Let us Build Pakistan (LUBP). by Abdul Nishapuri
Recently I read two excellent articles on the systematic murder of Shia Muslims in Pakistan, by Marvi Sirmed (in Daily Times, 5 March 2012) and Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy (in Express Tribune, 4 March 2012).
While I laud the honest and bold highlighting of Shia genocide (and persecution of other oppressed groups) in Pakistan by the two authors, one common element in the two articles which drew my attention in particular is their stance on the questionable role played by Pakistani Shias against Ahmadiyya Muslims.
Let me provide the exact excerpts:
In fact, both the communities were together against the Ahmedis in the 1950s, and then in the early 1990s. (Marvi Sirmed)
Until recently, Pakistan’s Shias did not have the self-image of a religious minority. They had joined Sunnisin supporting Mr Bhutto’s 1974 decision to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim. But now they are worried. (Pervez Hoodbhoy)
I consider this generalizing account of “the Shia community” joining Sunnis in anti-Ahmadiyya campaign as problematic. Recently, I saw a Shia friend asking the same question: “You know the dirty role the Shias played in the apostatizing of the Ahmadis. The Shia leadership of the 1970s was extremely stupid and evil.”
This then brings me to the million dollar question of what role exactly did Pakistan’s Shia Muslims play against Ahmadiyya Muslims? Should we uncritically accept and circulate the current discourse on Shias’ complicity along with Sunni extremists of Jamaat-e-Islami, Tahaffuz-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat, other Sunni religious (Barelvi, Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith) organizations in causing physical and legal violence against Ahmadis?
It is always good if things are viewed in their original context as much as possible and/or available; particularly in case of historical events.
Shias as a community (despite their internal segmentation) played brilliant role in the politics of Indian Sub-Continent.
Two good examples to quote here are that of His Highness Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Agha Khan and Raja Sahib of Mehmood Abad.
His Highness was unanimously appointed the First President of All India Muslim League in 1906 by the active vote of all the Muslim delegates from all over India. Sir Agha Khan also led the Muslim Delegations to the Round Table Conference.
None of the other Muslim dignitaries in attendance (being Non-Shias) ever raised an objection.
Raja Sahib Mehmood Abad was ruler of the richest Estate in UP India and he was the founder of Muslim Students Federation, Member of the Mulsim League Working Council and he abandoned his Estate for Pakistan; which is recently assessed by the Indian Government having a worth Rs 30,000 crores.
Beauty of things in those days is that majority of the Elite Leadership did not believe in Kufr Fatwas.
Quaide Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was also a Shia and no other Muslim dignitary ever called him Kafir except a Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar {who was a Shia by belief and member of the Ahrare Islam Party as a political activist).
In this context, neither H.H. Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Agha Khan nor Raja Sahib of Mehmood Abad nor Quaide Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah nor any of their other working colleagues had any problem(s) in having Sir Muhammad ZafarUllah Khan as their trusted team mate.
By the way Sir Muhammad ZafarUllah Khan was the President of All India Muslim League for the year 1931.
Things did start changing only when Mullah’s were given way into the politics AND with an extra liberty to impress their rigid perspective over the public at large.
Shia Leadership in 1953, 1974, 1984 and the years in between, around and later; showed no match with the leaderships of the old times. They did support all of the Anti-Ahmadiyya Movements and they still call Ahmadis, Kafir; though not as loudly as some other organizations do.
Great Mr. Pervaiz. Good to hear your scholarly recount of history. Please continue to comment. Great learning for all of us. The column-blog itself obviously differs on that. Shia writers claim that only a handful of ulema did oppose Ahmadis and they as a community have been castigated without good reason. Many thanks
Well, the prophecy had to be fulfilled that 72 sects will be united against the one true Jam’at.
Well said and done by Mr Pervaiz. Generally majority of people of any sect did not approve in private what was done to Ahmadis but are and could be carried away by forceful sentimental exploitation by mullahs and cannot withstand opposition to mullahs out of fear and cowerdness.
Example: governor Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti’s killers and the support given and silence of the authorities army and judiciary
The author of the article implies that no major Shia scholar or leader was involved in the anti-ahmadi campaigns.
