Where were you, dear sisters?

Much has been said about the shameful performance of our parliament on April 13 when it approved the controversial Nizam-i-Adl Regulation without much of a murmur.

The two members who protested, MQM’s Farooq Sattar and the PML-N MNA from Chakwal, Ayaz Amir, have received much-deserved accolades — albeit given grudgingly to the MQM. But why did the others lose their voice? What happened to the women?

Why could not there be a full-fledged debate on an issue that promises to have a profound impact on the future of Pakistan? Its devastating implications for women have already started manifesting themselves, as demonstrated by reports from Karachi of men walking up to women demanding that they cover themselves ‘properly’. A woman even complained of having been threatened with a gun. These incidents vindicate the fears that have been expressed in women’s circles about the tidal wave of Talibanisation sweeping the country.

It was the failure — or helplessness — of our parliamentarians that was disturbing. It is now clear that military rule and pseudo democracy under the patronage of the army have wrought untold ravages on Pakistan’s political institutions over the years, undermining democratic structures so badly that even the restoration of democracy has not revived their working fully.

The failure of their representatives to articulate public concern on that fateful day has upset women all over the country. It has prompted an angry email from Lila Thadani of the Sindh Adyoon Tehrik, Sukkur, charging Bushra Gohar and Nafisa Shah (MNAs from the ANP and the PPP respectively) of acting for the sake of party ‘loyalty and transitory power.’

She says, ‘Remember dear sisters, your parliamentary slots will not remain for life. You will have to climb down and be with the rest of us. How will you be able to face us and the true reality after selling your soul to power? … Speak up or ship out, now. You are better outside than inside that pointless white cube of a parliament on Constitution Ave.’

It was, therefore, seen as a weak and belated rescue attempt when a female voice was raised in the house the next day. Sherry Rehman, the PPP MNA who recently bowed out as the information minister, made a spirited speech on a point of order expressing strong reservations about the implementation of the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation 2009 in Swat. Conceding that this system had been in force in the valley in the 1990s, she pointed out that circumstances were different then.

The state had executive control over the land unlike today when the writ of the ANP government doesn’t run there. She had a point when she said angrily, ‘I ask the ANP, which pressured the government to pass the regulation in the National Assembly, to tell us who will protect the rights of women in Swat now.’

Sherry also asked for a debate on the flogging incident, saying this act had been in clear violation of the laws of the land and pointed to the danger of people being subjected to Taliban vigilantism and public brutality. Yes Sherry’s fear is spot on — for this is exactly what worries people, mainly women, today, but not the parliamentarians who have yet to debate the flogging incident. Why the delay?

This question is to an extent answered by Aurat Foundation’s report, Performance of Women Parliamentarians in the 12th National Assembly, launched recently. It sheds some light on the attitudes of our lawmakers and confirms the non-role of the National Assembly in Pakistan’s system of governance. Sifting through a mountain of National Assembly records to collect data and statistics, Naeem Mirza and Wasim Wagha, the authors of the report, have made a monumental contribution to the recording of parliamentary history.

No analysis is needed to show the shoddy performance of the Assembly that functioned in 2002-2007. Figures speak louder than words. Here is some striking statistical information taken from the report: The assembly held a total of only 43 sessions in five years and met on 608 working days. It failed to fulfill the minimum requirement of 130 days in the final year when it met on 83 days.

This information does not reveal the entire truth for each day’s session on an average lasted for less than an hour in the first year and two hours in the following years. Sixty-eight times the quorum was not complete and only 50 bills were passed in five years (mostly without a debate) of which 38 became acts. The 12th assembly may have operated under the shadows of a military dictatorship but this does not exonerate parliamentarians for their indifferent performance.

The report focuses on women and their efforts to preserve the public space they have created for themselves in politics. It sheds light on the grit of a handful of women parliamentarians (60 on reserved seats and 13 on general seats) in a house of 342 who took bold initiatives and struggled against heavy odds to make their presence felt. The assessment of women parliamentarians is purely in quantitative terms.

They emerge as an active lot who spoke prolifically (3,698 interventions), questioned sensibly (2,724 questions) and took their responsibilities seriously. But who were these women? The report grades the first 25. And is it surprising that of these 22 were from the opposition parties? Now that the boot is on the other foot their parliamentary activism has been muted. The MMA women who continue to sit on the opposition benches admit that they do not believe in challenging the male public space.

