Banner against Ahmadis not removed despite passing 10 days

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Banner against Ahmadis not removed despite passing 10 days

By: Syed Danish Hussain | Published: November 20, 2011

RAWALPINDI — It seems that city administration is waiting for occurrence of some untoward incident against Ahmadi community, as despite passage of several days the administration has not removed a number of banners demanding end to religious activities of the community on every Friday in a house located in E-block of Satellite Town.

It was approximately 10 days ago when residents of E-Block, who at all don’t have any problem with holding of religious activities by Ahmadi community on every Friday in a building near Holy Family hospital, saw hanging banners around the locality demanding “immediate end of unconstitutional activities by Qadyanis in E-block.”

The banners are displayed by some “action committee” which wants an immediate end to religious gatherings of the community people at their worship place.

As, according to them, the security measures taken by police as well as administration of the worship place are bothersome for the residents of the area.

A resident of the area, whose house is located few yards away from the worship place of Ahmadis, when interviewed, said that these banners were leaving a bad image on the hearts and minds of his schoolchildren. He said, though a link road in front of the worship place is closed down for every kind of movement for one hour on every Friday, it never created trouble for them.

He said such banners were a source of distress for them more than the activities of Ahmadis. He also said that those who were hanging banners in the area mentioning “area residents” on them were not at all living in the area.

He also criticised the administration of the city for not removing at earliest all such stuff from the streets and roads of the area that were creating hatred for the minority.

When contacted, one of the members of the administration of worship place of Ahmadis, termed such banners a conspiracy and a source of great danger for the community.

Wishing not to be named, he said the banners were getting the attention of more and more people with each passing day and it was alarming.

“We are frightened of being targeted on this baseless propaganda. It is like playing with the emotions of minority that is already facing a social boycott like situation in the country,” he added.

He also argued that people behind this activity were of the view that Ahmadis were using a residential building for worship place but it is a matter of fact that hundreds of residential units across the city were converted into mosques.

He said if something wrong occurred or someone tried to attack their worship place in the area, the administration of the city would be responsible for that.

He said the community was not doing anything unconstitutional, as inscribed on the banners.

The building belongs to Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya, a registered organisation, he added.

DCO Rawalpindi Saqib Zafar did not respond to several calls made by this scribe for his comments on the issue.

URL: http://nation.com.pk/pakistan...passing-10-days

Blasphemy Law: Coming a full circle

Blasphemy Law: Coming a full circle

by BUSHRA S on October 14th, 2011 |

It was bound to happen. When you have a vaguely worded law with so many loopholes, and a clergy hell bent on defining religion in asphyxiating, rigid boundaries, its supporters and enablers were bound to get scorched themselves. The law was eventually going to come and bite them in the back and that is exactly what happened two weeks ago.

According to the news story, a student of a religious seminary in Chakwal, Junaid Ahmad was arrested for being blasphemous. He was apparently seen burning pages of Quran a week ago, was beaten by a crowd and handed over to the police. Ironically, however, a shaken and frightened Junaid claimed that he was in reality disposing off Quran’s loose pages to save them from desecration.

The story behind Junaid’s action was simple enough. His teacher, who belongs to Tehrik Khuddam Ahl-i-Sunnat, had told him that burning Quranic pages was a legitimate way of disposing them along with putting them in flowing water (stream etc) and burying them. As he was unable to find the other two options, Junaid resorted to the third one. It was just his luck that the man who saw him as he set the pages on fire had heard from another cleric that burning the Quran amounted to desecrating it. What followed is an ominous reminder of sharply converging, and rigid, interpretations among various schools of religious thought.

Diversity, whether religious or cultural, is always a good thing. But here, this diversity of belief within sects and sub-sects is stamped with unflinching righteousness, intolerance, and violent knee-jerk reactions. Leaving the organised sectarianism between Shias and Sunnis aside, these widely varying interpretations in such an environment result in friction and veiled hatred towards other sects within one’s circle. In such a situation, incidents like the one in Chakwal are in reality a mere prelude to what can follow. One of the most obvious possibilities, while remaining within the ambit of law, is the misuse of the blasphemy law against those who are fanatically in favour of it.

This misuse has already started albeit it is infrequent at the moment. In January this year, an imam and his son from Dera Ghazi Khan were convicted for life for committing blasphemy. They were accused of ripping posters from outside their grocery shop which advertised an event to observe Eid Milad un Nabi (the birth and death anniversary of Prophet Muhammad). There was strong speculation that the issue was not of blasphemy but difference of belief. The Deobandi philosophy, to which the imam and his son prescribed, do not believe in commemorating such days. So where the incident might have simply been that of removing a poster from their personal property, it was forcefully catapulted in the sphere of intentional blasphemy.

The problem, boiled down to its essence, is this: In all this ritualistic madness, this manic obsession with the act rather than the intention behind it, these “men of faith” have lost the plot. And that is an under-statement. Here school girls are ostracised for misplacing a dot in a word. Doctors are locked up for throwing away a person’s visiting card who shared the prophet’s name. People are persecuted for greeting others in Arabic language. Supporters of blasphemy laws obsessively defend its need to deter people from taking the law in their own hands; but when a man defies this very logic and kills a sitting governor whom he had taken an oath to protect, they cheer and holler themselves hoarse in his support.

So far, most of the victims of these laws are minorities and those belonging to lower and lower-middle income groups. But it won’t remain the same forever. With ferocious intolerance being allowed to breed unchecked in our country, it was only a matter of time before the factions started using this law to target religious rivals at will.

Right now a broad spectrum of religious right is united in its defence of murderer Mumtaz Qadri. Their slogans, demonstrative of their tunnel-minded support for his actions, should be deafening alarm bells for the rest of us.

It is a matter of time before these stout believers, momentarily united in their hate against “liberal fascists”, turn on each other. With such varied interpretations of religion, how will the courts interpret criteria of blasphemy? Will they take the easiest way out and just continue sentencing people in the hope the High Courts will correct the injustice? Will these cowardly actions really serve as a long-term pre-emptive solution or will the religious factions soon interlock horns?

If there is a legal or public showdown between people of different beliefs, the result will be more bloody, brutal and long drawn out than we can imagine. With all sides equally sure of their virtue and willing to die or kill for it, there might not be anyone standing at the end.

On a sardonic note, that will work out just right for the rest of the country.

Bushra S is an editor based in Lahore and can be found conversing on twitter here

©2011 DAWN Media Group. All rights reserved
URL: www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/blasphemy-law-coming-a-full-circle.html

CJ urged to take action against land grabbing

Monday, September 19, 2011

CJ urged to take action against land grabbing

Published: September 19, 2011

CHINIOT — Advocate Supreme Court Malik Rab Nawaz has appealed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to take suo motu action against Qadiani Jama’at which is not accepting the amendment in constitution that declares it as non-Muslim jama’at.

Addressing the 6th Khatam-e-Nabuwat Conference under the auspicious of Khatam-e-Nabuwat Lawyers Forum here on Thursday, he said that Qadianis had refused to accept the non-Muslim status and entering their names in voter lists as Muslims. He also urged Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif to take notice of Qadiani land mafia which had grabbed hundred acres of govt land situated at Chenab nagar (Chak Dhigyan).

Rab Nawaz highlighted that Qadianis Jama’at had occupied all the land of high way, railway and mineral department and the land of River Chenab’s old bridge road in the name of grassy plots and tree plantation. He demanded the CM to direct the Chiniot DCO and Chenab Nagar TMA to get this land free.

