Hamid Mir – pro-Taliban, Sunni-Tehreek, Shia
Hamid Mir – compere
Ahl-e-Hadith – Prof. Sajid Mir (Ameer i.e. Chief, Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith) – Ahl-e-Hadith generally pro-Wahhabi/Saudi
Sunni-Tehreek – Muhammed Ejaz Qadri (moderate Sunni group)
Shia – Allama Jalil Naqvi (President, Islami Tehreek Punjab)
JUI-F – MPA Mufti Kifayatullah (pro-Taliban, pro-Baitullah Mehsud)
Hamid Mir convinces himself that the Ulema agree that suicide bombing is “ghair-sharai”.
“Fitna” groups as stress creators
Mufti Kifayatullah (JUI-F – Fazl-ur-Rahman group) keeps on presenting a thesis that “fatah-e-Mecca” hasn’t happened yet.
That is, basically Sharia has not been implemented, so he basically welcomes any chaos that happens before that “since Sharia is not there to address criminal behaviour” – in effect placing the same Khariji forces (historical – a group which rebelled and was put down by Hazrat Ali) who are CREATING the “fitna” and chaos in charge of the eventual “bringing of justice”.
He says “when there is Sharia we can stop all this”. This is a facetious argument, and bordering on “harami pan” because it seeks to “zich” the other party by requiring some elaborate scheme to be accomplished BEFORE the competence and “naik neeati” of the “Khariji rebels” is EVER brought to challenge.
It essentially gives a LOT of space to criminals to do whatever they want, “because there is no law and order”. Essentially it is the criminals giving THEMSELVES the license to flaunt all rules of morality “because we are not living in a time of order”.
What does that say about these people ? That they have a predilection for disorder and chaos and are EAGER for any lapse in order to assert THEIR disorder.
What does it say about their “nee-at” (i.e. intention) ?
It is these same people who place a moral equivalent between U.S. action “drone hamlay” and fighting the Pakistani state. What if the Pakistani state was biding it’s time due to strategic “maslayhat” ?
Essentially these “islamic forces” are NOT going to let Pakistan use all it’s strategic options to navigate the minefield of competing pressures.
What role then are these groups playing ? Except as stress creators to be used against the Pakistani state to “hold it’s feet to the fire”.
The “taqayya” of Mufti Kifayatullah
Another behaviour pattern you see in Mufti Kifayatullah (and also in the FATA MNA who went to negotiate with Maulana Aziz (Lal Masjid) but INSTEAD said “dattay raho” to him) is that they say things which telegraph their pro-Taliban stance, but when pressed on the issue by Hamid Mir or others they will issue some non-commital statement which essentially misleads.
So while they KNOW that Baitullah Mehsud is involved in killing of people, Mufti Kifayatullah will try to float the idea that Baitullah Mehsud is “himself” against such attacks (the words barely come out of his mouth – reminds of Powell at the U.N. Security Council when he was visibly uncomfortable and lied through his teeth that Iraq has WMDs “on trucks”).
Essentially many of these pro-Taliban groups like Jamaat-e-Islami and people like Mufti Kifayatullah indulge in “creative lying” i.e. they are saving their asses from incriminating themselves TOO much – i.e. after all they can’t say they are against the state while sitting among the studio audience. Since by their rules of symmetry, the behaviour of the Taliban COULD be reproduced by the state and they could be beheaded on TV as well. So these people KNOW the “thin crust” of weak logic they are standing on. And they KNOW they are way beyond the bounds of reason.
Basically they have an idea that they want to do certain things by hook or by crook. In the meantime they are not going to follow any Islamic laws, because “there is no Islamic Sharia”. Usually such a circumstance is used to give leeway to people – NOT to give leeway to Taliban to kill with abandon !
This is a convenient presumption, but ALSO totally without reason – because the SAME thing could be said of THEIR organizations. That the state does not find them “according to Sharia”.
Jamaat-e-Islami and most Wahhabi/Saudi inspired groups see the Taliban as a REPLAY of the Saud tribe takeover of Arabia from Ottoman Empire (by invoking the conveniently placed Abdul Wahhab’s “Takfiri” fatwas against the Ottoman Caliphate). Since rebellion against the Islamic state is a definite “no-no” in Islam (because it causes “fitna” and disorder and chaos and essentially because it opens up the state to outside forces) the availability of Abdul Wahhab was an asset for the British (Lawrence of Arabia). The Jamaat-e-Islami and other such groups which are STUCK to a policy of opposition of the Pakistani state, have finessed arguments to justify their actions. They have decided they are going to say that “since Sharia is not in effect”. you cannot apply Islamic rules on the Taliban. This is a totally self-serving point of view, perhaps MORE designed to fool their OWN members, some of whom may rise and ask WHY they are doing this. These wishy washy “arguments” which are more “laffazi” than any real rationale are thus designed to lull their members into NOT opposing whatever they are doing.
