and, of course, survival instinct. Introspection may or may not play any part in a victim looking for and finding ways to escape persecution. But pointification in the immediate aftermath of human tragedy and mass trauma needs to be handled carefully.
2. Thanks for the belatedly clarified distinction between the Qadiani leadership and common people – that you portray as cannon fodder, based on an argument not without merit. Again, my views on this ‘model’ of ‘governance’ are their within my post above (when not selectively read): “This is one serious issue I have with the model. They do not believe in universal adult franchise, as far as I know. They are not fellow democrats.” But preconceived ideas about the speaker rather than what is being said leads to selective reading. It is both funny (hilarious not strange) and sad to see how many people here have suspected me of being a Qadiani/Q-sympathiser/Q-spokesman.
3. For some strange reason I had thought I would not have to repeat myself, but here it is: my criticism of some members of LAM and the last paragraph of the thread I commented on, was specific about timing, amongst other things. I stand by every word of mine. It’s all here to see.
4. As for your points about law neither being in isolation nor it being some kind of magic wand, I guess you did not read my response to Usman on the other (Qadiani modus operandi..) thread.
@Usman
1. ‘The Taliban showed an inhumane side of Islam. Regrettably, they knew nothing of Islam except in name.’ This is a common of expression that one comes across, and usually, does not misconstrue.
2. I would have assumed that the current leadership of LAM are the current teachers and elders of LAM. That is exactly what I did assume in any case, until you introduced a chronological bar into what I had said. Such a bar was neither an explicit nor implicit part o what I had said.
@Rashid
Thank you for restating and reiterating the core of my thoughts in, supposedly, disagreeing with me. The French law, for example, is more Islamic than the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s. My contention, therefore, was that why do we bother with the label? Would calling France the Islamic Republic of France make its law more just and fair and truly Islamic than it already is?
From Rashid:
@HS:
“my criticism of some members of LAM and the last paragraph of the thread I commented on, was specific about timing, amongst other things. I stand by every word of mine. It’s all here to see.”
HS who are you to question “timing”? Have you paid in form of blood and property because of unwise statements of Qadianis?
LAM members have paid for no fault of their. They were on receiving end of wrath of Mulla-Mafia, because Qadiani Khalifas for their personal power, and other gains ignited the fire. And this fire has been burning LAM for decades!
Please read in Munir Report, in the section on allocating responsibility, the page about Qadiani Jamaat which concludes:
“We are, therefore, satisfied that though the Ahmadis are not directly responsible for the disturbances, their conduct did furnish an occasion for the general agitation against them. If the feeling had not been so strong against them, we do not think that the Ahrar would have been successful in rallying round themselves all sorts of heterogeneous religious organisations.”
It is on a Qadiani Jamaat affiliated website: http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/munir/p260.html
From homo sapien:
@Rashid
“HS who are you to question “timing”?”
Just another human being. You have exactly the same right to question me… as you just did.
The rest of what you say is, in principle only, similar to what you point out about the Munir Report. There is a difference between cause and justification. The former merely effects something, the latter legitimises it. The Munir Report is identifying the causes, in this case. It is not claiming them to be any justification.
From ikram:
Mr. Usman Khan:
Call me prejudiced or call what you may; to me it is obvious like you said about yourself – “It is both funny (hilarious not strange) and sad to see how many people here have suspected me of being a Qadiani/Q-sympathiser/Q-spokesman.” At the end of the day when it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, must be a duck. May be.
But it does not matter. Either way, you have the right to write on this blog. At least you are not cursing HMGA.
If I have to sum up all the noise above, you have a single objection and that was the word “introspection” and your calling the whole LAM callous for even mentioning it. At the end of day, it is only a word. And various contributors above have explained its connotations. Any further peeling of the onion will not give us any more substance. Lets leave it. A casual visitor to the site will read everything said and form his/her opinion.
Historically, Qadianis do not care if they are criticized for absurdity of their beliefs and actions, but like worker bees, they protect the queen mother with what ever they have. I see you no different because you try to suppress discussion in this area. You only refer and deflect in the passing – “Thanks for the belatedly clarified distinction between the Qadiani leadership and common people – that you portray as cannon fodder, based on an argument not without merit.” Lets not forget that the big elephant in the room is the Khalifa and his mandate and not the ordinary rank and file.
Do me a favor by answering this simple question? What do you have to say to the Qadiani Khalifa for historical exploits by II-V for their personages and families, and what his role should be going forward in context of recent Lahore carnage? Please enlighten us with more than a sentence. Thanks.
From Rashid:
@HS:
” The Munir Report is identifying the causes, in this case. It is not claiming them to be any justification.”
I do not justify killing of qadianis. And i am asking Qadianis, especially their khalifa 2-5, to look into the causes.