He further said Qadianis, violating the rules and directions of State Bank, had made private exchange bank where hundi system was on the rise. He asked the Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to take immediate notice of this violation. He demanded the authorities concerned to create a column of non-Muslims in identity card for Qadianis.

Paying tribute to the leaders and workers of Tehreek Khatam-e-Nabuwat, he commemorated their sacrifices and struggles during the movement.

URL: http://nation.com.pk/pakistan...against-land-grabbing

A minority without rights

May 27 - June 02, 2011 Vol. XXIII, No. 15

TFT Special

A minority without rights

Yasser Latif Hamdani Last year’s attacks on the Ahmadiyya community are part of a bigger problem where nobody’s places of worship are safe. What is different, however, is the indifference and apathy showed by the administration

Even if Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim, they have rights under the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as citizens of Pakistan which have been violated time and again. Ordinance XX of 1984 for example makes it a crime for Ahmadis to even use the Islamic greeting of “Assalamualaikum” and other Islamic symbols and religious verses. This hits at the root of the Ahmadi mode of worship

No Muslim in Pakistan can get a passport unless he signs a statement abusing Ahmadis and their religious beliefs. Therefore, every time the state prints a passport form, it effectively militates against several constitutional provisions and section 295-A of Pakistan Penal Code which safeguards against malicious or willful writings against the founders of any religion practised by a class of persons in Pakistan

“An unIslamic authority can survive but an unjust authority cannot,” said Hazrat Ali (AS), the fourth righteously guided caliph of Islam.

This simple observation has turned out to be true all through Islamic history, most notably in the Mughal Empire. The heterodox Akbar laid the real foundations of the empire on tolerance and justice for all communities in the realm, and his great grandson the pious and orthodox Aurangzeb Alamgir laid the foundations of its disintegration because of his discriminatory and unjust policy against Non-Sunnis and Non-Muslims.

These are poignant lessons for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - which long fancied itself the successor state of the Mughal Empire and which has since General Zia’s hypocritical Islamisation embarked on a terrible course similar to the end of the Mughal Empire.

May 28 will mark the one-year anniversary of the deadly attacks on Ahmadi places of worship (it is a crime to call them mosques under the draconian anti-Ahmadiyya law, but a rose is a rose by any name). These attacks, just like the attacks on Shia imambargahs and Sunni ibadatgahs, are part of a bigger security problem that the country faces. What is different is the official indifference and apathy for Ahmadis displayed by the administration.

The most haunting thing about the tragedy was the question that the local leader of the Ahmaddiya community asked of the government in a press conference the next day. “You do not consider us Muslims, but at least tell us whether we are citizens of Pakistan.” This question should worry all those Pakistanis who want to see Pakistan a progressive and egalitarian state that treats all its citizens fairly and equitably.

In 1974, Pakistan’s National Assembly declared Ahmadis non-Muslim for the purposes of law and constitution. A legitimate question may be raised as to whether the constitution of Pakistan as framed in 1973 even empowered the National Assembly to exercise the power to ex-communicate an entire sect. The Islamic provisions blended into the constitution were subject to interpretation of all schools of thought that were recognised as Muslim at the time. Therefore, arguably, the National Assembly overstepped its boundaries when it declared Ahmadis non-Muslim.

In 1947, Pakistan had laid claim to Gurdaspur because the “Muslim holy place” of Qadian was located there and Gurdaspur as a whole was Muslim majority only with the inclusion of Ahmadis in Muslim numbers.

Even if Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim, they have rights under the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as citizens of Pakistan which have been violated time and again. Ordinance XX of 1984 for example makes it a crime for Ahmadis to even use the Islamic greeting of “Assalamualaikum” and other Islamic symbols and religious verses. This hits at the root of the Ahmadi mode of worship. It defeats the purpose of Article 20 of the constitution which gives citizens the right to practice and propagate their faiths and offends Article 2-A, which after the necessary correction by the 18th Amendment, promises all religious minorities can practice their faith freely.

The Objectives Resolution had been incorporated as Article 2-A by General Zia’s regime. However the word “freely” was omitted in connection with the right of religious minorities to practice their religions and develop their cultures. Since 1974, Ahmadis were a non-Muslim minority and their status was a double-edged sword for the Zia regime. The Objectives Resolution was introduced in its mutilated form only to target them. The 18th Amendment corrected a longstanding wrong when it restored the word “freely”, but the damage had already been done.

In Zaheeruddin v State, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that placing restrictions on Ahmadis did not violate the constitutional religious freedom. It was a terrible decision because the majority opinion resorted to using principles of intellectual property law to determine exclusive ownership of religious symbols such as use of Islamic vocabulary for those determined to be Muslims. The judgment also went on to say that a Muslim cannot be but outraged at the use of Islamic symbols by Ahmadis. It goes on to condone acts of violence and religious sentiment used to persecute minorities. Dr Martin Lau, a renowned legal scholar, very poignantly argued that after the aforesaid judgment all religious freedom effectively stands abolished in Pakistan.

Under Article 2-A, the constitution ensures something more than religious freedom for religious minorities - it ensures a special status and requires the state to aid and allow the minorities every opportunity to develop their religions and cultures. When it comes to Ahmadis however, the state goes out of its way to demonise and discriminate against the community. No Muslim in Pakistan can get a passport unless he signs a statement abusing Ahmadis and their religious beliefs. Therefore every time the state prints a passport form, it effectively militates against several constitutional provisions and against 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code which safeguards against malicious or willful writings against the founders of any religion practised by a class of persons in Pakistan.

By restoring the word “freely” in Article 2-A, the government has given our judiciary another opportunity to correct a wrong that was committed by a martial law regime. The judiciary has to act to safeguard the citizens of Pakistan because the legislature in Pakistan can only go so far. Challenging bigotry is answered with 26 bullets. The minister of minorities was killed for standing up for the original idealism of Pakistan. Under the circumstances, the legislature can only give the smallest of rooms and the judiciary must rush in to re-establish religious freedom which is not only constitutionally ensured in Pakistan, but also part of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights which Pakistan has signed and ratified.

Till then, the Ahmaddiya community - which played a major role in the making of Pakistan and which has contributed magnificently to its progress - will remain effectively stripped of citizenship rights in Pakistan.

Yasser Latif Hamdani lives in Lahore

© The Friday Times
URL: www.thefridaytimes.com/27052011/page9.shtml

Ahmadiyah a test of dialogue, law

OPINION Fri, 04/15/2011 7:30 AM

Ahmadiyah a test of dialogue, law

Andy Fuller, Surabaya

In the wake of attacks against Ahmadis on Feb. 6, 2011, many have called for a dialogue between the members of Ahmadiyah and groups — such as Front Pembela Islam. In other instances, commentators have emphasized the legality of citizens to practice their religion in the manner that they choose.

The practice of dialogue and the enforcement of particular laws, however, will not necessarily bring about the easy resolution to conflicts between groups such as FPI and a religious minority such as Ahmadiyah. Dialogues and laws also offer the opportunity for some to further their will upon others.

Although a “dialogue” is a welcomed alternative to physical violence, a dialogue is not without its own pitfalls and needs to be judged on its own merits. It is worth questioning, for example, as to who participates in the dialogue and for what ends.

A dialogue is not something that can be forced to take place. Dialogues also present an opportunity to perform a kind of discursive violence: a violence, which even if only spoken, still rejects the other participants in the dialogue.

