Daily Times

No death in the country has ever been a cause of so much controversies and debates as did the death of Hakeemullah Mehsud. A subject that was so far a taboo for discussion became a common debate and everybody began asking what type of Islam we, as a nation, want to follow: the militant Islam of the Taliban or the peaceful Islam that the rest of the people follow. Views began pouring in from different schools of thought carrying logic and reasons that opposed or supported one of these two forms of belief. By declaring Hakeemullah Mehsud a ‘shaheed’ (martyr) Maulana Munawwar Hasan of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) became a courageous man not for the Taliban only but for those intellectuals as well whose western education is highly despicable for the Taliban and their supporters. The military came out calling Mehsud a ‘terrorist’ and claimed that the people of Pakistan and the army are very clear on what the state of Pakistan is and who its enemies are. The statement issued by the ISPR on this issue asked for an apology from the JI chief for calling the terrorist shaheed. This prompted the maulana to challenge the interference of the army in political matters as unconstitutional.

By raising a constitutional question, the JI chief provided some analysts a reason to equate this conflict with the historical struggle of the civilians against military supremacy. They described the stand of the JI chief as the sign of a fresh attempt by the civilians to break the long status quo maintained by the army against the civilians’ right to run the country. Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl took the cue from the JI chief and reminded the people that the politicians have always been “virtually powerless in the country and that the ‘establishment’ wielded actual control.” Nearly six months ago, on April 30, 2013, Jan Achakzai, the spokesman of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, had rejected the charges of three political parties that they were being targeted because the international and ‘local establishment’ (quotation marks are mine) wanted them to lose the forthcoming elections. This statement by Achakzai was in response to the complaints made by the three political parties — PPP, ANP, and MQM — when they faced terror attacks by the Taliban on their election campaigning programmes in the country. Now the ballgame is changed since the establishment has taken a stand that does not suit them. Principles and legality are of least importance when ideological interests are at stake.

Another support to the JI Ameer came from the newspaper columnists who shared two fatwas (religious decrees) on Pakistan’s support to the US in its war against terrorism. These fatwas appeared four times in a local newspaper within a gap of two weeks. First, a report by Ahmad Noorani about a atwa appeared on October 24, 2013 when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was in the US. The report claimed that the fatwa was issued recently by a leading Islamic scholar, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, which restrained the government from accepting any financial assistance from the US for the purpose of providing help to the US in the war against neighbouring Afghanistan. Next day, the newspaper published a correction to that fatwa by including four questions submitted by Lt Gen (Retd) Shahid Aziz and answered by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Nearly two weeks later, on November 12, 2013, Ansar Abbasi reproduced the same questions and answers with an introduction that tried to prove that the fatwa was issued to reject the post-9/11 policies of the government and to dismiss terrorism as a strategy to compel the government to reverse such policies. On November 13, 2013, Mr Umar Cheema published two fatwas, one from Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, and the other from a Lal Masjid cleric. These appeared with the title, “Lal Masjid reissues 2004 Fatwa to support JI chief”.

Noteworthy in all these efforts is the introduction of these fatwas by the columnists and rewording of question number four that was posed to Mufti Usmani. Initially, it was introduced against US aid and later it was changed to reject Pakistan’s aid of the US’s war. Let’s review the two different versions of this question. On October 25, the question number four was worded as: if the order under the Islamic Sharia calls for stopping giving help to the government in killing of innocent Muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan, and if the Pakistan government refuses to do so, then what options are open for the Pakistani Muslims under the Sharia?

Two weeks later, on November 12 and 13, it was changed to read as: if the Islamic Sharia demands from the government of Pakistan to get out of the US war but still the government of Pakistan does not stop its involvement in the killing of innocent Muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan then what options are open for Pakistani Muslims under the Sharia?

The rephrasing of this question served two purposes. One was to link this fatwa to the ongoing militancy of the Taliban in the country that is considered to be the result of the US war against terrorism, and another purpose was to blame the government of Pakistan for involvement in the killing of innocent Muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan. The distortion of the text in the later version is easily noticeable. Is the Pakistan army involved in any military operation in Afghanistan? If not, then how is it involved in the killing of Afghan nationals? What compelled a person like Lt Gen Aziz to remain silent on such misleading changes in his question is mindboggling and indicative of some sort of complicity in it as well.

Now we come to the answer to this question. Mufti Usmani, in his answer to this question, categorically emphasises that the people must avoid civil war or sabotage while they try to stop Pakistan from supporting the US in its war against Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the retired Lieutenant General, intentionally or unintentionally, did not ask Mufti Usmani what his position would be if some Muslim citizens of the country resorted to civil war or sabotage against their own Muslim country. Would he suggest the government to sit back and watch such lawless Muslim citizens kill and maim innocent Muslim brothers and sisters of their own country? Highly impossible. Knowing what the most probable answer would be from Mufti Usmani, one tends to question the intent behind the efforts of seeking a fatwa on these questions by a retired army general at this critical juncture and then allowing its distortion to suit a particular ideological mindset that has been blamed by the ISPR for insulting the army. It is a blatant dishonesty with the cause and profession one serves, whether it is the army or journalism. Would the perpetrators ever realise that an edifice based on a false structure is bound to be doomed no matter how sincere or sacred their intentions are?

The writer is a freelance journalist and researcher. He can be reached at mohammad.nafees@yahoo.com