It is as if these “religious parties” have an overarching AGENDA. Once the agenda is decided they THEN figure out a way to justify it in “Islamic” terms. So their goals are not dictated by Islamic sensibilities, but rather the goals are established as purely political (advantage/disadvantage) arithmetic, and THEN an “Islamic” justification is weaved. Which is why sometimes their explanation does not make sense or does not appeal as “natural” behaviour for Muslims to the average Muslim.
And the reason is that they have been used as a tool from the 1960s (fight against Communism) to the Afghan War. They have as much to do with “Islam” as any other party. The only difference is that they have to construct elaborate arguments to give legitimacy (among their cadre). Once they have that, they behave like any other party.
Within the Jamaat-e-Islami itself there was a major break in it’s early career over whether it should join active politics or not. A filtration process occurred and the JI we see now are those who thought there was “no problem” in mixing Islam and self-serving behaviour.
What is interesting however in this program is the Ahl-e-Hadith (also Wahhabi-inspired) representative’s ambivalent attitude. Maybe it is because he is not a Pashtun and is not mixing the tribal/pagan beliefs and Islamic sense in his arguments. For Pashtun groups there can be a tendency to slip and start calling everything they do as “Islamic”. Because when they sit in judgement over themselves and do not allow any other, there are ALL kinds of opportunities for self-delusion – based on tribal “agreement”. They are unlikely to also encounter any challenges which may shake the very foundations of their beliefs and reduce it to a primitive pagan belief system, instead of “Islam”.
Shia and Sunni-Tehreek
The Shia and Sunni Tehreek (moderate Sunni) groups are dead against the ideology of Mufti Kifayatullah, since they have been the victims of attacks. The Shia due to the proxy war fought in Pakistan over the years (sponsored by U.S./Saudi/Israeli to curtail Irani influence – which manifested itself in the Sipah-e-Sahaba which has in the past been linked to Mossad).
The Shia have seen it in the attacks on their mosques (imambargahs) for the last 2 decades.
The Sunni Tehreek has seen it in the “Nishtar Park tragedy” where the top echelon of the party was decapitated by a devastating bomb during their public gathering.
When Sunni Tehreek representative points out the involvement of “religious groups” (perpetrator was shot by guards and taken to hospital and turned out to be Sipah-e-Sahaba), Hamid Mir is not interested and wants to move on.
Hamid Mir displays impatience when Ulema make arguments pointing to REAL violations by “fitna” groups.
Meanwhile he has infinite patience with Mufti Kifayatullah – essentially rephrasing what he has said in a more positive light and saying he “is happy” that they all agree.
What is all that – it is as if Hamid Mir thinks that by flattering Mufti Kifayatullah he can make him suddenly feel “quite moderate” ? That is, Hamid Mir is working to calm him down or is he trying to embellish what Mufti Kifayatullah says to create an impression of “commonality” (when none exists between Mufti Kifayatullah and others).
Mufti Kifayatullah shouts all over the place and interrupts others at will. And Hamid Mir lets him be. Perhaps he senses he will not be able to control him, so he uses the carrot approach – praising him effusively for things he has NOT SAID !
Even though Hamid Mir DOES display impatience with Mufti Kifayatullah on occasion, one must not forget that he is brought to the program by CHOICE (of the Geo TV team).
Hamid Mir probably sees him as a good defender of the pro-Taliban voice that has to be portrayed on TV.
Hamid Mir also GLOSSES over the SERIOUS differences between the Ulema over BASICS. Basically Mufti Kifayatullah himself suggests he does not value the state and is waiting for a “fatah-e-Mecca” (i.e. basically alluding to the transition between the “pre-Islamic state” and the “Islamic state” where Islamic writ was established).
Hamid Mir instead chooses to JUST SAY that “they all agree” on this or that point ! Watch the end and compare it to what was actually said during the program.
“They all agree”
He is out on a mission to show that “they all agree”, but the contents of the program DO NOT suggest that Mufti Kifayatullah is on the same side – for him the state of Pakistan IS in non-sharia compliance, and in that he is MIRRORING the views of Sufi Muhammed.
Hamid Mir praises Mufti Kifayatullah excessively, instead of pointing out that Mufti Kifayatullah is glossing over ALL inequity by the Taliban as “pre-Mecca fatah” (i.e. basically “anything goes” – however these pro-Taliban maulvis essentially take it a step further by wanting to CAPITALIZE on the pre-Sharia period (i.e. it is ok for them to rob people, hold hostage for ransom and so on).
It is a very “jahil” or self-serving reading of Islamic doctrine. By their logic, the rules of war do not apply to them because they do not accept the state as legal. How different is this from Bush not counting Afghans as legimate POWs and instead labelling them as “enemy combatants” with restricted human rights ?
By their rules, the criminal elements should have been tearing apart and killing people for 1400 years because no “Islamic state” is worthy of their approval – except of course Saudi Arabia (i.e. the Arabia of SAUD).
