The Raymond Arrogance

Agents of ISI or adventurous citizens, they dared to photograph Raymond Davis.

Who was this Raymond Davis? He was a foreigner, traveling with weapons showing on his person in broad daylight on the busy roads of Lahore, Pakistan. These times are dangerous for Pakistan, with terrorism on the loose and the media encouraging citizen journalism. Hence, it is very much possible that Fahim and Faizan were ordinary citizens who felt responsible to guard their state in whatever capacity they could and photographed this suspicious looking foreigner on their mobiles.

Whoever Fahim and Faizan were, photographing a foreigner carrying weapons on their land cost them three to seventeen bullets between them and their lives.

As Raymond Davis got caught by the media and some brave police officers of Lahore, America and some America-loyal Pakistani politicians cried diplomatic immunity’. One can understand the concept of this thing called diplomatic immunity on trivial matters of administrative law, but could it possibly mean a license to kill? On foreign land?

The next person to go down (or go up in public eye) was Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Foreign Minister of Pakistan, who declared that Raymond Davis did not have the kind of blanket diplomatic immunity which his protectors were claiming for him. You will not be surprised to know that soon after this declaration, Shah Mahmood Qureshi lost his office.

Meanwhile, the newly-wedded bride of Fahim committed suicide as she bereaved on efforts towards Raymond’s release. She died stating that they wanted Qisas; blood for blood and nothing less.

As the diplomatic immunity card did not play well, not with the law experts, neither with the media and nor with the public, one mysterious afternoon, the public of Pakistan got to know that Raymond Davis had been released as the families of the deceased had suddenly accepted Deeat, blood money, as compensation for the death of their sons. Deeat is one of the three options of settlement by Islam, between the murderer and the deceased’s family, if the situation is suitable for this option.

While the media was still raging with this hard-to-digest breaking news, Ms. Hilary Clinton’s statement came that America had paid no money to the deceased’s family. This piece of news somehow seemed irrelevant. Just about when many of us were dismissing this piece of news from our minds, another piece of news floated on the media that Saudi Arabia had paid the Deeat instead, confirming that Deeat had indeed been paid, but not by America. This news rocked the Pakistani public once again. The stench of arrogance of not bending to any level of compensation to a third-world country was sickening.

Why was it sickening? We should have gotten used to it by now. When we are ready to lick boots, we should be ready for the arrogance of its master. An American police officer once said to a Pakistani, ‘Your people may not like to go to Jannah but they will certainly like to come to America’. For many Pakistanis, this used to be true. As Emal Kansi was handed over to America for doing exactly what Raymond Davis has done today, and money taken as well for his hand-over, he left a statement, ‘This nation will sell their mother for ten dollars’. And as America was seeking to invade Iraq back in 2003, and as the world and United Nations was pressurizing it not to do so, President Bush smirked in one of his presidential speeches and said, ‘…however, we are a nation who do not need anyone’s permission to do what we believe we must do’. And his comrades standing in the side view nodded and smiled and clapped in response.

Ah, but as they themselves say, ‘Pride comes to a fall’. And similar to it is said in the Urdu literature, ‘Har urooj ko zawal hae…’, meaning that nothing is here to stay supreme forever. No person, country or ideology…or is there someone who shall? The Holy Qur~an replies to this curiosity very well,

“All that exists on the earth will perish, but the Face of your Rabb will remain, full of Majesty and Glory.” [Surah Ar-Rahman, Verses 26, 27]

So,
“Wait if you will! Surely, we too shall wait." [The Holy Quran, Surah Hud, Verse 122]

Minority Minority

Have you ever seen or experienced parents who love other’s children more than their own? We are just like those parents as far as religion is concerned.

We make fun of the beard and the veil, absolute symbols of mainstream Islam, but we do not consider making fun of them anything at all; neither a violation of religious honor nor a violation of personal beliefs.

We are bent upon proving Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan to be a secular state; a violation of the masses’ point-of-view and a violation of history. Conduct statistics. Ask the simple question ‘Why was Pakistan created?’ The majority will reply, ‘Islam’. It is what we have logically learnt from our schools and what has been narrated to us by our ancestors who were part of the freedom movement. To this the reply will be that our textbooks have been contorted and our masses are illiterate and do not know anything. Well, literate or illiterate, what happened to the spirit of democracy that ‘Majority is authority’? Not that I agree with the blindfolded concept of ‘majority is authority’, but I said it because it is generally understood this way and hence to drive a point home. And who would decide and declare since when our textbooks have started to be tampered with under foreign agenda? I also fail to understand the need of separation from India if we had a secular state in mind. We could easily have lead secular lives in India.