What is needed is an analysis of the role of women parliamentarians in the context of the freedom allowed to them. Evidently at the root of the problem is the flawed mode of election of women legislators on reserved seats. Appointed from party lists, they are denied a constituency while their fate is in the hands of the party leadership, predominantly male. Since women parliamentarians are unwilling to join hands across party lines on issues concerning women there is no hope that their problems will be resolved through political processes.

Pakistan giving up to militants

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday she believed the Pakistani government was abdicating to the Taliban and other militants.

In a testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mrs Clinton warned that nuclear-armed Pakistan was becoming a ‘mortal threat’ to the world.

‘I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists,’ Mrs Clinton said.

She was referring to a deal Pakistan concluded with the Taliban militants in Swat, which gives them complete control over the valley. On Tuesday, the militants also took over Buner, just 60 miles from Islamabad.

Mrs Clinton also urged Pakistanis, living both in and outside the country, to realise how terrorism threatened the very existence of their state.

‘Pakistan poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world,’ Mrs Clinton said.

‘And I want to take this occasion ... to state unequivocally that not only do the Pakistani government officials, but the Pakistani people and the Pakistani diaspora ... need to speak out forcefully against a policy that is ceding more and more territory to the insurgents.’

Mrs Clinton said the Pakistani government had to deliver basic services to its people or it would find itself losing ground to the Taliban, whose influence had spread in northern Pakistan and had raised concerns about the stability of the country.

‘The government of Pakistan ... must begin to deliver government services, otherwise they are going to lose out to those who show up and claim that they can solve people’s problems and then they will impose this harsh form of oppression on women and others,’ she said.

‘(We) cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances now within hours of Islamabad that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state,’ Mrs Clinton said.

‘I don’t hear that kind of outrage or concern coming from enough people that would reverberate back within the highest echelons of the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan,’ she said.

Congressman Howard Berman, the chairman of the committee, also raised serious concerns about the state of Pakistan.

‘In recent weeks, extremists based in the western border regions have turned their guns on the Pakistani state, launching dramatic suicide attacks in the population centres of Islamabad and Lahore,’ Mr Berman said.

‘Equally troubling, the Pakistani government has cut a deal with the extremists that overran the Swat Valley — the latest in a string of failed agreements that has only emboldened the radicals.’

Mrs Clinton said President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, unveiled in March, included a focus on flushing Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan and on boosting civilian efforts to build up both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also on Wednesday, the top US military commander Admiral Michael Mullen arrived in Islamabad from Kabul for meetings with Pakistani officials.

Another US general, David Petraeus, told a Harvard forum on Tuesday that the ‘military situation in Afghanistan will probably deteriorate in the near term’. He said: ‘We do believe we can achieve progress, but it’s going to get worse before it gets better. ... There will be tough months ahead.’

Admiral Mullen told NBC news he was concerned about the prospect of both Afghanistan and Pakistan descending into chaos. ‘Pakistan — it’s a country that has nuclear weapons. My long-term worry is that descent ... should it continue, gives us the worst possible outcome there,’ he said.

US ‘Af-Pak’ strategy inadequate

WASHINGTON: US Senator John Kerry, who returned from a visit to Islamabad earlier this week, has said that the Obama administration does not seem to have ‘a real strategy’ for Pakistan.

In an interview to USA Today, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the Obama administration's plan for that volatile country, rolled out last month with great fanfare, ‘is not a real strategy.’

‘Pakistan is in a moment of peril. ... And I believe there is not in place yet an adequate policy or plan to deal with it,’ he said.

Senator Kerry's comments amounted to one of the most serious criticisms leveled by a Democrat at President Obama on foreign policy.

The newspaper noted that Senator Kerry's remarks were a change from his initial reaction to Obama's announcement of his plan for the region in a speech March 27, when Mr Kerry issued a statement calling it ‘realistic and bold.’

‘Obviously the president disagrees with the chairman on this, and the issues he raised are being aggressively worked in the president's new strategy,’ White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in an e-mail to USA Today.

The senator advised the Obama administration to stop using the term ‘Af-Pak,’ to describe a unified strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, because ‘I think it does a disservice to both countries and to the policy. The two governments, he said, are ‘very sensitive to it’ and ‘don't see the linkage.’