From homo sapien:
@Rashid
I am glad we are narrowing down and clarifying things one by one. We first had the cult leaders vs cult followers distinction, and here we have the cause vs justification clarification. Now, if I wait patiently without quacking, who knows the rest of the pieces will also fall in to fit the correct context of what i had said when i had first waddled in. 😉
From homo sapien:
@Ikram
“Do me a favor by answering this simple question? What do you have to say to the Qadiani Khalifa for historical exploits by II-V for their personages and families, and what his role should be going forward in context of recent Lahore carnage? Please enlighten us with more than a sentence. Thanks.”
Your wish, my lord, is my command. 🙂
Part 1/2
I don’t know enough about Qadiani Khalifas II-V, or Khalifa I, for that matter. Nor do I know a whole lot about HMGAQ other than that he was a great teacher of men (I don’t mean in the gender-specific sense), like all great teachers, reformers and well-wishers of mankind before, including all prophets of old. What I know of and think about the statement of their khalifa’s to J. Munir’s Commission, I have already stated. All the references given at LAM and other sources to their books and documented utterances also check with the e-copies of the books on Qadiani Ahmedis’ website. There are anti-Ahmadi websites accusing HMGAQ himself of either claiming prophet-hood or considering those he did not believe in him as non-Muslims. I cannot base any conclusive views on what from an academic viewpoint would partisan sources, without in any prejudice for or against their claimed veracity. I doubt there is a neutral source as such. I have heard some accuse Qadiani versions of even HMGAQ own works to have been adulterated. I have no way of verifying one way or the other, short of doing a dedicated, academic study (worthy of earning me a PhD, or two). That is precisely why I do not concern myself with theological arguments. They are not my area of expertise.
What I do know is that religion is a big part of this world and there are lots of religions and sects and sub-sects in this world of ours. Many hindus probably consider non-Hindus to be headed for Hell – or whatever Hindu equivalent of such a fate is. There probably are Protestants who think non-Protestants including Catholics are going to remain without salvation. There are ‘fundamentalist’ Mormons who think other Mormons, and all the rest, to be away from the right path and a good end or hereafter. There are sects and such amongst Jews too. The Nirankari Sikhs are considered to be heretics by Gursikhi orthodoxy. Muslims and their sects and sub-sects are no different (to be exaggeratedly euphemistic). There are also those – I would like to think a vast majority – amongst all these religions and peoples who share LAM’s view that it is not for anyone to decide another’s religious identity, let alone their status in the hereafter too.
But if there was to be a person today, and there probably are one or two unbeknownst to me, to claim herself a new prophet or reformer of, say, Islam and declare all who do not believe in his claim to be non-Muslim, it shall be no different to what has been happening in this world – in almost all religions – for god knows how long. Some will follow this new prophet or reformer, others will deny or remain indifferent. I can do precious little about these matters and how people think about them. Whatever you say about religious matters, you are bound to upset and cause offence to someone or the other. So all I can say and will try and ensure, as much as it is possible for me, is that the state is above all these things, perfectly neutral to all religions, sects and religious groups, no matter how new and no matter how old.
In contexts strictly other than law, yes, I have nothing but contempt for those who think they are god and can decide, better than and instead of the individual herself, who is Muslim or not or Christian or not. Now things are no longer as objectively simple as they were in the case of law. I can no longer say ‘I don’t give a damn as long as the law stays above all this BS’. Now subjectivity and nuances come in. It’s a dirty job, but it has to be done because – as a democrat – I do not believe in writing off the masses, regardless of who they are and how wrong they are at a given point in time.
From the legal point of view, incitement to hatred, incitement to violence, or breach of peace, or threat to public order are non-discriminating, secular laws that are sufficient and could and should apply to any public, excessive or otherwise dangerous inter-religious bickering. Law can also clearly state, if it sees there is enough signs of trouble to justify this, that anybody who calls herself a Hindu is a Hindu, Muslism is a Muslims, Sikh is a Sikh,and so on. The justification for this would be to ensure the freedom of conscience that the state must protect as a fundamental right of every citizen. It would be a further explanation of the same basic principle for those who are a bit thick.
Law has no way of stopping Qadianis (or xyz) Muslims from considering non-Qadiani (or non-xyz) Muslims to be non-Muslims, in the privacy of their homes. Nor has it a right to, since it cannot justify applying the type of relevant laws I have listed above. The objective conditions for justification cannot be said to exist in that scenario. But public utterances of this kind can certainly be brought within the scope of the many relevant laws that I have listed – not an exhaustive list – above
The level of strictness would be in proportion to the threat and danger of violence and breakdown of peace. Generally, I would consider the use of mosque loudspeakers, public meetings and pamphleting etc to be capable of being more easily brought within the purview of these laws than serious book publishing (excessive book publishing is pamphleting but with thicker pamphlets). The seriousness can be tested by the same or similar standards as applicable to academic scholarship. Instinctively, I am very wary of censorship. But I am not unaware of the need for addressing incitement to hate and violence, and nipping it in the budd. I believe reasonable judges can tell the difference. Let the courts decide.