In the days after the attacks on Ahmadis in Cikeusik, Banten, some leaders referred to the belief of Ahmadis as being blasphemous of Islam. Elsewhere, in Sabili a conservative (and popular) magazine, Ahmadiyah members are blamed for inciting the violence against them.

Moreover, they are referred to as being intolerant of non-Ahmadis. There has been a rush to be considered as “tolerant”, as well as a claim to being “offended”. Discourses regarding religious orthodoxy and deviancy somehow become more important than the criminality of three killings performed in broad daylight.

Dialogue, however, might be more useful as a tool to prevent violence, rather than to solve cases or ease tensions after grave violations of one’s rights has already taken place. Since the killings and other attacks, no one has volunteered a statement in which he or she acknowledges a kind of complicity in sharpening attitudes against Ahmadis.

Calls for dialogue, thus, become an effort to avoid accountability. Groups that have participated in discursive and physical violence against others, should not participate in public “dialogues” unless they are willing to acknowledge the violence of their actions and words. Ahmadis or others, do not need to validate such calls for dialogues, until those who are guilty have faced public and criminal censure.

Some commentators have pointed to the weakness of the state in allowing the killings of Ahmadis. That is, the state has not been able to implement laws that protect Ahmadis (just as it should for any other citizen) from criminal acts of violence.

One of the curious elements of recent attacks on Ahmadis, however, is the presence of the state.

Throughout the footage that shows the killings in Cikeusik, police are present. They are shown to be passive in watching the killings as they occur.

Some publications have continued to report on how different levels of the police force knew about the impending attacks on Suparman’s house in Cikeusik. Here, the state is clearly present: but it is a state that is willing to take sides with an outraged and violent mob.

Just as public forums have served to discriminate against Ahmadis, so have the decrees of various governors sought to criminalize belief. These laws are curious as they seemingly go against the laws that are part of the Constitution that state that each citizen is able to hold his or her belief in accordance with their wishes.

It seems that these governors, however susceptible they are to different political interests, are willing to give in to the demands of different radical groups. Instead of moving to protect Ahmadis from further discrimination and violent attacks, the state through laws issued at the provincial level have provided more room for discrimination against Ahmadis.

Hate-speech is normal when talking about Ahmadiyah. So, the state is present and laws are being created. These laws, however, have followed the demands of “the mob”, rather than referring back to the authority of the Constitution and the state ideology, which states “unity in diversity” and “social justice for all”.

The clashes between a self-proclaimed mainstream Muslim majority and that of a minority Muslim sect (Ahmadiyah) are representative of a conflict between “the orthodox” and “un-orthodox”. The orthodox and those who claim to be so, are unwilling to accept those who divert from what is considered to be “the true” or “the real” Islam.

This is seen clearly in recent attempts to re-convert Ahmadis away from their chosen faith and back to “the real”, “the right” and “the true” Islam. In such an instance, the orthodox clearly consider themselves to be the paternal representatives who know what is best for the infantile “other” who has strayed from “the straight path”.

A negotiation of values was strikingly absent on that morning of Feb. 6, 2011. It was a moment when “dialogue” was no longer possible. It was a moment for violence and rejection of the other.

Decrees at the provincial level have further normalized violence against Ahmadis. A dialogue “after the fact” won’t solve anything until the injustices against this particular minority are recognized.

It is not the time for a dialogue, but the time for openness and arguments: where people are willing to accept the legitimacy of others to hold their beliefs. Until guilt and culpability is established, a monologue of violence — both physical and discursive — will persist.

The writer is based at the Asia Institute, the University of Melbourne, Australia. This is an English language version of a presentation given at Sunan Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/04/15/ahmadiyah...

Fight Ahmadis With Prayers, Not Punches: Military Chief

HOME

Fight Ahmadis With Prayers, Not Punches: Military Chief

Yuli Krisna & Dofa Fasila | March 08, 2011

Bandung. A military commander in West Java has warned against using brute force against the Ahmadiyah, saying there were more “elegant” methods to suppress the group.

Maj. Gen. Moeldoko, chief of the Siliwangi Regional Command, said on Monday that the use of violence against the minority Muslim sect would attract unwanted attention from international human rights groups.

“We should be handling [the Ahmadiyah] with gloved hands, and not with violence,” he said. “Through the preaching of Islamic teachings, let their faith be weakened. [We must] guide them to follow the right path.”

“I believe this is a far more elegant and respectful way, even in the eyes of the world. We already have the tools to implement this plan,” he added.

Moeldoko was speaking after he met with West Java Governor Ahmad Heryawan, the provincial police chief and other officials on Monday to discuss implementing a ban on the sect’s activities.

Ahmad had issued a gubernatorial regulation on Friday barring Ahmadis from practicing their faith in the province.

The ban, adopted by at least 10 other regional governments, was based on a 2008 joint ministerial decree declaring the Ahmadiyah a deviant sect for its divergent view on Islamic prophets. The decree prohibits Ahmadis from spreading their beliefs.

In a tactic he dubbed “an attack of prayer rugs,” Moeldoko suggested converting the sect to Islam by opening their mosques to mainstream Muslims.

“I ask all of you [Muslims] to sit inside their mosques, which are exclusive for the Ahmadis,” he said. “Let us fill their mosques with Islamic activities and the correct teachings of Islam.”

Similarly, the West Java governor said the sect’s mosques should be accessible to all mainstream believers.

“All mosques believed to belong to the Ahmadiyah can be used by anybody and everybody,” he said. “A mosque, after all, should not belong to a certain community. It is open to each and every Muslim.”

The governor also said the sect’s members should be invited to join other Muslims during Friday afternoon prayers.

“Let us put all of our prayer mats side by side. Islam after all, does not teach exclusivity. It does not teach us to close ourselves up,” he said.

The Ahmadiyah, founded in India in 1889, has been targeted by hard-liners in a series of bloody riots and clashes across the archipelago in recent months.

In the latest sign of simmering religious tensions, a group of people in Bandung were forced to dig up the body of an Ahmadi from a tomb on Thursday and abandon it in a graveyard.

The Ahmadiyah said the incident was “troubling” and constituted an attack on the sect.

“If this matter had been communicated to us, or if the body had been buried on land belonging to the Ahmadiyah, we wouldn’t have this problem,” Ahmad said on Monday.

Over the past few weeks, Islamic organizations have demanded that the government disband the sect, triggering heated public debate on religious rights in Indonesia.

Contrary to his peers in other regions, however, Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo vowed not to ban Ahmadis from practicing their faith.

He said Djoko Suyanto, the coordinating minister for political, legal and security affairs, had warned officials against enforcing such prohibitions.

“His instructions were clear. There should not be a gubernatorial decree or any kind of regulation issued in this country that would violate the Constitution,” Fauzi said on Monday.

He said the 2008 ministerial decree listed “everything needed to ensure security, order and harmony” in the capital.

Earlier, Fauzi had suggested following East and West Java’s lead in issuing regulations to ban Ahmadiyah activities. However, Fauzi backtracked on Monday after his proposal earned widespread public criticism.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe
URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/fight...chief/427316

Fauzi Bowo U-Turn: No Ahmadiyah Ban

HOME

Fauzi Bowo U-Turn: No Ahmadiyah Ban

Dofa Fasila | March 08, 2011

Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo says a city ban on Ahmadiyah is now unlikely. (JG Photo)

Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo on Monday backed away from comments in which he suggested his administration was considering following the lead of West and East Java in imposing restrictions on the minority Ahmadiyah sect.

