Taking hypocrisy to a new level

There is a saying,  “the true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity”; I think that this quote sums up all the politico-religious groups in Pakistan.

Since the infamous incident of Lahore, there has been a lot of controversy theories developing within the political system of Pakistan. This is a tough one for, not just for the government, but everyone even remotely involved with politics or government. Wikileaks have proven the fact that every political figure is either directly or indirectly in contact with the American establishment. Americans will not tolerate the fact that its ‘official’ gets punished for being a terrorist by another country, since they are the leaders in the global war on terror.

The issue has grown out of proportions, it’s now a matter of dignity rather justice. Americans have already announced that the case of Raymond Davis will affect the bonds between Pakistan and the United States, which (it may not appear the case to a commoner) is taken very seriously in Pakistani political camps. I don’t have to re-iterate the revelations of Wikileaks, one can figure why some in Pakistani politics are so keen to hand Raymond Davis over to American officials.

The most interesting side to this story is the one of our politico-religious sections. Progressions, are being carried out, speeches are being made, banners are raised and (American) flags are burnt in protest of the murders carried out by Raymond Davis in broad daylight. Ofcourse no one in their right mind can defend the extreme actions of Raymond Davis, every Pakistani is in a state of shock and rage after what happened in Lahore that day, this man should be brought to justice and that should happen in Pakistan only. But these people who are once again bringing the nation on the streets, are the same who not so long ago were celebrating the horrifying murder of Salman Taseer. Those who celebrate one murderer (Mumtaz Qadri) are condemning the other one (Raymond Davis). It really confuses me, how people follow these ignorant, self-centered, deceiving and self-proclaimed scholars who openly contradict their own actions? First the infamous ‘Namoos-e-Risalat Tehrik’, now Raymond Davis, they just need an issue, may it be calling Islam a peaceful religion (they don’t like it at all), or anything against the United States of America and they will make it look like its an ‘attack on belief’.

Why is it that the nation fails to observe their hypocrisy? When will Muslims of Pakistan will understand that fact that they are being played by these (self-proclaimed) religious scholars? How will the common Muslim know his religion is being hijacked by an ignorant man who doesn’t even know laws of Physics? The only way to put an end to this is to separate religion from politics. If that doesn’t happen, this menace will bring more shame and misery to the Nation.

اسلام اور توہین رسالت کا قانون

Some of my friends asked me to write my posts about blasphemy law in urdu language, so I am posting this summarized version of all my posts about blasphemy law in urdu.

(click on the image to enlarge)

The art of deception

Fareed Ahmed ParachA few days ago, I was watching a recorded program called “Faisla aapka” recorded on 8th January 2011 by Samaa News. The topic was tolerance, two participants of religious views and two participants of liberal views were invited to debate on the after math of the incident of 4th January 2011. One of the clerics while defending blasphemy law justifies it from the Holy Qura’an quoting verses from Chapter 33 (Surah Al-Ahzaab).

I was shocked to see that Mr. Paracha (from one of the politico-religious parties) was so confident when he was distorting the verses and the audience was applauding him for that, while the show host and the other cleric (from Sunni Tehrik) was backing him up referring to Chapter 9 of the Holy Qura’an. Let me explain to you what Mr. Paracha was referring to from the Holy Qura’an:

[33:56] Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! you also should invoke blessings on him and salute him with the salutation of peace.

[33:57] Verily, those who malign Allah and His Messenger — Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them an abasing punishment.

[33:58] And those who malign believing men and believing women for what they have not earned shall bear the guilt of a calumny and a manifest sin.

[33:59] O Prophet! tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers that they should draw close to them portions of their loose outer coverings. That is nearer that they may thus be distinguished and not molested. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

[33:60] If the hypocrites, and those in whose heart is a disease, and those who cause agitation in the city, desist not, We shall surely give thee authority over them; then they will not dwell therein as thy neighbors, save for a little while.

[33:61] Then they will be accursed. Wherever they are found, they will be seized, and cut into pieces.

— Surah Al Ahzaab

As you can see here, clearly Mr. Paracha is deceiving the crowd and imposing his views of the Qura’an. What he does is, read the first two verses and then joins verse 61 with verses 57 and 58, which ofcourse changes the entire context of the message. Allah (God almighty) is clearly saying that He alone is the one to punish those who malign Allah and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). To understand the rest of the argument one must know the pretext of this chapter(Surah Al Ahzaab). It deals with the vicissitudes through which Islam had to pass during the early years of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medina. The Jews of the surrounding tribes gave a hard time to the Muslims, even those tribesmen who were included in the pact of Medina didn’t leave any opportunity to create mischief. Those are being referred to as hypocrites. The main weapon in their armory against Islam, was spreading of false news to friendly tribes. This was an act of treason not blasphemy, the punishment for treason was capital punishment.