Senator Kerry's spokesman, Frederick Jones, told reporters that the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan are scheduled to embark on a rare joint visit to the US for meetings in May, and Mr Kerry plans to host them for lunch on May 7.

As an example of how he believes counterinsurgency strategy is lacking, Senator Kerry cited the example of a recent Pakistan army operation in Peshawar.

‘The army went in, they expended a lot of energy for us, some lives, and you know, nothing came in underneath it — absolutely nothing. So you're going to wind up with a bunch of folks who are going to hate you.’

‘If the army's going to take the risk of going in there, for God's sake you have the civil component coming in, so you win something for it,’ Mr Kerry said.

The Massachusetts senator has sponsored a bill that would steer $1.5 billion a year in aid to Pakistan. He said he opposes language in a companion bill in the House requiring the president to certify that Pakistan does not support terrorists. Pakistanis consider that ‘insulting,’ he said.

Late, Senator Kerry called a USA Today reporter to clarify his comments, saying he did not mean to criticize President Obama. ‘I was not blasting the president,’ he said. ‘What I'm saying is that the details have not been fleshed out. We're working hand in hand on it.’

Senator Kerry praised President Obama's stepped-up attacks against insurgents in Pakistan by unmanned US drone aircraft, saying they had driven ‘bad guys’ into Yemen.

‘I think it has had a dramatic impact, and I think that is one of the reasons why people are screaming about it,’ he said, adding that he did not think there have been inordinate civilian casualties.

Pakistan under siege

I cannot recall another time when there was such widespread despondency in the country. That this has happened within a year of the restoration of democracy is disappointing, but not surprising.Many of today’s problems are the legacy of history, in which global politics, regional considerations and bilateral rivalries, have all played a role.

Also disastrous have been the long spells of authoritarian rule that looked to foreign powers for legitimacy, while destroying institutions of state, crippling infrastructures and breeding anger and alienation among people especially in the smaller provinces. Neglecting social sectors such as health and education, and promoting an economy geared to enriching the rich, it drove millions into the cesspool of militancy.

The manner in which the government recently caved in to the demands of the Swat militants has spawned frightening scenarios. Irrespective of the merits of their case, no government can permit any individual or organisation to challenge its writ and get its demands accepted at gunpoint. That such an initiative should have come from the ANP and be embraced by the PPP is more painful.

Worse, this ‘deal’ has come at a time when the country is facing unprecedented challenges, internally and externally. The government, however, appears unaware of the double whammy to which it is vulnerable: the militants at home and western capitals losing faith in our will and capacity to confront them.

When former national security advisers, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, begin to air their Cassandra-like prognostications, it is time for our leaders to wake up. Recently, both spoke of Pakistan’s collapse as not only inevitable but imminent, with Kissinger describing Pakistan as ‘a country that has numerous nuclear weapons but no government’. He also advised the US to discuss with China, India and Russia how to handle the post-dismemberment scenario.

Brzezinski was no less blunt, warning that the current situation in Pakistan ‘puts us in a complicated situation’ as to how long America could ‘back such a democratic government which is passing through internal chaos’.

Many of us are given to blaming ‘foreign powers’ for the malaise that afflicts us. Given our geo-strategic importance, proximity to the world’s energy fields, access to the Indian Ocean and possession of nuclear weapons, it is not unlikely that some foreign agencies are involved in stirring up trouble. But blaming foreign powers does not absolve us from taking measures to deter them while ensuring good governance at home.

Some Pakistanis claim to be disappointed with Obama’s policies. This betrays a failure to understand the complex nature of the US system of checks and balances. Obama’s speech may not have satisfied us but it certainly was a skillful mix of old and new, revealing the many competing interests currently swirling around Afghanistan.

Though rejecting the call of fellow Democrats who opposed deeper involvement in Afghanistan, he promised to use ‘all elements of our national power’ to ‘disrupt dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda’. He also abandoned his predecessor’s goal of nation-building, while offering a plan for increased US military strength and massive injection of resources. There was no reference to the earlier flirtation with an exit strategy, but a greater focus on reaching out to the ‘moderate’ Taliban. This represents a well-thought-out approach keeping all options open.