Fauzi, who drew widespread criticism from Jakarta Globe Web site and Facebook followers for suggesting the capital could implement similar regulations, said the administration would not place bans on Ahmadiyah.

He said he would follow the instructions issued by Djoko Suyanto, the coordinating minister for political, legal and security affairs.

“His instructions were clear,” Fauzi said. “There should not be a gubernatorial decree or any kind of regulation issued in this country that is in violation of the Constitution.”

Initially, Fauzi said the administration would first analyze and review the controversial regulations issued in the Indonesian provinces.

“In any case, everything that is needed in order to ensure security, order and harmony in the lives of Jakartans is already listed in the [2008] joint ministerial decree,” Fauzi said.

The 2008 joint ministerial decree prohibits Ahmadiyah from proselytizing, though critics say the legislation encourages attacks on the sect.

There are widespread concerns Indonesia is becoming less tolerant toward minority faiths.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe
URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/fauzi...ban/427263

MUI urges government to ban Ahmadiyah

NATIONAL Tue, 03/08/2011 8:59 PM

MUI urges government to ban Ahmadiyah

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) has urged the government to place a ban on Ahmadiyah to prevent further problems from flaring up.

“If [the Ahmadiyah congregation] is not banned, then [religious] fanatics will keep on harassing them,” MUI chairman Umar Shihab said on Tuesday.

He added that the ban placed by certain administrations on the Ahmadiyah congregation would make the Ahmadis conscious that they have diverged from Islam.

The government, he further said, must follow suit with the action taken by certain administrations which have imposed bans on the Ahmadiyah congregation.

“That’s why the government needs to ban [the Ahmadiyah congregation]…similar to the MUI which has banned the teachings [of the Ahmadiyah] which have deviated from the teachings of Islam,” he said, as quoted from Antara news service.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/08/mui...html

Jakarta will not outlaw Ahmadiyah: Governor

HEADLINES Tue, 03/08/2011 11:39 AM

Jakarta will not outlaw Ahmadiyah: Governor

Andreas D. Arditya and Bagus BT Saragih, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

As more regional governments stepped up their campaigns against the Ahmadiyah sect, Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo backtracked from his declaration about banning members of the sect from publicly practicing their faith, saying that no new action would be taken against the group.

“The Jakarta administration has decided that religious issues are regulated under the joint ministerial decree. The city government is only responsible for maintaining security and order, not handling religious issues,” Fauzi said.

A joint ministerial decree issued by the government in 2008 banned members of the Ahmadiyah Indonesia Congregation (JAI) from propagating their religious beliefs, but allowed them to maintain their faith and perform their daily religious duties.

The Governor said the administration decided to drop its plan to issue a bylaw against Ahmadiyah following a statement by Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Djoko Suyanto late on Sunday warning of the illegality of such bylaws.

“Local government can’t issue ordinances that go against these articles. The message is clear, there should be no bylaws or gubernatorial decrees that contradict the state’s Constitution,” Fauzi said.

Djoko said local ordinances on the issue should be consistent with Article 28 and 29 of the 1945 Constitution and the joint ministerial decree.

Article 29, section 2, stipulates state guarantees for the freedom of faith and worship.

Djoko also said the government could not ban a belief. “One way or another, we can’t stop or outlaw a religious belief,” he said.

An official from the Attorney General’s Office also said Ahmadiyah could not be disbanded.

The Junior Attorney General for Intelligence, Edwin Pamimpin Situmorang, meanwhile, said the Coordinating Board for the Monitoring of Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem), chaired by the Attorney General, was no longer authorized to outlaw a religious belief.

“Bakor Pakem only evaluates reports from the public regarding certain beliefs and submits its analysis to the Religious Affairs Ministry,” he told The Jakarta Post on Monday.

However, Ahmadis could be prosecuted under the 1965 Blasphemy Law if they cause unrest in the society,” Edwin said.

On Monday Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi said there should be no problems with the local governments issuing bans and they would not contradict the joint ministerial decree.

“The joint ministerial decree mandates that local governments to issue regulations consistent with the decree, but in principle these local governments could not disband Ahmadiyah,” Gamawan said.

There were 188 mystical beliefs and religious sects in Indonesia as of 2010, according to AGO records.

Calls from hard-line Muslim groups to ban Ahmadiyah have mounted in recent weeks following a deadly attack against Ahmadis in Cikeusik, Pandeglang, Banten.

Local administrations in East and West Java and South Sulawesi have issued bans against the sect members practicing their faith. The Pontianak city administration in West Kalimantan said on Monday that it would issue a similar ban later in the week.

The Tegal chapter of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) in Central Java Khumaidi said as quoted by Antara that it supported the government and regional administrations banning Ahmadiyah followers from propagating their belief.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/08/jakarta...governor.html

RI seeks to redefine freedom amid rising religious violence

NATIONAL Wed, 03/02/2011 12:22 PM

RI seeks to redefine freedom amid rising religious violence

Bagus B.T. Saragih, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

God have mercy: A group of Ahmadiyah followers in Yogyakarta conduct a prayer on Tuesday after recent bans issued by several regional leaders across the country. The Yogyakarta chapter of Ahmadiyah has halted its public activities. -JP/Slamet Susanto

As local administrations move to ban Ahmadiyah, the government is in a dilemma revolving around “liberty versus order” as it responds to calls to disband the notorious Islam Defenders Front, known as the FPI.

Following the mob incident that killed three Ahmadis in Banten and the burning of three churches in Central Java last month, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ordered his ministers to seek legal measures to disband groups frequently involved in acts of violence.

Some believed he was likely referring to groups such as the FPI. But the order has proved to be no easy task.

The Home Ministry, which is endowed with the authority to outlaw an organization, said the freedom to form a union or organization was guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. This, ministry spokesman Reydonnyzar Moenek told The Jakarta Post, meant the government was in a dilemma.

As of 2010, more than 9,000 mass organizations were registered with the ministry. It has never banned a single one since the issuance of the mass organization law in 1985, which granted it authority.

Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi, a politician from President Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party, denied he had ignored the President’s order, saying he was only cautious not to use the authority recklessly in fear of violating the Constitution. “We are now studying the facts of the incidents,” he claimed.

The minister argued that the procedures to disband mass organizations under the existing regulation were complex. “The 1985 Mass Organization Law is too old and is no longer relevant to the country’s current situation,” he said, adding that his ministry was finalizing the revision draft of the law, which will be submitted to the House of Representatives for deliberation this year.

A 1986 government regulation outlining the ministry’s authority to disband mass organizations stipulates the government at central and regional levels can freeze a mass organization that disrupts national security and public order, receives foreign aid without the central government’s permission and helps foreign parties that jeopardize national interests.

The regulation also stipulates that the ministry ask for considerations from the Supreme Court on whether a certain group be frozen. A frozen organization shall be disbanded if found to continue the illicit acts for three months after receiving warning letters from the government.

Despite its violent acts over the past few years, the ministry said it had not yet found evidence that the FPI had broken the 1985 law.

While legal matters are hindering the government from taking stern action against the militant group, local administrations are facing no difficulties in finding reasons to ban Ahmadiyah, a minority group deemed heretical by the country’s mainstream Muslims.

Last week, Samarinda Mayor Syaharie Jaang in East Kalimantan froze the local chapter of Ahmadiyah after dozens of FPI members rallied in front of his office a few days earlier. The hardline group gave Syaharie a week’s deadline to disband the local chapter of the Islamic sect, saying if it failed to do so it would do it themselves.