If so, they have had ample time to make their views known.
Let them say that no state or court or mullah can decide who is a Muslim or who isn’t.
They can’t and they won’t. They took a stance that was directly against their own long term interests and have stubbornly adhered to it since then.
Great historical perspective presented by Mr. Shahid Pervaiz. In fact, Shia sect has to prove the prophecy to make the no. 72 sects in Islam. I heard one shia speaker, acknowledging Ahmadiyya Jama’t, having same beliefs as other main stream Muslims have, but he claimed that the Shia leaders helped other Muslims in Parliament of Pakistan to declare Ahmadis, as non-Muslims.
So, the prophecy has to be fulfilled by Shias, joining Muslim sects. Prophecy by Hazrat Muhammad Peace be upon him is:
“Surely things will happen to my people as happened earlier to Israelites, they will resemble each other like one shoe in a pair resembles the other to the extent that if anyone among the Israelites has openly committed adultery to his mother there will be some who will do this in my Ummah as well, verily the Israelites were divided into 72 sections but my people will be divided into 73 sections, all of them will be in the fire except one.”
The prophecy is fulfilled by the Mullahs and so-called scholars of all these Muslim sects
Neither it is the case, nor was it implied at all.
I would try to be brief and cordially request attention to the following:-
1. Anti Ahmadiyya Agitations occurred in 1953, 1974 and 1984.
2. Prime period of (their active involvement) H.H. Sir Agha Khan, Raja Sahib Mehmood Abad, Quaide Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and many other leaders of the Indian Sub-Continent was before these agitations. None of these dignitaries (in their entire worldly lives) ever supported or acknowledged any Fatwa against Ahmadiyyat.
3. When Anti Ahmadiyya Agitations were staged, then (the entire existing) Shia Leadership of that time did not follow the example of their elders but stood besides and joined all other agitators.
Reason for Shias to stand with rest of the agitators is simple:-
All Shias (no matter which segment) believe in the Advent of Imam Mehdi – BUT – from within the direct progeny of Hadhrat Rasoole Karim (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him always). The Shia belief is “NOT TO ACCEPT ANY CLAIMANT OF BEING IMAM MEHDI WHO IS OUT SIDE THE DIRECT LINE OF DESCENDANTS OF RASOOLE KARIM (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him always)”. Based upon their belief, they certainly do not accept the proclamation by the Founder of Ahmadiyyat; to say they hold the proclamation in absolute “denial”.
AND THIS IS THE MOST COMMON POINT BETWEEN SHIAS AND OTHER ANTI AHMADIYYA AGITATORS.
However, It is worth commending that the leadership of olden days was neither “Radical” nor “Apt” to push someone outside the fold of Islam because of a difference in a “claim” or “opinion” or “explanation”, as long as the basic teachings of Islam were seen practised. The differences were taken very seriously but in healthier scholarly rationale.
In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious Ever Merciful
Comments on the topic are interesting and informative. Jazakomullah for those who were not Radical nor Apt to push some one outside the pale of Islam.
HUMAN Life is sacred, may it be ahmadi’s, Shia’s believer’s or non-believer’s. However if you dig hole for others to fall into it, well it could be the grave for yourself.
While Holy prophet p b u h said Sulmano minna ahlulbait and the own son of Noah was not from ahl-e-bait. so in the sight of Allah and His Messenger, the only blood line has no significance for ahl-e-bait.
Zarif Ahmad
I am so glad that Mr. Pervaiz has taken such a scholarly approach in his responses. The author of the column blog should also have taken the trouble to give references and authentic sources to prove which “shia writers” publicly stood against anti-Ahmadi legislation in Pakistan, rather than trying to shed doubt on the article of such a broadminded and amazing scholar as Dr. Hoodhbhoy.
Unfortunately the anti-Ahmadiyya laws have been on books for thirty to forty years and a great majority of religious and political leaders have been a silent party in condoning this.
I can remember very few voices against it and Altaf Hussain of MQM comes to my mind. So, let us hear all the other exceptions to the rule, who have not condoned it over the years, so history does not misjudge them as bigoted, at the rising of the moon.
