Adil Najam
UPDATE: Reports in the Pakistan media suggest that the Lal Masjid leader has finally been arrested while trying to escape wearing a burqa. According to a BBC update:
The leader of a radical mosque besieged by Pakistani security forces in Islamabad has been caught trying to escape wearing a woman’s burqa. Security forces seized Abdul Aziz as he tried to leave the Red Mosque amid a crowd of women… He was wearing a burqa that also covered his eyes,” a security official told the AFP news agency about the cleric’s escape bid. “Our men spotted his unusual demeanour. The rest of the girls looked like girls, but he was taller and had a pot belly.“
ORIGINAL POST: Things are moving fast and the showdown at Lal Masjid, Islamabad that began this morning is now ready to turn into an even more real battle. The day took the lives of at least 10 people, possibly more. These included policemen, soldiers, by-standers, a journalist, and a number of Madrassah students. (For details see our earlier post and update comments on it, here).
The latest – and this keeps changing by the minute – is that in a mid-night press conference the government has given an ultimatum to the management of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) to surrender. There is no indication that they will. In the past things have always ended with ‘negotiated settlements.’ This time the likelihood of this happening is much less. A curfew has been imposed in the area. Tanks have been called in. So have special forces.
Metroblog Islamabad is doing a wonderful job of keeping abreast with breaking news. It reports, through Dawn TV, that 111 Brigade (Army) from Rawalpindi has already assembled around the mosque. Ambulances have been fully stocked. Hospitals are on alert. An ultimatum for time has been given (3.30 PST… NOW!). The entire area has been cordoned off.
Here is a news clip from ARYOne, broadcast earlier.
In an article written last week for The News, I had argued that inaction was not a solution and because of so many delays and policies of apeasement some confrontation was now becoming inevitable.
This episode [i.e., the Chinese massage parlor case] will further embolden the already violence-prone brigands at the two madressahs and we are likely to see an escalation in their demands as well as their tactics. Meanwhile, the government has once again demonstrated an inability and/or unwillingness to act decisively. The much-cherished ‘writ of the state’ continues to rot in tatters.
This, it seems, is what happened when earlier the Lal Masjid management incited this escalation in response to the government’s build-up of force around the mosque. In that article, I had gone on to argue that:
Just like standing still in the middle of the road at the sight of the blinding lights of a truck speeding towards it does not save the life of the stunned deer, doing nothing about this escalating crisis out of fear that doing anything will only make things worse is not going to help the government, or Pakistan. Something needs to be done, and done fast.
I had called in the article for the government to “act to judiciously dismantle militancy at Lal Masjid.” This situation has to be responded to. But the key word remains “act judiciously.” What is really important is how that action is taken. Further bloodshed should be avoided. At least minimized. One hopes that any action is intelligent action and all steps are taken to minimize loss of life. Not just because one does not wish to create needless ‘martyrs.’ Much more so because all life – and everyone’s life – is precious.
The technologies to undertake low casualty offensives are available. The will and sagacity to do so is needed. The test for the government – acting with force in the very center of the Federal Capital – is not only what it does, but how it does it.
Photo credit: Associated Press, B.K. Bangash.
The criminal activities of the Lal Masjid molvis is now resulting in great human distress and inconvenience to the people living in the G6 area. They should be held responsible for the great misery they are causing not only to the people they are holding hostage inside the mosque but also the misery they are causing to those outside. These people are the enemies of Islam as well as of Muslims. I just spoke to my cousin who lives near the mosque. Before this he was at least supportive of some of the issues the Masjid people were raising. Today he was just fuming and really angry at this mullahs for the misery they have caused to everyone by their criminal activities and turning his mohalla into a war zone.
It hurts so bad to see that in the midst of all this Lal Masjid drama being staged by intelligence agencies we have all forgotten the miserable plight of the people of cyclone-affected areas where already more that 200 people have been reported dead. Diseases are beginning to break out and people have started to agitate. Why doesn’t the government understand that it is the mishandling of situations like these that gives rise to centrifugal sentiments in the people of smaller provinces.
There is one major thing which is revealed. i.e.
In Pakistan, there is no singular definitive or Supreme Religious authority on whom the people or the clerics could follow. Had this been the case, people like Abdul Rashid Ghazi or others would not have come up or would have surrendered to the advice of that authority. Hence lawlesness prevails in the country.