The mayor reportedly granted the FPI’s demand because he considered Ahmadiyah “a time-bomb that could trigger violence”.

In another instance, East Java Governor Soekarwo issued a decree banning Ahmadis from conducting any kind of activity on Monday, only days after 32 Islamic organizations announced a plan to carry out a mass rally in the provincial capital of Surabaya to demand the administration outlaw Ahmadiyah in the province.

Activists have questioned whether democracy is the actual reason behind the government’s reluctance to disband the FPI.

Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) chairwoman Erna Ratnaningsih said Timur had a long history of hobnobbing with hardliners since he was West Java Police chief in 2008. Along with Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo, Timur attended the FPI’s 12th anniversary celebration at the organization’s headquarters in Jakarta, she said. Last month, she added, Gamawan also met with FPI leader Rizieq Shihab to seek advice over Ahmadiyah.

But disbanding mass organizations, some have argued, might not be the answer to end religious violence. Imam Prasodjo, a sociologist from the University of Indonesia, for instance, said violent acts were also caused by cultural aspects that were difficult to manage. “Disbandment of those groups will not automatically reduce violence. Group members will continue [committing violence] as long as cultural problems exist,” he said referring to the stigma against Ahmadiyah.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/02/ri...violence.html

E. Java Ahmadiyah decree violates constitution, harms pluralism

NATIONAL Tue, 03/01/2011 6:52 PM

E. Java Ahmadiyah decree violates constitution, harms pluralism

The Jakarta Post, Makassar

A decree regulating restrictions on Ahmadiyah activities issued by the East Java governor is against the Constitution and harms the nation’s value of pluralism, noted lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis on Tuesday.

“The decree is a violation of the Constitution,” he said as quoted by tempointeraktif.com.

The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, including people’s right to practice their beliefs, he added.

East Java governor Soekarwo on Monday issued a decree that prohibited all Ahmadis in the province from conducting activities related to Ahmadiyah.

Soekarwo’s decree prohibits Ahmadis from distributing pamphlets and placing signs at their offices and mosques. They are also not allowed to wear anything to indicate that they are Ahmadiyah members.

The decree is a bad precedent that may be followed by other regions, Todung said. He urged Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi to immediately annul the decree.

Todung also said he suspected that the decree was issued without careful consideration and was a result of pressure from certain groups.

“That’s one of the risks of being a public official,” he said, adding that he would challenge the decree at the State Administrative Court.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/01/e-java...pluralism.html

Regional heads violate Constitution with bans

HEADLINES Tue, 03/01/2011 1:48 AM

Regional heads violate Constitution with bans

Bagus BT Saragih and Achmad Faisal, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta/Surabaya

While the Indonesian Constitution guarantees religious freedom, the government is backing regional heads who have issued restrictions on the religious activities of followers of Ahmadiyah.

East Java Governor Soekarwo on Monday issued a decree that prohibited all Ahmadis in the country’s second most populous province from conducting any kind of activities related to Ahmadiyah.

According to Soekarwo’s decree, Ahmadis are prohibited from distributing pamphlets and putting signs in front of their offices and mosques. They are also not allowed to wear anything to indicate that they are members of Ahmadiyah.

“This is for the sake of security and public order. It is my right to keep this region free from violence,” Soekarwo told a press conference.

Also attending the conference were East Java Police chief Insp. Gen. Badrodin Haiti, Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) East Java chapter head Abdusshomad Bukhori, the head of the East Java Prosecutors’ Office Abdul Taufiq and Brawijaya Military Commander Maj. Gen. Gatot Nurmantyo.

Abdul said government leaders in the province were concerned about the recent fatal attack on an Ahmadiyah congregation in Cikeusik, Banten, that claimed three Ahmadis’ lives.

“With this policy we hope those who consider Ahmadiyah deviant will not commit violence,” he said.

Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi said such regulations are in line with the 2008 joint ministerial decree banning Ahmadiyah members from proselytizing.

East Java’s restriction on Ahmadis followed regulations issued in Samarinda and Pandeglang following the Cikeusik incident. All cited security issues as their basis.

Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) chairwoman Erna Ratnaningsih said the local rulings might instead exacerbate potential violence.

“The regulation could be taken as justification for pressures against Ahmadiyah,” she said.

Erna said banning Ahmadiyah was against Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen religious rights.

“Besides, religious affairs are supposed to be a central government matter according to the 2004 Regional Autonomy Law,” she said.

The law stipulates that the central government is in charge of foreign affairs, defense, security, the judiciary, monetary affairs and national fiscal policy as well as religious affairs. The rest is under the authority of local administrations.

Prior to the issuance of Soekarwo’s decree, 32 Islamic organizations had announced that they planned to carry out a massive rally in the provincial capital of Surabaya next week to demand the administration not allow Ahmadiyah in the province.

“If the government does not react immediately leaders in other regions will keep succumbing to pressures and continue banning Ahmadis,” Erna said.

Similar policies were also reportedly in effect in the provinces of South Sumatra and West Nusa Tenggara and in the cities of Bogor and Kuningan prior to the Cikeusik incident.

Zafrullah Ahmad Pontoh, a spokesman for Ahmadiyah Indonesia, said he was disappointed with the ban.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/01/regional...bans.html

Blue ribbons may indicate attack on Ahmadis was planned

NATIONAL Thu, 02/10/2011 4:54 PM

Blue ribbons may indicate attack on Ahmadis was planned

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Police have requested the testimony of 25 witnesses to understand the meaning of the blue ribbons that were worn by the mob in Sunday’s Ahmadiyah attack in Cikeusik, Banten.

“The investigators are trying to find [out the meaning of the blue ribbons], we just have to wait and see. If there is some progress on the case, we will relay it to the press. Just wait for the interrogation of the 25 witnesses to finish,” said National Police spokesman Anton Bahrul Alam on Thursday, as quoted by tribunnews.com.

Anton said that he was not in the position to conclude that the blue ribbons worn by the anti-Ahmadi mass during the clash meant that the attack was organized beforehand, since the witnesses were still being questioned by the Pandeglang Police.

However, Anton also said there was a possibility that the list of suspects might grow.

As previously reported, three Ahmadis were killed and many others sustained injuries after they were attacked by mobs.

So far, the police have only detained one suspect.

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/02/10/blue..planned.html

The End of Jinnah’s Pakistan

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The End of Jinnah’s Pakistan

Governor Salmaan Taseer's murder raises questions about the future of Pakistan’s Western-educated elites.

By SADANAND DHUME

Every time you think things can’t possibly get worse in Pakistan, along comes something to prove you wrong. On Tuesday, in possibly the country’s most consequential political shock since the 2007 murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Salmaan Taseer, the 65-year-old governor of Punjab province, was gunned down in an upscale Islamabad market by one of his police bodyguards. The reason: the governor’s plain-spoken defense of Asia Bibi, an illiterate Christian woman sentenced to death under Pakistan’s harsh blasphemy laws. According to press reports, Taseer’s killer pumped nine bullets into him for daring to call the blasphemy provision a “black law.”

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, far right, at the 1947 partition conference.

Needless to say, Taseer was right. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws belong more in a chronicle of medieval horrors than in a modern society, let alone one that receives billions of dollars in Western largesse. Since the mid-1980s, blasphemy—including criticizing the prophet Mohammed—has carried a mandatory death sentence. Amnesty International calls the laws “vaguely formulated and arbitrarily enforced” and “typically employed to harass and persecute religious minorities.” Over the past quarter century, at least 30 people have been lynched by mobs after being accused of blasphemy. Many others have been forced to flee the country. Though Christians make up less than 2% of Pakistan’s population, they account for about half the country’s blasphemy cases.