These people find NO “tazaad” in what they say. And they do not see how closely their behaviour matches that of the Kharijites (or the Hashashin).
Their arguments also PRESUME that the eventual state (with their men running it) will be somehow better (after all that is the basic rationale for their “anything goes” policy – that EVENTUALLY they will create paradise on earth). However what if the Taliban ARE incompetent and not suitable to govern ?
They have shown signs of this in Afghanistan – leaving “riaya” at the mercy of outsiders while they ran away
Writ of the state
Both the Shia and Sunni Tehreek Ulema are STRONGLY in favour of the state imposing it’s will over wayward groups.
The Shia representative points out the solved suicide attack cases all point to Taliban controlled areas. And the lack of repudiation by Taliban leadership of such attacks.
Instead one hears Mufti Kifayatullah and Hamid Mir put forward dubious claims of repudiation by Mullah Umar and others.
Although those stories are not emphasized as much by Mullah Umar, when he could have created headlines by a direct statement to that effect. The reality is that the Afghan Taliban DO use it – whatever the route (whether by the Arab fighters or other) it HAS infiltrated itself into their standard arsenal against the Northern Alliance, and the U.S. The Tehreek-e-Taliban has applied the same pattern in Pakistan.
Mufti Kifayatullah statements betray his partiality for the Tehreek-e-Taliban, when he says the party to negotiate with should have been Tehreek-e-Taliban. This is true, but that is IF one wanted to negotiate with them. The job was assigned to Sufi Muhammed and he failed – whether it bought time for military action or not is besides the point. The point is Sufi Muhammad “nay koi kasar bhi nahin chhori”. Though one DID sense that his spokesmen made efforts at times to moderate his pronouncements (maybe Sufi Muhammed is not fully cognizant of his actions ?).
Sufi Muhammed’s instead labelled the Pakistani legal system and parliament as Kafir (though there is some truth to the irregularity of these systems – however calling them Kufr is extreme and shows just how lax Sufi Muhammed is in applying that epithet). This suggests they are going to be lax when they apply it to random people who are opposed to them. Meaning they are starting to turn egotistical and bend Islamic sensibility to favour their very real world justification to kill fellow Muslims.
Mufti Kifayatullah takes pains to say Baitullah Mehsud himself was against suicide bombings. But even Hamid Mir finds this a stretch.
The question is if Mufti Kifayatullah is a legitimate expert, HOW is it that he uses such sloppy language ? That is, he gets carried away in saying SOMETHING in defence of Baitullah Mehsud and is willing to manufacture statements that he thinks probably Baitullah Mehsud would say ?
Sunni Tehreek representative points out the hodge podge nature of these militant groups. How they are essentially criminal. And the very fact that they have NO central authority makes them an unsuitable party to negotiate with. And there is some merit in this – as any group which can negotiate concessions from the state, but then NOT enforce them on groups that are supposedly allied with it, reduces the value of those discussions.
Mufti Kifayatullah keeps interrupting the others, and in advancing his thesis that this is “before the fatah-e-Mecca” suggests that this is the “pre-Sharia” stage and essentially “bad things will happen” and “you better install Sharia then”. This type of red herring argument is ignored by Hamid Mir (or flies over his head). He does not challenge the circuitous nature of this argument – in effect ANYONE who does not want any REAL agreement WILL ask for conditions to be met which WILL NOT HAPPEN.
For example people in Pakistan expecting the Pakistani state to “stop drone attacks” before things will improve is asking for non-resolution – because Pakistan cannot STOP the U.S. from doing what the U.S. is intent on doing (more so during Bush era when their motives were especially screwed up – less so under Obama as it has to follow some sense or more so than Bush/Cheney).
Mufti Kifayatullah insisting that “if you install Sharia” all this will stop is also such a red herring. It is asking the state to change systems radically in a short time, and to give THEM power while denying that power to others.
THIS is why the pro-Taliban maulvis exhibit a particular “harami pana” i.e. a “makaariat”. Where you can see them gloat (with a smile on their face) – and all this while Pakistanis are dying – which suggests they feel “now we’ve got them”.
Which suggests they are essentially making decisions on who is giving them money, what they are getting (development of local chieftains), yett wrapped in the garb of “Islamic” action.
This is the type of behaviour the Sunni Tehreek representative catches in his statement that in Islam you do not even “zibah” animals for qurbani in front of each other. Yet these people do it to people in front of each other. And what does this say about their behaviours meshing with the sensibility of Islam.
1/4 Hamid Mir – pro-Taliban, Sunni-Tehreek, Shia – May 20, 2009
2/4 Hamid Mir – pro-Taliban, Sunni-Tehreek, Shia – May 20, 2009
3/4 Hamid Mir – pro-Taliban, Sunni-Tehreek, Shia – May 20, 2009
4/4 Hamid Mir – pro-Taliban, Sunni-Tehreek, Shia – May 20, 2009