Now let us see what is written in Chapter 9 (Al-Taubah) to which the second cleric is referring to.

[9:12] Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

[9:13] Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate them, and help you to victory over them, and relieve the minds of a people who believe;

— Surah Al Taubah

Again, if viewed in context of the verse number 12, it makes total sense. It isn’t directed towards blasphemers, it is clearly saying about those who break their, oaths, these were the Jewish tribes which were included in the pact of Medina. No where in the above two verses does Allah (God almighty) asks the Prophet (peace be upon him) to kill any blasphemer. None of the Muslims try to research the references these clerics give out. This points out to two things, Muslims lack knowledge of the Holy Qura’an and Islamic History and two, they blindly follow what the mullah tells them. It was for times like these the Prophet (peace be upon him) predicted.

“There will be a decline in religious faith and nothing would be left of Islam except its name and nothing would be left of the Holy Qura’an except its text. Mosques though full of worshipers will be empty of guidance. The religious scholars will be the worst creation under the canopy of Heaven”.

(Mishkat-ul Masabih, p.88 & Kanaz-ul Ummal, vol.6 p.43).

The real blasphemers

Today I came across videos from the new talk show Mr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain is hosting on ARY digital. I saw the whole thing and was truly disgusted the way he and the (self-proclaimed) scholars were trying to ‘IMPOSE’ the blasphemy ordinance. The facts they (the scholars) produced are in total contradiction with historical facts.

I have posted before why is it that blasphemy law contradicts Islam, it was just a way of gaining power by the dictator of that time. The host asks other religions why is it they don’t keep Muhammad as names for a child, Mr. Hussain let me tell you why. If you happen to read newspapers you might well have seen news like these, “The suicidal attack was carried out by a young man named Muhammad Ali”. Every other extremist is called by the sacred and Holy name of Muhammad.

How can you expect someone to be attracted towards a religion which you show as a religion of DOOM. It is because of you sir, that Pakistan is at the height of intolerance EVER recorded in history. It is because of YOU, that Salman Taseer lost his life. For God sakes, stop this blasphemy towards Islam and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).

If you are so much knowledgeable and (in your own words) ‘responsible’ and so much showered in the love of Islam and the Prophet (peace be upon him) kindly answer my article about blasphemy law. If that is so hard for you answer this simple question I am quoting:

In Pakistan, Hindus are allowed their right of polytheism, Christians are allowed the right of calling Jesus the son of God (in most cases just God), other religions are allowed to worship many other objects which is fine, but in that same country, blasphemy towards Prophet is punishable by death. How is it that blasphemy towards God (the creator of the universe Master of everything living or dead) is acceptable for you, and blasphemy towards his humble servant (the man who brought us towards the one and true God, who’s only mission in life was to show the way to his creation towards the omnipotent power of this universe) is punishable by death? How can you explain that to me? If God says He will do justice with people who disrespect the Prophet (peace be upon him) WHO ON EARTH MADE YOU THE JUDGE FOR THIS ACTIVITY?

Killed in the name of religion [Salman Taseer]

The governor of Punjab Mr. Salman Taseer was assassinated on January 4th by a Policeman. The alleged killer confessed his actions, stating that it was ‘revenge’ for condemning the blasphemy law. Till now, none of the religious parties have condemned this action and the assassin is being titled as a hero in the extremists ranks.

There is no way a sane person can support this action. Incidents like these have already maimed the face of Islam. A while ago, I discussed the blasphemy law on this blog, and clearly proved that the law has nothing to do with Islam. Even the (self-proclaimed) educated debated with me on this. I would like to ask them, why is it that none of your ‘religious’ leaders step forward and condemn these actions? Do they support this? How is this a service to Islam?

Pakistan has been a hot bed of religious hatred, not only towards other religion, but also towards the minority sections of Islam. The menace of Mullah is widespread in the country. The lack of education and height of ignorance has supported the Mullah since the beginning and has caused the downfall of Pakistan.

I just hope this incident opens the eyes of the educated sections of Pakistan, so that they may stand up against this Mullahism which has disgraced Pakistan since the beginning.

The Shariah law: Relationship between Religion and Politics [Part 3]

PreviousPart 2



Arabs in dance barsThat is one area of difficulties. But there is another very important area of difficulty: That is, the life‑style of the Muslims in most countries is not truly and profoundly Muslim.