In a larger sense, however, the significance of Taseer’s murder lies in what it says about the future of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Carved out of the Muslim-majority provinces of British India in 1947, the country has long struggled to reconcile two competing visions of its reason for being. Is Pakistan, as imagined by its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah—a London-trained barrister with a fondness for pork sandwiches and two-toned spats—merely a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims? Or was it created to echo the far more ambitious formulation of Abul Ala Maududi, the radical Islamist ideologue born roughly a generation after Jinnah: for the enforcement of Islamic Shariah law upon every aspect of society and the state?

Taseer broadly belonged to Jinnah’s Pakistan. He was educated as a chartered accountant in England, founded a successful telecom company, and published the country’s leading liberal newspaper in English. (Though, as the son of a famous Urdu poet, Taseer was perhaps more culturally authentic than his nation’s founder.) By contrast, Taseer’s killer, a 26-year-old named Mumtaz Qadri, symbolizes Maududi’s vision. In photographs, he’s bearded and moustache-less, in the manner prescribed by fundamentalist Islam. That Mr. Qadri could defy South Asia’s usually rigid codes of hierarchy by murdering someone far above his station jibes with the contempt radical Islamists often feel for traditional elites. According to press reports, Mr. Qadri showed no remorse for the murder.

The murder highlights anew the way in which Pakistan’s English-speaking classes resemble a small island of urbanity surrounded by a rising tide of fundamentalist zeal. They have only themselves to blame for their predicament. From independence onward, successive governments—military and civilian alike—have ridden the tiger of fundamentalism out of political expediency, misplaced piety or geopolitical ambition. A statistic from Zahid Hussain’s “Frontline Pakistan” is telling: When Pakistan gained independence in 1947 it housed 137 madrassas. That number has since swelled to about 13,000, between 10% and 15% of which are linked to sectarian militancy (Sunni versus Shia) or terrorism.

For many analysts, Pakistan’s slide began during the prime ministership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the debonair, Scotch-swilling feudal from Sindh first elected in 1970. Believing that he could co-opt the then small fundamentalist lobby, Bhutto banned alcohol and gambling and shuttered night clubs. He replaced the traditional Sunday holiday with Friday and declared the tiny heterodox Ahmadiyya sect to be non-Muslim. Bhutto promoted the pious and ultimately treacherous Zia ul-Haq to head the army.

After Zia seized power in a coup in 1977, the Islamization of Pakistan took off in earnest. The general set up Shariah courts, began government collection of zakat (an Islamic alms tax), denuded libraries of books deemed un-Islamic, and mandated compulsory prayer for civil servants and marks in their personnel files for piety. In the 1980s, army officers were instructed to read “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book by a zealous officer, Brigadier General S.K. Malik, which argues that “terror struck in the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.” Many of these officers subsequently rotated through the notorious Inter-Services Intelligence whose links to violent fundamentalist groups fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan and India in Kashmir are widely regarded as too deep to sever entirely.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the U.S. has worked hard to stem the rising tide of fundamentalism in Pakistan. First it backed the military strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf. When he failed to deliver, policy makers in Washington held out hope that a democratically elected government, armed with greater legitimacy, would fight a better fight. But so far—despite co-operating with stepped-up U.S. drone strikes against militants in the country’s remoter reaches—the regime of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has hardly succeeded in stemming the tide of fundamentalist anger in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Perhaps Governor Taseer’s murder will lead the country’s squabbling politicians and scheming generals to come together in a renewed bid to save Jinnah’s country from Maududi’s vision. Perhaps Pakistani society will be outraged enough to act against the thousands of madrassas that poison the country daily. But if the past is any guide to the future, it may not be a good idea to hold your breath. Jinnah, it can safely be assumed, is spinning in his grave.

Mr. Dhume is a columnist for WSJ.com and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.

URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576062961607588454.html

What about Jinnah’s Pakistan?

What about Jinnah’s Pakistan?

by Murtaza Razvi on 12 25th, 2010 |

Some random thoughts come to mind this Christmas, a day that also happens to be Mr. Jinnah’s birthday.

If it were the year 1947, would the advisor to the chief minister, Sindh, Ms. Sharmila Faruqui have rushed to the police station in Clifton as she did last Monday to meet a rape victim only to cast aspersions on the victim’s complaint that she was kidnapped and raped by her assailants? Ms. Faruqui not only disclosed the identity of the rape victim to the media but also implied that she was not quite convinced of the victim’s account of the assault; that she found her to be “hyper and rude”, within hours of the rape; and that the victim and her female friend, who was also beaten up badly, were coming from a party late at night. What does the advisor to the CM actually think? That it’s OK to rape a girl who parties? Who gave Ms. Faruqui the right to cast aspersions on the victim’s story even before the police began to investigate?

Then, just who is Ms. Faruqui to judge the veracity of the wronged woman’s claim, whose medical reports proved that indeed a gang-rape had been committed? Does Ms. Faruqui not know that rape is a heinous crime in any civilised society, regardless of the profession of the victim, whether she is a prostitute or a submissive, God-fearing woman, and that a rapist is a rapist even if he happens to be the husband of the victim?

While the whole episode is outrageous, yet another outrage brews elsewhere in the land of the pure, with a victim who is twice disadvantaged – being a woman and that too from a minority community. Aasia Bibi as the latest blasphemy accused, a poor Christian woman from a village in Punjab who’s on death row in a Lahore prison. Would the mullahs of all hues, Barelvi, Debandi, Ahl-i-Hadis, Shia and what have you, who are now demanding her death have been able to rally for their ‘cause’ at the birth of Pakistan?

Remember how they had stood discredited in the public eye on the eve of the creation of Pakistan, which they had opposed, as Jinnah unequivocally charged the Constituent Assembly at Karachi with framing a constitution for his country, declaring that “Religion will have nothing to do with the business of the state”?

Then, are Ahmadis free to assemble and worship in Pakistan today? Jinnah would be turning in his grave if he knew that we created a minority out of a community that was Muslim in his Pakistan up until 1974. The entire Ahmadi population of the city of Rabwah in Punjab, with a population of 70,000, has a gagging order against them to assemble and pray as they wish, in a country where Jinnah had assured all that they were free to go to their “mosques… temples and any other place of worship”.

If there was a Pakistan Ideology, it was given to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan by Jinnah himself on the eve of independence, that is why he had to die before a new Objectives Resolution could be passed by his deputies in the same assembly in 1949.

This was the starting point of introducing religion into the business of the state, and upon which Z.A. Bhutto and General Ziaul Haq built the entire edifice of their controversial process of Islamisation, with the result that today Islam itself has become controversial, with Sufi shrines and mosques of rival sects being bombed by the puritans, and innocent citizens being killed because they are not Muslim enough. It was about such people that Jinnah had said: “[Pakistan] will not be a country ruled by mullahs with a divine mission;” and that, “The British parliamentary system should be the model before us.” Both the ideals have since been severely compromised.

Jinnah’s Pakistan was as much in the name of Islam as the independent state of Bosnia in our own times. Pakistan was created for the welfare of the Muslim-majority provinces of British India just as Bosnia was created for safeguarding the interests of the Muslim majority of that region of the former Yugoslavia. Following partition of India, Indian Muslims were advised by the Quaid to remain loyal to their country; it is they who have heeded Jinnah’s call while we in Pakistan have created our own distortions and deviations from his ideals.