But now coming to the important and clearer matter, the position of a persecuted religious group is in no way just another facet of the diversity of religious views in our world and the multitude of disagreements and contradicting views of each other, as I tried to list by way of mere example above. Persecution is persecution. It is beyond disagreement. I might think myself incapable of arbitrating in a dispute which is a mere theological disagreement, no matter how distasteful to me in some of its views. But I cannot sit quiet about and look away from persecution, be it of a religious or any other minority (or weak/oppressed majority e.g. east Pakistanis, non-white s. africans, women etc).
When I compare the two sides in this regard, I must also realise that one side bangs on about ‘wajib ul qatl’ and has a sickening amount of blood already on its hands. Despite my contempt for the persecuted side’s stance, I must be careful not to unknowingly provide further succour to the murderers and the persecutors – who more than match the persecuted on that stance (excepting LAM) – with not only the power of the majority behind them but the enormous might of the state also squarely on their side. Criminals need to be dealt with by the law. But the law, in its mutilated form, is hardly capable of doing so.
When one is outside the strict legal context, education, correction and rehabilitation are also part of one’s toolset as well as set of objectives. This means engaging with them. Qadianis are wrong (morally but not in a legal sense, depending on threat to public order) in thinking they know who is and is not a Muslim, better than the individual herself. As wrong as those who think they decide whether an Ahmedi, Shia, Ismaili, Agha Khani, Sunnni, Ahle Hadith, Ahle sunnah etc is a Muslim or not. This principle extends to any and all religious identities, not just the Muslim identity. It’s my sole and exclusive prerogative to decide and claim what my religious identity is. Full stop.
Now one important part of this non-legal context is to make everyone, Qadiani and majority non-Ahmadi, aware that the LAM is not with neither as far as their assuming the role of god in deciding each other’s status as a Muslim or not is concerned. That in this, the LAM believes it is following not only the lgocial, rational and objectively and morally correct stance, but the sunnah of the prophets and Muhammad, and of HMGAQ. But I would make it clear here, as part of the education (i.e informing), that to have such a stance as the Qadianis and majority non-ahmadis have, that I have nothing but contempt for, in no way justifies persecution of one by the other (and since persecution is always on the basis of might…). The second piece of education (information) must also be given with the same qualification, i.e. LAM believes that HMGAQ never claimed to be a prophet, but a reformer/the Promised Messiah, but even if the Qadianis or anyone else believe someone to be a prophet and claim to be the only true Muslims, it may be justification for disagreement but none whatsoever for violence and persecution.
Part 2/2
What is not democratic – a meritocracy in case of (professional) institutions – and transparent, is, to that degree, cultist (be it Branch Dravidians, or the FBI under J Edgar Hoover, to take examples of the two extremes of the spectrum). As a general principle, I wouldn’t want someone I cared about to be part of a cult, if I could help it. But being or belonging to a cult is not itself a crime. Nothing other than an illegal act is illegal. But, typically, where there is a lack of democracy/meritocracy and transparency, criminality and exploitation take place, or they are the actual reason why democracy/meritocracy/transparency were not allowed in the first place.
I have neither seen nor been shown any conclusive or less than conclusive evidence that the Qadiani ‘model of governance/hierarchy’ has any reasonable level of transparency. But I have no evidence of illegal coercion either, not least because I have never sought any and have no normal contact or opportunity to observe the inner or not so inner workings of the group from any distance whatsoever. I can only hope and trust that the British, German, US etc state would stop and penalise any illegal coercion. As for Pakistan, it’s a very weak rule of law state, in any case, greatly mutilated and biased when it comes to all Ahmadis, whether the chanda collecting or not.
From homo sapien:
.. apologies for the typos etc.
From Rashid:
Not a comment, just worrisome news:
Three Qadiani relatives of my in-laws, including the family of prominent Qadiani who died in Lahore massacre on June 28, in Lahore city have received threatening letters. Some body dropped letters in their homes. Letters are asking them to become Muslim other wise their lives and properties are in danger.
From homo sapien:
here’s an example http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/21-hate-speech-160-sk-04.
If the state of pakistan would not even apply incitement laws to the persecutors, what chance and what right for it to apply it to the persecuted? If the rationale for blasphemy laws is to prevent incitement, then what hope from a state that itself ‘breaches its own law (295A) every time it prints a passport application.’
From Rashid:
A nephew of mine from Qadiani Jamaat has written an article on PTH:
Extemism- Right this wrong
By Kashif Jahangiri
Unfortunately, he has ignored to mention role of Qadiani-Ahmadi leaders, especially those who took helm of Qadiani-jamaat in 1914. I don’t know how this Qadiani vs Muslims problem could be solved without correcting the wrongs on their side.
http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/extemism-right-this-wrong/#comment-35712