It is, however, the policy of continuing with drone attacks that is causing deep heartburn among Pakistanis. As their frequency increases, so does the intensity of anti-American sentiments, making the government look both confused and ineffective. The drones may occasionally net a few Al Qaeda terrorists, but the collateral damage is deep and long-lasting, adding to the impression that the Obama administration is as callous as its predecessor and our own government as subservient as the authoritarian regime. A more acceptable option would be to carry out joint operations with the Pakistanis. This would also force the government to ‘own’ this policy, rather than seek refuge behind unconvincing excuses.

In the meantime, there is mischief afoot in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where it appears that the Indian lobby has been most active. This is evident from the language of the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Act of 2009. After its approval, the bill will go to a House-Senate conference committee, along with the Senate’s Kerry-Lugar bill, for a compromise bill to be thrashed out. But rather than wait for that stage, it is incumbent on us to engage in a vigorous lobbying exercise to ensure that these demeaning provisions are taken out.

The other issue which has given rise to deep misgivings in Islamabad is the manner in which the Obama administration has modified its much celebrated ‘regional approach’. The expectation of US support for Pakistan-India normalisation as well as a satisfactory resolution of the Kashmir issue had renewed hopes for the region’s peace and development, as well as easing some of Pakistan’s concerns on its eastern frontier. But few in Washington could anticipate the intensity of Indian lobbying that constrained the administration to restrict Holbrooke’s mandate to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Emboldened by this success, New Delhi appears to have also convinced the administration to pursue the Bush administration’s flawed policy of promoting India as the regional hegemon. Holbrooke’s remarks in Delhi may have been music to Indian ears, but offensive to Pakistan.

Obama has promised more troops and greater resources to Afghanistan. But this will not win the hearts and minds of the locals, unless there is an effort at genuine reconciliation within Afghanistan. In this context, he needs to reach out to moderate Taliban, who may ‘have taken up arms because of coercion or simply for a price’. The US would be making a grave mistake in making no distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Journals such as the Economist, have also emphasised that ‘for most Taliban fighters, the ideology of global jihad is less important than other things: Pakhtun nationalism, opposition to western invasion, desire to defend conservative Muslim values’, etc.

Admittedly, these measures would help us, but militancy is primarily our problem and we have to deal with it. It is not yet too late for the government to bring all political parties on board, to arrive at a consensus on a multi-faceted approach, whose objective must be to confront the militants not by force alone, but through a mix of dialogue, development and deterrence. It is not enough for our leaders to travel to foreign capitals and beg for aid on the plea that ‘if we fail, you too will be the victims of terrorism’. It would carry far greater conviction if such exhortation had been accompanied by a resolute leadership at home.

A dangerous change

Back in the spotlight are the country’s controversial blasphemy laws. The reason: the Supreme Court’s Shariat Appellate Bench dismissed an appeal against a 1990 Federal Shariat Court judgment which decreed that under Article 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code blasphemy against Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) should be punished with death, and not the alternative of life imprisonment.

Because of non-prosecution by the appellant the Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the appeal, but the result is that the FSC judgment is now operative: the death penalty is now mandatory under Article 295-C. Having opposed the penalty — although there is no doubt that the commission of blasphemy is deserving of the most stringent punishment — we regard Tuesday’s decision as regrettable.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the blasphemy laws there is a tendency to debate the issue from a religious perspective — but that is not the main issue here. From a purely technical perspective, the blasphemy laws contain too many loopholes to be considered soundly drafted in legal terms. Consider Article 295-C, which states: ‘Whoever by word, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death …’ The wording is vague and over-inclusive. Conceivably, someone belonging to another religion asking about the details of Islam or expressing his own religion’s position could be booked. Surely that is not something that should fall in the category of ‘blasphemy’.

The point is that vague laws always create opportunities for abuse and that the dangers increase manifold when vagueness is linked to something as extreme as the death penalty and as inflammatory as blasphemy. Pakistan’s experience with the blasphemy laws suggests they are potent tools of oppression that have been used to victimise the innocent. Score-settling, petty property disputes, personal revenge — all have been linked to blasphemy cases registered over the years. Upping the ante by making the death penalty mandatory in certain cases will only increase the already horrifying leverage that the unscrupulous have over those they wish to target.

We have opposed the death penalty because given Pakistan’s broken judicial system there is always the likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice. In the case of blasphemy, the possibility of a fair trial is anyway tremendously reduced — meaning now far more of the innocent may face the prospect of the ultimate penalty.