Here in a nutshell is a very secular rationale for the creation of Pakistan: Muslims of the even Muslim-majority provinces of a united India, in the face of the denial of any affirmative action in their favour by Congress in 1947, could not have been able to safeguard their socioeconomic interests. Non-Muslims were better qualified to take up most jobs and lucrative vocations, which in their absence fell to Muslims in what we call Pakistan today.

The Quaid was more than willing to keep India in one piece provided he was able to extract an affirmative action plan in favour of the very backward Muslims at the time of independence; this means that even before Pakistan became a reality on the map, Mr. Jinnah had revisited and reviewed his Two-Nation Theory. Never was he to invoke it again even to unite East and West Pakistan, which saw the language riots in Dhaka right at the outset.

The leader and the lawyer Jinnah understood well the distinction between creating a country for disadvantaged Muslims or one in the name of Islam. That fine line was later blurred by his deputies after his death and it was removed altogether by ambitious politicians and military dictators to perpetuate their own rule.

In Jinnah’s Pakistan, we would have been saved many a Ms. Faruqui in the government; instead, an Aasia Bibi, on the back of ballot, could have become the head of state without endangering Islam or trading off nuclear secrets. These two feats today are the exclusive privileges of Pakistani Muslims alone.

Murtaza Razvi is the Editor, Magazines, at Dawn.

©2010 DAWN Media Group. All rights reserved
URL: http://blog.dawn.com/2010/12/25/what-about-jinnah%E2%80%99s-pakistan/

Pak clerics warn of protests if blasphemy laws are amended

December 13, 2010

Pak clerics warn of protests if blasphemy laws are amended

Updated on Monday, December 13, 2010, 15:32

Rawalpindi: Religious parties in Pakistan have warned that they will launch a movement called the Tehreek Namoos-e-Risalat (TNR), if the government moves to amend the country’s blasphemy laws.

Talking to reporters after attending an all parties Namoos-e-Risalat conference here on Sunday, Markazi Jamaat Ahle Sunnat Ameer Pir Atiqur Rehman said that Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP) president Dr Abul Khair Muhammad Zubair had been nominated as the convener of the newly formed group.

The Daily Times quoted him, as saying further that a six-member action committee, comprising Liaqat Baloch, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haidri, Abdul Rauf Farooqi, Sikandar Abbas Gillani and Maulana Muhammad Abbas, had been formed to evolve the TNR’s future strategy.

“The purpose of the meeting was to convey a message to the government that the nation would not tolerate any type of amendment in the blasphemy law, especially in the article 295-C of the Constitution,” Dr Abul Khair Zubair, a religious leader, said.

“The future strategy will be evolved in a meeting to be held in Islamabad on December 15,” he added.

Dr Zubair further said that the heads of all the five Wafaqul Madaris (religious educational boards) had also ratified the outcome of the conference.

Syed Munawar Hassan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Professor Sajid Mir, Allama Sajid Naqvi, Mufti Muneebur Rehman, Dr Abul Khair Zubair, Pir Atiqur Rehman, Hamidul Haq Haqqani, Liaqat Baloch, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haidri, Abdul Rauf Farooqi, Sikandar Abbas Gillani and Maulana Muhammad Abbas attended the conference.

ANI

URL: http://www.zeenews.com/news674210.html

An instrument of abuse?

An instrument of abuse?

by ANNIE on 11 26th, 2010 |

The death sentence handed down to Pakistani Christian woman Aasia Bibi by a court in Punjab province’s Nankana district has once again brought attention to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. And while the 45-year-old mother of five awaits a review of the verdict against her, questions are being raised regarding the intent behind and utility of the said laws.

While the Constitution of Pakistan criminalises “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage” the religious sentiments of “any” community, the blasphemy laws, in the form of additions to Sections 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), proceed to recommend much more exacting penalties, including death, if the accused is found to be either disrespectful toward or critical of the Quran, Prophet Mohammad, Islam’s caliphs and other important figures mentioned in the statutes. These particular laws therefore do not stand up for religions other than Islam thereby rendering defenceless other religious communities. Moreover, the laws’ provisions pertaining to the Ahmedi community in many ways constrain them from practicing their religion. Forbidden from calling themselves, or “posing” as, Muslims, the legislation makes abundantly clear, albeit circuitously, that their faith should not be what it is.

It was in the early 1980s and during the regime of former military dictator Ziaul Haq that committing blasphemy was made a penal offence under the PPC. In its current state, the law prescribes a jail term for anyone found disrespectful toward the Quran and death penalty for anyone found to be reproachful of Prophet Mohammad. Oddly enough, while the question of intent is not considered when it comes to the latter offence, it continues to remain punishable by nothing short of the death penalty. The blasphemy laws also prescribe a fine and a prison term with regard to penal offences associated with the Ahmedi community.

Having survived for nearly three decades in its current and extreme form, the blasphemy laws have so far escaped all reform due to opposition from religio-political groups. At the same time, other, essentially secular, political groups have been succumbing to these hardline forces mostly out of fear of losing clout in regions with conservative leanings and where religious organisations seem to enjoy a considerable degree of influence. Even at this point, with the international community ramping up pressure on the government to pardon Aasia and to eventually repeal the blasphemy laws, certain otherwise antagonistic clerics from the Barelvi and Deobandi schools of thought have come together to caution President Asif Ali Zardari over going ahead with the pardon saying the move may lead to “untoward repercussions”.

While the sentencing of Aasia has led to much international uproar, hers is just one of the many cases which have led to blasphemy convictions by the courts. Moreover, many of the blasphemy accused – mostly from the unprotected religious minority groups – have been targeted and sometimes killed by lynch mobs. The still recent killing of two Christian brothers in Faisalabad, the case of Zaibunnisa who remained incarcerated for 14 long years on blasphemy allegations and the violence that targeted Christians in Gojra in 2009 are just some of the recently reported instances which clearly depict how such laws have effectively abandoned the country’s religious minorities and emboldened extremists.

These and similar other incidents have inevitably led to questions pertaining to the rationale behind the laws as well as to their outcome in terms of greater social good. And while the laws are frequently used to blackmail and victimise Pakistan’s miniscule religious minorities, they also come in handy by those wanting to settle personal scores, sort business rivalries and tackle land disputes with other Muslims. Rights groups have continually demanded that the laws be repealed and have referred to the statutes as fundamentally unjust and discriminatory in nature.

Moreover, legal experts and analysts have frequently termed the text of the laws as vague and even flawed in ways that make it a ready instrument of abuse. Incompatible with the universally accepted human rights charter, the laws and their application also stand in clear violation of the Constitution of Pakistan which guarantees every citizen the “right to profess, practice and propagate” his/her religion and in fact forbids the state from making “any law which takes away” the citizens’ fundamental rights.

Given the fact that the blasphemy laws have only served to fuel disharmony and strife in society, a thorough review of the legislation, followed by significant changes to it, can be the first small step toward countering the culture of exploitation that has become all-too-synonymous with these laws.

Qurat ul ain Siddiqui is the Desk Editor at Dawn.com

©2010 DAWN Media Group. All rights reserved

URL: http://blog.dawn.com/2010/11/26/an-instrument-of-abuse/

VIEW: Blasphemy Law

Monday, November 22, 2010

VIEW: Blasphemy Law — Yasser Latif Hamdani

Nothing will cripple the terrorists more decisively than a tolerant, moderate and democratic Pakistan that respects human rights and treats all its citizens equally. No victory would be permanent if such a Pakistan is not achieved

Arundhati Roy committed blasphemy of another kind when she asked the Americans to reconsider their alliance with India without resolving the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Earlier she had upset many Indians when she claimed that Kashmir was not an integral part of India, a statement that had every gung-ho Indian, those Oscar Wilde’s vicious patriots and there are about a billion of them, baying for her blood, proving that India is and will remain an intolerant society for some time to come.