You can clearly see how media and other people are cautious in giving statements. They can’t just say that Lal Masjid people are wrong or that this is not Jihad OR They can’t just say that Government is wrong which clearly indicates the lack of definitive supreme religious authority.
[quote]If someone is not sure about history, it’s best they don’t challenge others on such issues.[/quote]
How can one ever be sure about history unless one goes back in history and checks for himself? Even in this age of media people differ on what may have happened on say 12/5. How can you be sure of something from 1400 years? You are trying to pass your faith (in your beliefs) as knowledge about events from history. The two are different and may not necessarily match.
[quote]One has to be illeterate about history to say please prove shariat implementation after Rasoolillah (saw) and sahabah.
[/quote]
Again nothing to do with literacy or lack of, of history. It’s our agreement that whatever was brought by Rasoolullah is the system that we accept as our governing law (and call it shariat).
Now the big question is what is it that he brought as shariat?…several dozens sects and maslaks are still pondering over the question :) … that is why implementing a uniform shariat on national level may not be a walk in the park as some Mullahs may have us beleive.
[quote]The whole of Ummawi (Ummayd) and most of Abbasid caliphites implemented shariat. Of course, the level of pity would have been lower than that of the time of Rasoolillah (saw) and khulfa ar-rashideen but shariat was implemented.[/quote]
Yes this is the thing ummayds and abbasaids were killing fellow Muslims and indulging in all sorts of vices but you still consider them worthy of implementing shariat. Mullahs kill fellow Muslims or use Islam to get to the power corridors (assemblies) even today and you call them ulema. This is the root problem here, you expect criminals to implement shariat for us and use them as the standard of piety. Hence the mess we are in right now. Get rid of bearded criminals if you want to make any progress towards an Islamic system.
Note I did not say Sharait – that could be tricky. In the end a workable Islamic system will have a lot of elements form a secular system to accommodate various differences in maslak and fiqah not to mention other religions.
Salamalikum,
If someone is not sure about history, it’s best they don’t challenge others on such issues. One has to be illeterate about history to say please prove shariat implementation after Rasoolillah (saw) and sahabah. The whole of Ummawi (Ummayd) and most of Abbasid caliphites implemented shariat. Of course, the level of pity would have been lower than that of the time of Rasoolillah (saw) and khulfa ar-rashideen but shariat was implemented. And, that is no surprise because on the day of khutbah of Hajjatul Wida’ when the Surah al-Mai’da’s verse (part of third verse) was revealed: “This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.”, Sayyadina Umar started crying. He was asked why are you crying, and he said “Nothing succeeds perfection but imperfection.” So, nobody expects to reach the same level as that of Rasoolillah’s (saw) time or khulfa ar-rashideen’s time. But, it remains a fact that shariat was successfully implemented by later generations.
Pick up any Islamic history book and check it for yourself. Many smaller khilafats did so after the fall of Abbasids. Also, Salah ad-deen al-Ayubi did so and even Usman I, the founder of Usmaniyyah khilafat did so. And, of course Aurangzeb Alamgir did so as far as his power allowed him and is well known for reinstating the hadd, jizya, etc. Again, pick up any history book that covers those periods. One concise but authentic book in Urdu would be that of Moulana Shah Akbar Khan Najeebabadi’s Tareekh-e-Islam (two volumes by Maktaba Darul Andulus). Buy it or borrow it, and read it and read other books on this topic and lets then discuss this issue.
Atleast the weat(sic) doesn’t force their moral values on other people
Baber, if you are implying I advocate imposing shariat in non-Muslim societies, then prove it because I don’t believe in it and thus never said so. If you meant forcing their own people, then prove that still. In fact, you will find that I say don’t impose fake shariat like Taliban, etc. because that never works. Do the ground work before by changing individuals, family, societies and then shariat will implement “itself”. And, this is not my own opinion but of most of learned/sound scholars. And, again Fazlur Rahman or Ghazi brothers don’t qualify as scholars—I want to know about their ijaazats!!!
Shiraz, so it is ok to “enforce” monogamy in the US because it seems the right thing to do, but imposing some laws in Pakistan becomes much-hated “enforcement of views on others”. If you live in the US and tomorrow you go out and campaign against the ban on polygamy and then make this argument, then maybe maybe your argument might have some weight. In fact, if I don’t know any better I say you have proved my point: Different societies ban different things that they deem “immoral” for themselves! So, don’t try to bring Pakistan soceity in line with Western societies and vice versa.