Abusing Islam and its teachings

The Holy Qur'aan and Sunnah are the only two sources for the essential beliefs of those people who call themselves Muslims. Among those beliefs the most important one is that there is no deity other than Allah. This is the first half of the attestation of every Muslim, the second half being that Muhammad is Allah's Prophet. There are a few other fundamental principles that a Muslim is required to accept. Thers are some people who have no attachment with Islam, still they insist on misusing the names of "Islam" and "Muslim" either intentionally or in ignorance. In this article, we will try to briefly show how many "religious" groups around the world who use the name of Islam are in fact clearly and absolutely in violation of certain basic principles contained in the Holy Qur'aan and Sunnah.

The followers of the Nation Of Islam believe in (all quotes taken from their homepage or their publications): ...one God (Allah) and that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long awaited 'Messiah' of the Christians and the 'Mahdi' of the Muslims.

However, the Holy Qur'aan states in chapter 4, verse 36, "Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him." And according to Islamic belief Allah do not appear in any person's shape. Although it is a Hindu belief that God appears in shape of man, which they term as 'Avtar', but Islam denies that. The followers of the Nation of Islam further believe "in the resurrection of the dead -- not in physical resurrection -- but in mental resurrection. We also believe that the so-called Negroes are most in need of mental resurrection; therefore, they will be resurrected first." But the Holy Qur'aan states in chapter 20, verse 55, "From the earth did We Create you, and into it Shall We return you, and from it shall We bring you out once again."

Even more pointedly, the Holy Qur'aan also states in Surah 64, verse 7, The Unbelievers think that they will not be raised up (for Judgement). Say: "Yea, by my Lord, Ye shall surely be Raised up: then shall ye Be told (the truth) of All that ye did. And that is easy for Allah."

Besides the above two differences, the followers of the Nation of Islam also believe in other things contrary to Islam as defined in the Holy Qur'aan and Sunnah, such as: [We, the Black Muslims, believe] "in the truth of the Bible, but we believe that it has been tampered with and must be reinterpreted so that mankind will not be snared by the falsehoods that have been added to it."

The problem with this belief is that Islam says that Bible is adulterated but there has not been any mention of reinterpretation of Bible, because the Holy Qur'aan has replaced every previous Book and every human and genie has to ask guidance from the Holy Qur'aan in all matters.

Further, the Nation of Islam's says, "That we who declare ourselves to be righteous Muslims, should not participate in wars which take the lives of humans. We do not believe this nation should force us to take part in such wars, for we have nothing to gain from it unless America agrees to give us the necessary territory wherein we may have something to fight for".

The problem with this belief is that the Holy Qur'aan and Sunnah are crystal clear on the necessity of going to war when the situation demands.

The Nation of Gods and Earths (5% Nation of Islam) is apparently an offshoot of the so-called Nation of Islam. Like its parent, this group's beliefs clearly identify it as being fundamentally outside the pale of Islam. Specifically, and we quote (from their homepage): The original man is the Asiatic Blackman, the maker, the owner, the cream of the planet Earth, father of civilization, God of the Universe. ...the blackman is god and his proper name is Allah. Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head.

This is in clear contradiction with one of the essential axioms of Islam, namely that Allah (God) is Creator and all else (including men -- Asiatic blacks or otherwise) is created. In chapter 25, verse 54 of the Holy Qur'aan, Allah says that He has created man, therefore it is logically impossible for man to be Allah. The second quote above is a prime example of a tendency of the "Nation of Gods and Earths" to conjure up beliefs that are, to a large extent, highly confused. Some examples of these beliefs that have nothing to do with Islam are "supreme mathematics and alphabet", an evil person named Yacob, a prophet named WD Fard, and a belief that black people are superior in some way.

The true Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam), refuted this last racist belief in his Farewell Address, 'O people! Verily your Lord is one and your father is one. All of you belong to one ancestry of Adam, and Adam was created out of clay. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab; nor for white over the black nor for the black over the white, except in piety. Verily the noblest among you is he who is the most pious.' For a deeper expose of this group and its parent -- Nation of Islam -- the interested reader might wish to examine the autobiography of the late Malik Al-Shabaz (Malcolm X).

The Ah Movement, which originated in the Indian subcontinent, espouses beliefs, which leave no doubt as to their apostasy from Islam.

Among their erroneous beliefs is their denial of the Finality of Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam), an article of faith endorsed by the Holy Qur'aan and Hadith, and reports as well as the consensus of the Companions and scholars.