You see, you do not require a law of Shariah to say your prayers five times. You do not require the law of Shariah to make you behave honestly. You do not require the law of Shariah to be imposed to make you speak the truth and to appear as witness in court ‑ or, wherever you appear as witness ‑ honestly and truthfully. A society where robbery has become the order of the day, where there is disorder, chaos, usurpation of others rights, where the courts seldom witness a person who is truthful, where abusive language is a common place mode of expression, where there is no decency left in human behavior, what would you expect Shariah to do there? How the law of Shariah would genuinely be imposed in such a country, this is the question.


Lets put it in a different form. The question is that every country has a climate and not all the flora can flourish in that climate. Dates flourish in deserts but not in the chilly north. Similarly, cherries cannot be sown in the desert; they require a special climate. Shariah also requires a special climate. If you have not created that climate, then Shariah cannot be imposed.

Every prophet ‑ not only Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) ‑ every prophet first created that healthy climate for the law of God to be imposed, willingly not compulsorily. And when the society was ready, then the laws were introduced and stiffened further and further, until the whole code was revealed. That society was capable of carrying the burden of the law of religion, whether you call it Shariah law or any other law.

In a society for instance, where theft is common place, where telling falsehood is just an everyday practice, if you enact Shariah law and sever the hands of those who steal, what is going to happen? Is that the purpose of Shariah? It’s not just a question of senti­mentality about religion. God’s Will be done no doubt, but it will be done in the orderly way as God wishes us to do.


It is not the love of Islam which is urging them on to demand Shariah law. It is just an instrument to reach to power, to capture power and to rule the society in the name of God. Society is already ruled by corrupt people, by cruel people but that is done in the name of human beings; that is tolerable to a degree. But when atrocities are committed in the name of God, it’s the worst possible, the ugliest thing that can happen to man.

So as such, we must think many, many times, before we can even begin to ponder over the question whether anywhere in the world, the law of religion can be imposed as a legal tender? I doubt it.

The Shariah law: Relationship between Religion and Politics [Part 2]

PreviousPart 1

All religions split up into sects with time

But that Is not all: Every religion, at the source is one and single and non-splittable, but as you pass along in period of time, the religion begins to diverge and split within and multiply and become more and more in number, so that the same faith which, for instance, at the time of Jesus Christ (peace be on him) was one single Chris­tianity, turned into many hundreds of Christianity. Looked from the vantage point of different sects, the one single source appears to be different in color. Different‑colored eye‑glasses are used by vari­ous followers of various sects. The same is true of Islam. It’s not just a question of Sunni Islam and Shia Islam and how they interpret the Shariah.

Within Shia Islam there are 34 sects whose interpretation of Shariah differs with each other. Within again, Sunni Islam there are at least 34 sects whose interpretation of Shariah differs with each other. There are issues on which no two scholars of different sects agree. Not superficial issue; even the fundamental ones. How to define a Muslim?

If thirteen centuries, plus some years are not enough for you to be able to define the very fundamentals of Islam ‑ what is a definition? ‑ how much more time would you require?

This is a very grave issue. If the Shariah interpretation of one sect is imposed, then it will not just be the non‑Muslims who will be dispossessed of the fundamental right of participation in the country’s legislation, but within Islam also there would be many sects who would be deprived of this right.

The Interpretation of which sect is to be imposed on Shariah Law?

Again there are so many other problems: For instance, according to some Shariah concept, the punishment for a crime is so much different from the concept of another sect, that Islam would be practiced in the world so differently on the same issue, that it would create a horrible impression on the non‑Muslim world. What sort of faith that is which advises one punishment for the same crime here and another there. And in some other places it is just the very thing to do and it’s no crime at all.

These and many such issues make the question of imposition of Shariah almost impossible.

Moreover, the fundamental rights of other sects are also tampered with, or trampled upon, in many possible situations. For instance on the question of drinking of alcohol. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, alright; but, the very question of whether it is a punishable offense and whether the punishment, if any, is imposed by man in this world, is a fluid issue. It is a controversial issue and has not yet been agreed upon by all the people involved. What is the punishment of drinking? The Holy Quran does NOT mention any punishment. This is a fundamental law, the Book of law and it is inferred from some Tradition, by some scholars, that; that should be the punishment. But that inference is far‑fetched and the Traditions themselves are challenged by others not to be authentic.

So, will a large section of not only Muslim society, but also a large section of non‑Muslim society, be punished for such reasons as in themselves are doubtful. Whether it’s valid or not, this is the issue. Yet there are extremists, everywhere and particularly those who go for Shariah to be imposed.

You will find many extremist who are totally intolerant of others opinion. Consequently, such gray areas also will be taken as No Doubt areas by the extremists. They will say, ‘Yes, we know; it’s our opinion. It’s the opinion supported by a medieval scholar or our thinking. And that is law’.

Part 3Next

%d bloggers like this: