The following is a letter I wrote this evening to Abbas Ather, the group editor of the Daily Express, an Urdu newspaper of Pakistan. I have asked him a few questions that I had after reading his column in today's paper . It is self explanatory.
Dear Mr. Ather, Daily Express
Sir, let me say this first that I like your columns and the first thing I do every morning after perusing the headlines in the Express is to turn to the second page to see if your paper has carried your column.
Mostly, I find your column very incisive, analytical, and well-rounded. Once in a while, I catch you taking untenable partisan positions but not enough to prompt me to write something about it. (I joined PPP at a relatively tender age in 1968 enchanted by ZAB's charismatic personality and his program to uplift the down-trodden.)
But after reading your column today (Jan 5) I feel I should write something. I know I don't have the privilege of having a bully's pulpit in the shape of a newspaper column that reaches millions uncontested, as you do. So I have to be content with an email.
Anyway, let me come to the point. First thing: let us not confuse and mix up things. We can mourn all we want the emotionalism of our nation, the extremism of our often-denigrated 'Maulvis', the poison they are injecting in our body-politic, the fact that the Prophet Muhammad is 'Mercy to all species' and how he treated his opponents and enemies, Quad-e-Azam was a liberal or fundamentalist, some Maulvis called him Kafir-e-AzamI and opposed him in his efforts to get a separate country for Muslims, and Maulvis called Boota Singh a shaheed even though he had committed suicide. We can discuss all that but not in the context in which you have done in your column.
There are a few issues here:
(i) Is a person entitled to call one person he likes a 'shaheed' but another who he does not like but died in similar conditions 'not shaheed'? I would say 'yes'. Because a particular person could be a rascal to one and a saint to the other. A religion could be a superstition for the one who doesn't believe in it. But it doesn't matter. We are not the ones who can render a final verdict on this. It is for the Creator to judge whether a person is a shaheed or not. Our saying so, though it may please us, doesn't make him one or vice versa.
(ii) The real issue here is whether the blasphemy law is based on an injunction that was revealed to Zia (as you have said) or to the Prophet in the Holy Quran? Just because Zia introduced it or had had it promulgated does not make it wrong or 'controversial', or does it? By the way, even if a law is revealed to Zia or the Prophet it would take some personnel to prepare it as a bill to get it passed into a law.
(iii) Is Blasphemy Law is the only law in Pakistan that is misused to persecute the innocent?
(iv) Is it the only law in which here say may be admitted as an evidence?
(v) To answer your question that which other Islamic country has the Blasphemy Law, Iran is a theocracy and and its official religion is the doctrine of the Twelver Jaafri School. Yes, and it does have a blasphemy law. Does Iran having a Blasphemy law makes it Islamic?
(vi) Did Salman Taseer called Blasphemy Law 'kala qaanoon' (Dark Law) just because it was introduced by Zia? or because it has been misused to persecute minorities?
(vii) Is there any other law in Pakistan that has ever been misused to persecute some innocent or has been used improperly? Did Salman Taseer said that other law was also 'kala qaanoon'?
(viii) What if Blasphemy Law is derived from Shariah as Iranians claim that it is and Salman Taseer has called it 'kala qaanoon', do you still believe that he is 'shaheed' and you will pay tribute to him?
(ix) If Salman Taseer has called a Quranic Law a 'kala qaanoon' and Mumtaz Qadri has killed him because he thinks he was blasphemous then why Salman Taseer is better than Rajpal and Mumtaz Qadri is inferior to Ilm-ud-Din (should I call him shaheed?)?
Last question: would you please have my email printed as is?
Sincerely
Khalid Masood Butt
4 comments:
I hope you get your reply from Ather Abbas... but since you asked me to read your reply to him, this is my answer for you!
(1) I am not the one who likes to indulge in religious arguments, because I believe it is a personal matter, but as answer to your points the answer can be found in religion only. Islam has some very fundamental guidelines to who is and isn't shaheed.. I am not getting into the details of that.. but those guidelines make him one!
2) Islam never said that an innocent can be killed... the laws designed by Zia have been used as such.. go checks the stats.
3) No we had the hudood law before this that was also used wrongly.. but does that mean that since similar evils exist we should let this one also live on!
4) Again no it is not the only law.. but my answer to this remain the same as my answer to no 3
5) I am not sure about the details of Iran... so I refrain from answering that at the moment
6)It's a black law because it has been misused!
7) His stance was pro- Hudood Ordinance repeal!
8)I don't think that Zia's interpretation was derived from Quran.. or in any sense the way the law was implemented was unjust.. thus yes, Black Law
9) Il'm-ud-din was executed... he was screaming when about to be hanged... He wasn't very heroic was he at that point! And yes Salman Taseer should be called Shaheed since the law says that he should have been reported to Police.. this action makes this guard a murderer and him a Shaheed!
10) There is an error in your point count!
This is my opinion and I am entitled to mine! Thank you for your comment on my blog!
Thank you Varda. I have made the necessary correction.
shaheed or no shaheed????
jahanummi like you
sorry guys...my apologies
Post a Comment