The Holy Qur'aan states: "O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Messenger of Allah and the last in the line of Prophets. And Allah is aware of everything." (33:40)

The true Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam), observed: "The tribe of Israel was guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another succeeded him. But no prophet will come after me; only caliphs will succeed me." (Sahih Bukhari)

The followers of the Ah Movement are followers of a certain Mirza, who lay claim to prophethood and used fabricated Hadith reports and twisted meanings of some Qur'aanic verses to support himself. The Mirza, quoting the verse of the Holy Qur'aan about the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam), wrote in his book 'Aik Ghalati Ka Izalah' (A remedy to an error): "Muhammadur Rasoolullah: In this revelation I have been 'Muhammad' and 'Prophet' also."

This means that he did not only claim to be Prophet Muhammad by himself but also to be a prophet. He also opined in his other books that he was the reincarnation of Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam).

However, the true Prophet of Islam warned of this danger explicitly, "The Hour will not come ... until nearly thirty "Dajjals" (liars) appear, each one claiming to be a messenger from Allah." (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

Shortly after the death of Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam), a man named Musailamah, a claimant of prophethood, was fought against together with his followers for their apostasy. It is worth noting that Musailamah did not deny the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) and nor did his followers. It is also worth noting that it was misinformation that led the tribe of Banu Hunaifa to accept Musailamah's false claims.

Nevertheless, the consensus of the Companions (Radhi Allaho anhum) was to declare them apostates and wage a war against them. This is evidence enough to declare the Ahmadis as non-Muslims. For a more thorough treatment of this subject consult this article.

Another example of the rejection of the Holy Qur'aan and Sunnah by the followers of this movemnet is their contention that Jesus Christ had died and the Mirza was a reincarnation of Jesus Christ. In fact, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985, the Mirza claimed to be not only Jesus Christ but Prophet Muhammad, the Mahdi, and the Hindu god Krishna.

It suffices to refer back to the essence of Islam, which is the Uniqueness of God: any concept of man becoming god, worse yet a Hindu god who is one out of many, is false according to the Holy Qur'aan. On this, Islam is un-comprising, hence this error of the followers of the Ah Movement is the foremost indication of their exit from Islam.

The Submitters are followers of the late Rashad Khalifa, a man who claimed to be a Messenger of Allah. This claim in itself is sufficient to remove the Submitters from Islam as the Holy Qur'aan clearly states: "O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Messenger of Allah and the last in the line of Prophets. And Allah is aware of everything." (33:40)

As quoted above from the Sahih Bukhari, Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) informed the Ummah that the tribe of Israel was guided by prophets, when a prophet passed away, another succeeded him, but no prophet will come after Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam), only caliphs would succeed him.

Much of Rashad Khalifa's misguidance can be traced to his obsession with numerology, an obsession which has misguided many different people throughout history. Khalifa alleged that the Holy Qur'aan contained a mathematical code which revolved around the number 19.

Khalifa even went to the extent of removing two verses from the Holy Qur'aan, because according to him "the word 'God' ... is not a multiple of 19, unless we remove [it]", and the "sum of all verse numbers where the word 'God' occurs is ... 19x6217 ... If the false verse 9:129 is included, this phenomenon disappears."

By rejecting a single verse of the Holy Qur'aan, the Submitters bring themselves under the judgement of another verse, "Do you believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in another part? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom." (2:85)

It is interesting to note that Khalifa was a numerologist who did his blighted profession justice: he predicted the end of the world. However, Allah says in the Holy Qur'aan, "They ask you about the (last) hour, when will be its taking place? Say: The knowledge of it is only with my Lord; none but He shall manifest it at its time; it will be momentous in the heavens and the earth; it will not come on you but of a sudden. They ask you as if you were solicitous about it. Say: Its knowledge is only with Allah, but most people do not know." (7:187)

The Submitters also reject the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) -- not part of it, but the whole of it. For the Submitters, the Sunnah is not a source of Islam.