If not in the past where are the brave souls, who will speak up now? Where is the outrage? Where are the shia leaders, when they taste the fruit of this discrimination themselves, in speaking out for all denominations of Muslims?
Elite of the Indian Sub-Continent and Kufr Fatwas
As the topic started and has so far remained limited to Shia beliefs; I would doubt if someone may misunderstand the point in regards to other sections of Islam and their prominent people.
The Naked Truth is that Kufr Fatwas have been an act of choice by Mullahs of various sections; while learned people (far too much well-read, learned and scholarly than their Mullahs) refrained from it despite their strict conviction to their own specific sectional beliefs. They were public figures and lived enough transparent lives than many politicians of later days.
None of them has been ever accused of Dishonesty, Hypocrisy or Malpractices, etc.; and for sure they belonged to various sections of Islam, more dearly and more staunchly than any of their successors.
Please take a look at the following {strictly a brief list only} to note that NONE of them was an Ahmadi but never broke away with Ahmadi neighbours, coworkers, professionals, employees, employers or more truly with any Ahmadis in any walk of life:-
1. Maulan Abul Kalam Azad Ahle Hadith
2. Maulan Muhammad Ali Johar Ahle Sunnah + Deoband
3. Maulana Shaukat Ali Ahle Sunnah + Deoband
4. Maulana Abdul Makid Darya Abadi Deoband
5. Maulana UbaidUllah Sindhi Deoband
6. Khawaja Ghulam Farid of Chachran Great Soofi of Chishti Order
7. Sir Fazale Hussain Ahle Sunnah
8. Sir Shahbudin Ahle Sunnah
9. Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar Ahle Sunnah
10. Maulana Hasrat Mohani Ahle Sunnah + Socialist
11. Maulana Chiragh Hasan Hasrat Ahle Sunnah + Socialist
12. Faiz Ahmad Faiz Ahle Hadith + Hafize Quraan + Socialist
13. Syed Raees Ahmed Jafri Ahle Tashia
14. Syed Muhammad Taqi Ahle Tashia
15. Syed Raees Amrohwi Ahle Tashia
16. Maulana Abdul Majid Saalik Ahle Sunnah + Deoband
17. Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehr Ahle Sunnah + Deoband
18. King Hussain bin Talal of Jordan Ahle Sunnah
(49th direct descendant of Hadhrat Muhammad – SAW)
19. Prince Karim Agha Khan Ahle Tashia (Ismaili segment)
(another – 49th direct descendant of Hadhrat Muhammad – SAW)
20. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali (PM – Pakistan) Ahle Sunnah
21. Hussain Shaheed Suhrwardi (PM – Pakistan) Ahle Tashia
22. Khawaja Nazim Udin (GG & PM – Pakistan) Ahle Sunnah
23. Sardar Abdul Hamid Dasti Ahle Sunnah
24. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Bacha Khan) Ahle Sunnah + Deoband
25. Mian Abdul Aziz Malwada Ahle Hadith
26. Sir Mian Muhammad Shafi Ahle Sunnah
27. Sir Syed Maratab Ali Ahle Tashia
28. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan Ahle Sunnah + Naturalist
29. Maulana Altaf Hussain Hali Ahle Sunnah + Naturalist
30. Mian Abdul Bari Ahle Sunnah + Great Soofi of Chishti Order
(Council Member All India Muslim League)
(President Punjab Muslim League = 1947 – 1950)
(President Jinnah League = 1951 – 1964)
Without a doubt and/or a second opinion; every single-one of them believed that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian is NOT that Imam Mehdi and that Masihe Maud, which they await. Still NONE of them delivered any Kufr upon him. Rather all of them expressed that it (at some points in their lives) is as another Tashrih (explanatory account) of Islamic Traditions and Ahadith – did never say out of the fold of Islam.
Question:-
Is not every single of them recognized for WISDOM, STUDY, RESEARCH, KNOWLEDGE, INTEGRITY, PRUDENCE, CONVICTION AND PUBLIC SERVICE – and Mullah shown any one of those traits ?
Then, why to fall victim to the Mullah’s interpretation of Islam !!!
Thank you so much for a nice list dear brother Shahid Pervaiz.
