Thread: What Needs To Be Done To Make Pakistan A Haven Of, peace and security?

Religious gathering or political agenda?

Hafiz Sultan Ahmad

Jamat-e-Islami (JI) recently held its three-day annual Ijtima-e-Aam at Azakhel, NWFP. The congregation was supposed to be a religious gathering of JI’s workers and its supporters. JI had also invited leaders of the other religious parties who had formed a six-party group, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), for the purpose of achieving political goals and o**ectives. While Maulana Fazlur Rehman of Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (JUI-F) participated in the gathering, the leaders from the other four component parties of the alliance (Maulana Samiul Haq of JUI-S, Syed Sajid Naqvi of Tehrik-e-Islami, Professor Sajid Mir of Markazi Jamiat Ulema-e-Hadis and Maulana Anas Noorani of Jamiat Ulema-e-****stan) stayed away, as the JI’s Ijtama was neither a political convention of MMA, nor do they consider that the six-party alliance exists any more. Clear signs are visible that the alliance has fallen in disarray, awaiting a formal public announcement to the effect of its winding up. The fact is that, with their personal designs in view, the two self-made supremos of MMA — Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rahman — are dictatorially insisting that the alliance remains intact. It is in this situation that the two gentlemen endeavoured to paint the JI’s otherwise religious facade with a political colour. Swayed by Musharraf-phobia, the Machiavellian Maulanas delivered venom-spitting political speeches at the gathering in a cloak and dragger fashion.

What a religious gathering and what a political agenda! Did the political Maulanas perform any religious duty by fuming their lethally-charged ire against the person of President General Pervez Musharraf? The religious ‘thekedars’ went even to the extent of hurling at him the threat of "death punishment", in the event of an assumed subversion of the Constitution, if he did not give up the post of the Chief of Army Staff by December 2004; this is what the JI’s Naib Amir Liaqat Baloch uttered in his speech. Secretary General Syed Munawwar Hassan said that military rule could be brought down through agitation by bringing the public on the streets. He also said that the referendum of 2002 was a fraud with the nation. In their speeches, Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rahman threatened to launch a mass movement for which they would hold three big protest meetings of one million participants each to warn Musharraf to step down as the army chief. They goaded the people to pledge that they would take part in protest rallies all over ****stan until Musharraf’s resignation. They criticised the Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Sindh terming their resolutions suggesting President General Pervez Musharraf to retain the post of CAOS even after December 2004 as undemocratic, while praising the NWFP Assembly for the passage of "an anti-uniform" resolution terming it "service to democracy".

Mian Manzoor Wattoo of ****stan Muslim League also took part in the JI convention. As the media reports suggest, he delivered his speech in which he extolled the "services" of Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rehman as leaders.

Now, it would be appropriate for one to express one’s candid feelings vis-a-vis the Ijtamaai natak and the contents of the speeches that emanated from the axis of the Mullahs, purportedly standing under the shadow of Islamic umbrella. It can safely be seen that they conspicuously stand exposed before the nation for the element of the extreme animosity they nurture against the person of President General Pervez Musharraf.

The threat of "death punishment" is a cheap rhetoric. What covenant of the ‘deen’ empowers a man to damn a fellow being to whimsical punishment of death? In fact, it is they who are themselves involved in subversive activities accountable before the law of the land.

Saying that the country is being governed under the military rule is a hollow slogan amounting to be a lie of the highest order and is tantamount to breach of the constitution. As the people know, martial law is not imposed in any part of the country; the constitution is in place; all political institutions are working democratically and satisfactorily.

Again, to declare the referendum 2002 as "a fraud with the nation" is nothing but hypocrisy. Is it not a fact that MMA had accepted the result of the referendum by having the 17th Amendment to the Constitution promulgated?

Threat of launching an agitational movement and holding big public meetings against the legally established government means practicing extremism that spawns terrorism. Which rule of law or the Islamic injunction authorises the Mullahs to turn extremists and create terrorists?

Extracting a pledge from the participants of a religious gathering for taking part in protest rallies all over ****stan amply reflects the Mullahs’ bellicose nature reflective of a viciously motivated move to incite and instigate the people to create law and order situation in the country. From where have the so-called religious leaders come by a licence to belligerency?

Criticising the parliamentarians of two Provincial Assemblies (Punjab and Sindh) for their political move and praising the parliamentarians of the other Assembly (NWFP) for a similar political move is yet again an evident proof of a bundle of biases and privileges on the part of the Mullahs. From which covenant of the ‘deen’ they draw a privilege to condemn others on the basis of their political views?

The political Maulanas conveniently ignore to realise that their irresponsible uttering from the platform of a religious gathering is enough to convey a wrong signal to the outside world that the followers of Islam are a band of extremists and terrorists.

This note will remain inconclusive, if the role of the PML leader Mian Manzoor Wattoo, in this connection, is not discussed. Not being a part of the religio-political parties, he was not supposed to eulogise those who had assembled to teach to the masses the lesson of hatred, dissension and violence and to coax them for an uprising against the legally established government.

Before winding up, one would like to quote a reference pertinent to the su**ect in hand, that is an article titled "Enlightened Moderation or The New US religious Order" authored by Professor Khurshid Ahmad, Senator which appeared in the weakly newspaper "Muslims", published from New York, USA. The article is a lengthy treatise meant for the consumption of the highly educated classes, researchers and religious scholars/students. The author has penned down the article supported with references from the Holy Qur’aan, Shariah and the works of Western scholars. The article aims at belittling the concept of "Enlightened Moderation" that is being vehemently advocated by President General Pervez Musharraf, the concept which, in my view, is not anti-Islamic.

The writer is a freelance contributor