The problems this presents are overwhelming, for by doing so the Submitters have effectively destroyed their ability to perform: Salaat (obligatory prayers), the second pillar of Islam; Zakat (obligatory tax), the third pillar of Islam; Sawm (fasting), the fourth pillar of Islam; Hajj (pilgrimage), the fifth pillar of Islam. With four out of the five pillars of Islam removed, the Submitters have little to back their claim to being "Muslims". The true Messenger of Islam (saws) warned Muslims of falling into this trap, Narrated AbuRafi':

Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) said: "Let me not find one of you reclining on his couch when he hears something regarding me which I have commanded or forbidden [i.e. from the Sunnah] and saying: 'We do not know. What we found in Allah's Book [i.e. the Holy Qur'aan] we have followed.'" (Abu Dawood)

Before they signed the Nizam-e-Adl bill

Even when the ink had not yet dried on the presidential signature on the Nizam-e-Adl accord, the two prime signatories proceeded to their next favourite and much expected moves. The president packed his luggage and left for Dubai. The Maulana made a statement that the judgements of Qazi courts cannot be challenged in any other court and his next goal is to implement the Nizam-e-Adl in the rest of Pakistan. After all, Islamabad is just 100 miles away from the home of the new Sharia country and the Maulana sees no reason why his brand of justice should not be shared by its neighbours.

Malakand Division, a region that encompasses more than one-third of the North-West Frontier Province is now under a Sharia system that will primarily be defined by two great "jurists-in-law" (father-in-law and son-in-law). One is Maulana Fazlullah, whose real skills lie in the fields of radio frequency (RF) engineering and mass murder. He did not just ask 80,000 girls to quit education, but also destroyed the 200 schools that were engaged in this process. He also waged a bloody war against the state of Pakistan, killing hundreds of soldiers and civilians, in some cases dragging their dead bodies on the roads. The other is Sufi Mohammad, who was in jail till a few months back for his excellence in raising private armies. He led some 5,000 young men into Afghanistan in 2001, most of whom never returned to fight another day.

We need to understand what Sufi Mohammad and company really want. ''We hate democracy," Sufi recently told the crowd of thousands of followers in Mingora.

"We want the occupation of Islam in the entire world. Islam does not permit democracy or election. From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections," he told the German news agency DPA just days before the Swat Accord was signed. His role model of a government is the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. He said: "I believe the Taliban government formed a complete Islamic state, which was an ideal example for other Muslim countries." The Sufi has no ambiguity on the nature of punishments that he intends to generously distribute. "Penalties, including flogging, chopping off hands and stoning to death, must be available to Swat's Islamic courts. These punishments are prescribed in Islam. No one can stop that. It is God's law," said Sufi Mohammad, sitting on the floor in his makeshift headquarters in Mingora.

The Pakistani state has surrendered to the Sufi and the Maulana-led militants for imposition of a despotic rule in Malakand. The lives, wishes and faith of thousands of men, women and children have been made hostage to the interpretations of a few individuals. The Sufi wants the regular courts in Swat to pack up and leave as the "shariat" courts with "qazis" will start functioning soon. These were not the democratic ideals this country was made for. The new "peace accord" may well have signalled the end of Pakistan as we know it.

What has caused parts of Pakistan (and perhaps the entire Pakistan at some stage) to begin surrendering to speedy justice and other promised social reforms by militants. Clearly, for all these years, the state could provide its citizens nothing but poor governance, delayed justice, lawlessness and massive corruption. These are fertile conditions that would make any people vulnerable and receptive to alternate options. A small band of fanatics can easily occupy the space vacated by a large peaceful majority. The political parties and the civil society (except for the MQM) have failed to take a clear position and have opted to watch the show from the sidelines. Clearly, no lessons were learnt from the famous words of German anti-Nazi theologian Pastor Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the communists [read Swat], and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist [read Swati]. Then they came for me, and there was no one was left to speak for me."

It is the responsibility of the state to guarantee the right to life, liberty and security of every citizen, without distinction of race, sex, religion, or the territory to which a person belongs. The state cannot hand over these rights to people who themselves have arrived at the scene by conquering a territory of Pakistan. The political leadership and the armed forces of Pakistan ought to be held accountable for this surrender. The survival of the state as a cohesive society is seriously threatened if it continues to overlook and patronise the urban militancy (such as the one witnessed at Shanakht Festival), as well as the religious fanaticism.

Pakistan would be on a self-destruct trajectory if the state was to become instrumental in enforcing any one or the other brand of a sect or a religion on all its citizens. One wished there was a short "Universal Declaration of Human Rights 101" course given to all our legislators before they signed the Nizam-e-Adl bill in such indecent haste.