Zia Shah Sahib, Dr. Abdul Alim Sahib and Friends:-
In order to conclude the topic for now;
I sincerely deem it necessary to mention that Shia Leadership in Pakistan towards 1950 and in the later years was as much politicised as were many other {Muslim} Religious Parties.
The Christian, Hindu, Sikh and Parsi (Zoroastrians) Faith Based Organizations however maintained themselves to their congregational activities.
The Popular Shia Leaders of the period between1950 – 1980 were:-
1. Syed Muzaffar Ali Shamsi from Lahore
He was the publishing Editor of a magazine titled Shaheed; which was recognized as the official organ of the community.
2. Allama Rasheed Turabi from Karachi
3. Allama Syed Irfan Haider Abidi from Karachi. The author of the book titled = kafir kaun?
4. Maulana Ismail (kulharha) from Wazirabad
5. Nawab Muzaffar Ali Qizalbash from Lahore
The political wing of Shia Community was (then) named “Idara Tahaffaz-e-Shia”; patronized by Nawab Muzaffar Ali Qizalbash & operated by Syed Muzaffar Ali Shamsi.
Shia Community was officially represented in the (Action Committee) Majlise Amal Takhafaze Khatme Nubuwat, both times {in 1953 and 1974}.
You may find it interesting that Syed Muzaffar Ali Shamsi happened to be the Shia representative at both the times; and appeared as a prime WITNESS in the Inquiries’ Commissions.
A. Below is a Common Statement by other Shia Leaders as is posted on their website:-
http://qadiyaniat.wordpress.com/opinion-about-qadiyaniat/
Allama Arif Al Husseini, Allama Hassan, Sheikh Mohsin Ali Najafi, Agha Murtaza Poya, Sheikh Muzaffar Hussain Jaffrey, Sheikh Ali Walayety
“In the matter of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, we are equal partners of ‘Ahle Sunnat’”.
B. Below are the lists of leaders’ names and their parties:-
Members of the Central Majlis-i-Amal TAHAFFUZ KHATM-E-NUBUWWAT – 1953
(1) Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari,
(2) Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan,
(3) Maulana Sultan Ahmad, Amir-i-Jama’at-i-Islami, Sind and Karachi,
(4) Sayyad Nur-ul-Hasan Bukhari,
(5) Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri,
(6) Maulana Muhammad Abdul Haamid Badayuni,
(7) Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq Thanvi,
(8) Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari,
(9) Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Calcuttvi,
(10) Sayyad Mazaffar Ali Shamsi.
Members of the Central Majlis-i-Amal TAHAFFUZ KHATM-E-NUBUWWAT – 1974
1. President:
Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Banori
2. Chief Coordinator:
Maulana Mehmood Ahmed Rizvi
3. Vice Presidents:
Maulana Abdul Sattar Khan Niazi, Syed Muzaffar Ali Shamsi, Maulana Abdul Wahid, Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan
4. Vice Coordinator:
Maulana Muhammad Sharif Jalandhari
5. Treasurer:
Mian Fazal Haq
May Allah Almighty keep us Enlightened, Vigilant and Blessed. Amen
Wassalamo Alaikum.
From what i have read in history,it was the ahle -ahrars who led the anti-ahmedia revolt in the 1950’s,they pinned the blame of all the misery and poverty in pakistan on the wealth of the ahmedis. moreover authors like veli reza nasr hold that theycombined the socialist rhetoric with anti-ahmedia slogans,later on the madani/deobandi ulemas followed their footsteps, only this time shia’s became the victims.SSP happens to the offshoot of this Madani/Deobandi network.The reasons were embedded in the socio-economic structure of southern Punjab,particularly Jhang where the Shia landlords were dominating the economic and political life. The bourgeioning Sunnis wanted change in the patterns of authority and Anti-shiim became a tool as well as a slogan.So this whole debate around the issue of Muslims and non-Muslims should only be seen from the perspective of minority rights and an Islamic constitution clearly lays down such rights.Secondly, the true intentions and agendas of parties should be analyzed so as to expose mechanisms of religious exploitation.Who sided with whom should be set aside, past should not be allowed to harm the present and the future.