Well, taking inspiration from her, Pakistanis should also ask President Obama why his government continues to aid a government and a country that continues to trample on the rights of its own people. No I am not talking about India. I am talking about Pakistan, where the state continues to persecute religious minorities by using a law that cannot be justified on any grounds, whether democracy or Islam. In my previous article I briefly touched on the issue of the Blasphemy Law and the verdict against the Christian woman, a mother of five, who was beaten up and then handed over to the police. It is likely that she will get a presidential pardon. That however is not enough. In the process Pakistan has been humiliated for the umpteenth time simply because we want to appease the mullahs as we have done so consistently since 1949, who in any event have declared a war on Pakistan. I had predicted this much in my article.

So when Obama says “we will act if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act”, he should walk the walk as well. Nothing will cripple the terrorists more decisively than a tolerant, moderate and democratic Pakistan that respects human rights and treats all its citizens equally. No victory would be permanent if such a Pakistan is not achieved. President Obama, the US, the IMF, the World Bank and the entire western world should immediately stop assisting Pakistan in every field from humanitarian aid to military aid till Pakistan puts its house in order. Being a signatory and having ratified the International Convention on Political and Civil Rights, Pakistan is bound by international law and its own constitution to provide all its citizens the right to life and liberty and religious belief unconditionally.

I do not favour arguments referring to religious interpretation, but our Blasphemy Law is untenable even from an Islamic angle. There is nothing in the Holy Quran or even the Hadith that definitively prescribes such a Blasphemy Law. On the contrary we have a clear example set by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) when he forgave his worst enemies and offenders like Hinda. Almost everyone knows the story of the old woman who would throw garbage daily on the path that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) took. When she fell ill, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) went to visit her and nursed her back to health. Less known is the story of another old woman who the Holy Prophet (PBUH) helped by carrying wood to her house. Along the way, not knowing the identity of her helper, she began to speak about the “trouble maker” of Makkah. It was only after their journey was at an end that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) told her that he was the same Muhammad (PBUH) she had spent the greater part of the journey abusing. This was the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) character. This is why he is referred to as Rahmatul-lil-Alameen or the mercy for all worlds.

Islamic law and jurisprudence is derived from four sources, known as the Usul-ul-Fiqh (fundamentals of the law), i.e. the Holy Quran, the Sunnah, Qiyas (analogy) and Ijma (consensus). The Holy Quran is silent on the issue of blasphemy. The Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) seems to suggest the exact opposite. By using Qiyas, one can only conclude that the Blasphemy Law is patently un-Islamic and there is no Ijmah or consensus amongst the scholars of Islam on the punishment of blasphemy.

Islamic civilisation has a rich history of not only tolerating but even celebrating dissent. Needless to say some of the greatest scientists in Islamic history, Al Razi, the father of medicine, and Avicenna, would have been lynched many times over had Islam actually favoured a Blasphemy Law as is currently on the statute books of Pakistan. I am told that our local textbooks on science all have a chapter on the achievements of Muslim scientists and the contribution of Islamic civilisation to science and enlightenment of humanity. It is forgotten that this was achieved by a culture of tolerance, acceptance and openness. In my last column, I quoted the founder of this nation as stating as clearly as possible that bona fide criticisms and investigations into religion must be protected and safeguarded from any Blasphemy Law. So must be the fundamental rights of life, liberty and religious belief.

A nation is its laws ultimately. The intolerance permeating down to every segment of our society is the direct result of the laws that evade common sense and logic. It is therefore time to repeal the Blasphemy Law.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\11\22\story_22-11-2010_pg3_5

Time to repeal the blasphemy law

OPINION

Time to repeal the blasphemy law

Nasim Zehra
November 16, 2010

The writer is director current affairs, Dunya TV and a former fellow at Asia Center, Harvard University nasim.zehra@tribune.com.pk

In June 2008, Asiya Bibi, a Pakistani farm worker and mother of five, fetched water for others working on the farm. Many refused the water because Asiya was Christian. The situation got ugly. Reports indicate Asiya was harassed because of her religion and the matter turned violent. Asiya, alone in a hostile environment, naturally would have attempted to defend herself but was put in police custody for her protection against a crowd that was harming her.

However, that protection move turned into one that was to earn Asiya a death sentence. A case was filed against her under sections 295-B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code, claiming that Asiya was a blasphemer. Her family will appeal against the judgment in the Lahore High Court.

The Asiya case raises the fundamental question of how Pakistan’s minorities have been left unprotected since the passage of the blasphemy law. There may have been no hangings on account of the law but it has facilitated the spread of intolerance and populist rage against minorities, often leading to deaths. There is also a direct link between the Zia-ist state’s intolerance against minorities and the rise of criminal treatment of Ahmadis.

Cases have ranged from the Kasur case to the more recent Gojra case, from the mind-boggling row of cases between 1988-1992 against 80-year-old development guru Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan, to the case of the son of an alleged blasphemer, an illiterate brick kiln worker who was beaten to death by a frenzied mob.

Although doctor sahib faced prolonged mental torture, he was saved from the maddening rage that has sent to prison, and in some cases devoured, many innocent, poor and hence unprotected Pakistanis.

There is a long list, prepared by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, of unjust punishments handed down to Pakistani citizens whose fundamental rights the state is obliged to protect. Beyond punishments, minorities live in constant fear of being lethally blackmailed by those who want to settle other scores.

Yet most political parties have refrained from calling for the law’s repeal or improvement in its implementation mechanism. When, in the early 90s, I asked Nawaz Sharif sahib to criticise the hounding of Dr Khan, his response was a detailed recall of the story in which Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) went to ask after the health of a non-Muslim woman who repeatedly threw garbage over him. He condemned what was happening but said politics prevented him from doing so publicly. Later, General Musharraf, advised by other generals, reversed his announcement of changing the law’s implementation mechanism. Small crowds protested against it. Among politicians, very few exceptions include the PPP parliamentarian Sherry Rehman and, more recently, the ANP’s Bushra Gohar, who asked for its amendment and repeal.

Already sections of the judiciary have been critical of flawed judgements passed by lower courts in alleged blasphemy cases. Recently in July, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khawaja Sharif quashed a blasphemy case against 60-year-old Zaibunnisa and ordered her release after almost 14 years in custody. According to the judgment, the “treatment meted out to the woman was an insult to humanity and the government and the civil organisations should be vigilant enough to help such people.” Surely the Bench should know the plethora of abuses that Pakistan’s minorities have suffered because of an evidently flawed law.

A message more appropriate, perhaps, would be to repeal the black law that grossly undermines the Constitution of Pakistan and indeed the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, one of the most tolerant and humane law-givers humankind has known. This environment of populist rage, fed by the distorted yet self-serving interpretation of religion principally by Zia and a populist mixing of religion and politics by a politically besieged Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, must be emphatically challenged. A collective effort to roll back these laws must come from parliament, the lawyers’ forums, the judiciary, civil society groups and the media.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 17th, 2010.

URL: http://tribune.com.pk/story/78368/time-to-repeal-the-blasphemy-law/