Wrong turns of the right wing

Full of contradictions

The hanging of Mumtaz Qadri united all religio-political parties last week as together they protested against it. Blocking roads, closing down markets forcibly, thrashing journalists and attacking media houses for not covering their protests – all was done to send a message that come what may, right wing will block any move to reinstate the lost writ of state.

Pakistan, according to many, seems to have been on right track lately. It all started with PM Sharif vowing to build a Pakistan that is liberal and progressive. From women protection bills to screening of Sharmeen’s film at PM House – the drift towards centre, if not left – is pretty evident.

However, to resist this transition, religious right seems to be getting together. These parties have forged several alliances in past as well to block any such moves. Qadri’s execution has acted as a catalyst for them to unite.

Jamat-i-Islami came out to be the most outspoken party after his execution with its Chief Sirajul Haq attending the funeral prayer. The main headline of Jamat’s mouthpiece, Daily Ummat, read: “Jannat ka musafir jannat mein daakhil” or (The traveller to paradise has entered it).

Daily Islam, the leading Deobandi paper, also termed him a ‘shaheed’. An editorial by Daily Islam on 3^rd March, 2016, read: “After the judicial murder of Aashiq-i-Rasul Mumtaz Qadri and enactment of Protection of Women Against Violence Bill in Punjab, the religio-political parties have decided to form a combined action plan.”

“The way Pakistan is facing cultural and ideological threats which have gained government’s continuous support, is worrisome for those who realise the ideology of Pakistan,” it further said.

The question here arises as to what is the ideology these parties think is under attack and are forging an alliance to defend? Nothing is more ironic than seeing parties belonging to Deobandi, Barelvi, Ahle Hadith and Jamat-i-Islami sects on one platform.

In Najad Se Qadyan Ba-rasta Deoband, Barelvi cleric Muhammad Ziaullah Qadri traces Wahhabis, Deobandis and Ahmadis from one root – British government. In ‘Reason for publication’ of the book, referring to Deobandis and Ahle Hadith, he writes: “British government didn’t buy Mirza Ghulam Ahmed alone, but many others too. They were paid to write blasphemous content against the Prophet (PBUH).” (Page 7)

Mufti Hanif Qureshi is the self-proclaimed custodian of Mumtaz Qadri and his legacy. Images of his affidavit were circling on social media a few days ago where he disowned Qadri after the latter professed of murdering Salmaan Taseer after getting the inspiration from a provocative speech of Qureshi.

A booklet named ‘Gustakh Kaun?’ was published after Hanif Qureshi’s munazira with an Ahle Hadith scholar. It details the events that took place during the face off. Foreword of the booklet says: “The historical faceoff in Rawalpindi in which for the first time an Ahle Hadith scholar termed the statements of his elders to be wrong and decreed a fatwa of apostasy against other Ahle Hadith scholars.”

Referring to Maududi’s statements, Barelvi Mufti Abdul Wahab Khan Qadri alleges him of putting Shah Ismail and Syed Ahmed Barelvi in higher esteem than Sahaba. (Maududi aur Tafheemul Quran, Page 22)

Quoting Maududi’s Siyasi Kashmakash, Qadri writes that he ordered apostatisation of those who disagreed with Jamat-i-Islami. (Ibid. Page 28)

Deobandi cleric Mufti Sajid Qureshi wrote a book titled, ‘Tafheemul Quran Mein Ahadis Sharifa Per Bad-aitmaadi Aur Bible Per Aitmad’.

“For me, those well-learned people who do taqlid are committing a big sin and even worse,” Maududi writes in Rasaail o Masaail Volume 1, Page 244. (Quoted from Tafheemul Quran Mein Ahadis Sharifa Per Bad-aitmaadi Aur Bible Per Aitmad, Page 144) The book further discusses the beliefs of ‘Muslims’ about Bible and then compares them with those of Maududi’s.

On this book, Sajid Qureshi got token of appreciation from leading Deobandi clerics like Mufti Mehmood Hasan, As’ad Madni, Mufti Ahmed Khanpuri and Mufti Arshad Madni.

In the foreword of ‘Maududi Mazhab’, Deobandi Qazi Mazhar Hussain compares him with Shias, alleging him of committing blasphemy against Sahaba in his book, ‘Khilafat o Malookiyat’. He also compares Maududi with the founders of Ahmadiyya sect of, saying Maududi and Mirza Ghulam Ahmed had same beliefs on Hadith. (Maududi Mazhab, Page 52)

It must be noted here that Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslims in Pakistan according to 2^nd amendment in the constitution which Jamat-i-Islami vehemently supports today.

In a similar book, Yousaf Binoori writes that Maududi never got formal religious education. He wasn’t expert in Arabic studies and never got in the company of Islamic scholars, thus his knowledge was immature. (Maududi Sahab Ke Afkaar o Nazriyat, Page 19)

Criticising some sections of the Dastoor or constitution of Jamat-i-Islami, Binoori calls it an innovation and compares it with atheism. (Ibid, Page 60)

Binoori went on to accuse Maududi of considering himself better than Ibn Taymiyyah in religious matters, better than Sahaba in politics and even better than prophets and messengers of God in piety. (Ibid. Page 77)

In the preface of Hanfiyat Aur Mirzayat, Professor Sajid Mir, who was the Senator on the ticket of PML-N, equates Hanafis (Deobandis and Barelvis) with Ahmadis. It is again to be noted here that Ahmadis are declared non-Muslims in Pakistan.

Since the matter in discussion is blasphemy, Ali Hajweri, who is commonly known as Data Ganj Bakhsh, in his book Kashf ul Mahjoob has written things which I can’t quote here due to the sensitivity of the issue.

Considering all the quotes from various books given above, it is clear that scholars of respective religio-political parties who are greatly revered by them today had declared each other blasphemer and at times, apostates. Even the modern day scholars of these parties have declared the opponents as apostates.

On what basis are these parties forging an alliance? Which ideology are these parties claiming to protect? Evidently, they consider each other’s ideology and beliefs to be wrong and dangerous.

Also, is it really about serving Islam as they claim or just another tactic to stay relevant in the changing political realities by cashing on Islam and religious sentiments of masses?

The answer is due on them.