The Afghans struggled a long war against the Soviets and beat them out. They then formed their own government, in accordance with their religious beliefs. These religious beliefs, core Islam, are a minority in the world today. The majority did not like this minority’s choice and form of governance. They moved in for the kill.

What happened to the rights of minority in this global village? How many presidents spoke out? How many NGO’s spoke out? How many individual’s spoke out? Hardly any. And how could they? Only three countries of the world chose to recognize the newly formed government of Afghanistan of Talibans in 1996. Nearly all were pleased deep inside when the Talibans were ousted because they were very uncomfortable about giving space to this minority. What happened to minority’s rights here?

It seems like every minority of the world has rights and has the right to survive, including gays and lesbians, except the Muslims.

Even Muslims themselves are very eager to protect the rights non-Muslims, but are not interested in protecting the rights of Muslims themselves. Interesting terminologies, e.g. ‘hate-speech’ have been introduced and then attacked, to root out intellectual, educational, emotional, convincing and most importantly hard-truth discussions upon sensitive issues.

The Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him) may be slandered, cartooned and joked upon within the Islamic Republic of Pakistan but it is very, very important to protect the life of a non-Muslim within Pakistan. Well, it just so happens that the life of non-Muslim living on the Muslim land was sanctified by the Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him) himself in the following words,

Religion, like any other constitution, is a combination of compassion and retribution. Likewise is Nature; summers and winters, seas and mountains, flowers and thorns, and so on coexist. This is the balance and equilibrium which is vital for the universe to exist and by analogy, for societies to exist. Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) was a mercy for the whole world, and hence very compassionate towards all mankind. However, if anyone messed with the Muslims or Islam, he and his disciples protected the Islamic ideological boundaries well, just like a soldier standing at the borders.

Unacceptable Versions of Islam

So-called liberals are often found quoting the phrase ‘…version of Islam…’. What they mean by this phrase is that a certain group of people is promoting a certain interpretation of Islam which is not acceptable universally, by the mainstream or by they themselves.

The question stands, ‘Which version is acceptable to them?’

Many social issues have cropped up during the recent past in which the scholars of Islam have given out a unanimous juristic law, to which the so-called liberals remain tight-lipped and refuse eye contact. That is because in fact majority of the so-called liberals are atheists at heart but do not declare so publicly. It is certainly not of value to them what religion says regarding a certain matter. If the religious verdict matches their opinion, they would graciously quote religion to satisfy the masses. However, if the religious verdict does not match their desire, the fault is burdened upon wrong interpretation of Islam.

Take the recent example of the Mumtaz Qadri case; the security guard who shot dead Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, Pakistan, for attempting to meddle with the Blasphemy Law. All scholars had unanimously given the opinion that any person, Muslim or non-Muslim, who insults the Prophet of Islam is correctly liable to death penalty. However, this ruling did not hold back Salman Taseer, Sherry Rahman and others of their league to revise or hold back their opinion. On the other hand, when Mumtaz Qadri assassinated Salman Taseer, people of the same league were seen quoting selective incidents from the Islamic history of Prophet Muhammed SAW pardoning those who used to insult, tease or harm him, and preaching the merits of mercy, forgiveness and amnesty.

The so-called liberals would do a great mercy to the masses if they would simply become honest in their public statements. It would clear out a lot of confusion and ideological chaos. People would then know where their ideological mentors are coming from and make an informed opinion rather than a bluffed one.

Is honesty too difficult a virtue for the glamorously opinioned so-called liberals?

Unacceptable version of Islam theory should be replaced with Islam is unacceptable to me admittance. This small but daring honesty would race the society towards a decisive settlement instead of tossing to and fro on indecisive sea waves.

The concepts of Islam have become alien to us Muslims over the years of so-called liberalism frenzy. Consequently, the Islamic scholars are often cornered, hotly questioned and subtly harassed into taking an apologetic position on controversial religious issues. The media anchors question them with truth-extracting narrowed eyes and grim expressions, shooting questions from every angle and leaving no room for an ambiguous reply. Al’Hamd’o li’Allah, most of the genuine scholars make it to a genuine reply.

How about the same interrogation standard towards the so-called liberals and conveying honest dimensions to the masses?