May 31, 2010
Shame On Us
A time arrives when circumstances dictate that there is no choice.
“Of course the choice is yours”--- said the nonchalant and gentle voice---typically urbane, typically sophisticated— of a seasoned diplomat in the Embassy of Pakistan. His thinning hair jet black and a sliver of mustache equally gleaming above his lips curled into a smile. His eyes shone as he leaned back in his chair behind his desk—amused. A shrug of his shoulders as he contemplated me—his finger tips delicately brought together as his index fingers touched his lips and his thumbs held up his chin. As though, he were contemplating an experiment, or a work in progress. He had dealt with me before, at an embassy reception when we had gotten into an argument about Bhutto and Benazir— Bhutto had been hanged by then and she was in jail. General Zia-ul-Haq’s era was at its zenith. I had exchanged heated words with the embassy man. Now here I was sitting before him in his office at the Pakistan embassy, there to have my passport renewed. And here I was refusing to sign a clause in the application form.
“I won’t sign this” I repeated.
“Fine,” he said, “It is entirely up to you. Then I guess we are done here.”
I sat facing him in silence. He fingered the edge of the application form that I had tossed in his direction. Then without needing to push it back towards me---there was no need, he must have known, he must have done this before---he waited for the moment when I rose from my chair, as I did and watched as I leaned over his desk and retrieved the form. I signed. I needed the passport.
He grinned. “Good girl. Your hero had the Ahmedis declared as non-Muslim through an amendment in 1974 in his newly minted 1973 constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Remember?”
“He had no choice! He was forced to!”------“Like I was today.”
“Forced, really? Who forced you? Said the embassy man, his eyebrows raised in mock surprise “No one forced anyone. You weren’t forced—the choice is always yours”.
The section I signed demands that I declare, attest to the fact that I am Muslim. Muslim in a manner that the Pakistan State defines as being Muslim. This section is called: Declaration In Case of Muslim.
It reads thus:
The above heading announces a section on page two of the Pakistan Passport Application. I ______s/d/w/of-----aged--------adult Muslim, resident of__________________ hereby solemnly declare that:
a. I am Muslim and believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the prophets.
b. I do not recognize any persons who claim to be a prophet in any sense of the word or any description whatsoever after Muhummad (peace be upon him) or recognize such a claimant as prophet or a religious reformer as a Muslim.
c. I consider Mirza Ghulam Qadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahore or Qadiani group to be Non-Muslim.
The section demands that you sign your name, the date and attest with your thumb print agreement with the three statements above. This section demands that you sign on to State sponsored cessation of thought and rationality. It demands that you consider Islam as only being something defined by the State of Pakistan—and as being only predicated on the negation of all others. Ordinance XX of the Government of Pakistan promulgated under General Zia ul Haq and still on the books forbids Ahmedis to call themselves Muslim or refer to their mosques as mosques or to recite the Kalima or greet using the Muslim salutation. The law of the land forbids Ahmedis to protest or take to court any injustice done to them in the name of religion including the destruction of their mosques.
The same type of clause is present in the National Identification Card's form.
There is silence about taking any real meaningful action against the violence and injustice wreaked upon the Ahmedi community. Witness the murderous events that unfolded at two mosques in Lahore, Pakistan on Friday May 28, 2010.
A report titled Persecution of the Ahmadiyya Community in Pakistan: An Analysis Under International Law and International Relations, in the Harvard Human Rights Journal states “The right to religious freedom was not only central to the struggle for the independent state of Pakistan in 1947; it was also an important part of a larger worldwide debate over human rights at that time Zafrullah Khan, the Pakistani representative to the session, Pakistan’s first foreign minister, and an Ahmadi, hailed the adoption of the articles as an “epoch-making event” and considered them entirely consistent with Islam’s emphatic denunciation of compulsion in religion. Re-asserting Jinnah’s ideals, Khan said the following to the General Assembly at the occasion of the adoption of Article 18 of the UDHR: Pakistan is an ardent defender of freedom of thought and belief and of all the freedoms listed in Article 18. For the Pakistani delegation, the problem had a special significance as some of its aspects involved the honor of Islam . . . . The Muslim religion unequivocally claims the right to freedom of conscience and has declared itself against any kind of compulsion in matters of faith or religious practices.”
The State of Pakistan has morphed over six decades into something beyond recognition. There must be millions like me who silently signed and continue to sign—an application form for a Passport of their country—meted out to them by embassies and consulates all over the world and the passport offices in Pakistan.
This declaration in the passport that the citizens of Pakistan have to sign in order to obtain a passport is the State sponsored terrorism which forces the Pakistan State’s home-brewed religion. It should be called “Paki-slam”—the definition of religion that the Pakistani State has foisted upon all its citizens. This is the campaign of hatred started by the Islamic fundamentalist parties decades ago in Pakistan to which every politician cow-towed including Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. In fact, if memory serves me correctly isn’t the current Pakistan Ambassador to the US a former leading luminary of the fundamentalist Islamic party that unleashed this terror in Pakistan against the Ahmedis?
The first thing that States that claim to have tolerant and open societies should demand of the State of Pakistan—in the war on terror is that Pakistan overturn this Paki-slam by removing this odious barbaric declaration. This claiming of one’s faith not only in a narrow manner of absolutism but also claiming piety and faith by negating and humiliating someone else’s beliefs should be repugnant and absolutely unacceptable to all States who claim to be otherwise.
Countries should ban Pakistanis, all Pakistanis, this includes the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister from traveling abroad to countries who claim to be open societies---until this declaration is removed, erased, deleted from the form.
If this is not done---The question becomes: Why NOT?
The time has come—there is no choice.
Posted by Maniza Naqvi at 12:30 AM | Permalink






















Comments
If this is true, it is truly an atrocity.
Posted by: TalesNTypos | May 31, 2010 8:16:20 AM
Of course it is true.
Unfortunately, unlike Maniza, I believe the rot set in from the beginning. It was close to inevitable that Pakistan would take this path, founded as it was on a religious basis which paid no attention to other allegiances by people who had only limited allegiance to democracy or human rights.
It doesn't get nearly as much press on this blog, but the situation might even be worse for Christians and Hindus in Pakistan, where you can be sentenced to death and lose your property for "insulting the Prophet", as interpreted by any random Muslim who happens to be annoyed by you.
It's telling that the news organizations in Pakistan don't refer to the Ahmadis as Muslims, merely as minority groups.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | May 31, 2010 8:42:02 AM
btw, Maniza you and I can write "attack on mosque" because we are outside Pakistan. Within Pakistan activist Ibrahim Malik (and others) have already been threatened with legal action because they used the term "mosque" in reference to the attack. NO Pakistani media outlet is calling those places mosques and neither is the ever compliant BBC ("place of worship" seems to be the correct National-Socialist term).
http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/faithful -killers- fatal-worship/ 1444/
Posted by: omar | May 31, 2010 12:23:12 PM
Damn right there isn't.
"Countries should ban Pakistanis, all Pakistanis, this includes the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister from traveling abroad to countries who claim to be open societies---until this declaration is removed, erased, deleted from the form.
If this is not done---The question becomes: Why NOT?
The time has come—there is no choice."
Posted by: Zainab | May 31, 2010 1:17:02 PM
Speaking of state-mandated Islam, an English friend of mine currently teaching in Maldives brought this to my attention.
Posted by: Sagredo | May 31, 2010 5:33:26 PM
Maniza -- thanks for this post.
Posted by: Amardeep | May 31, 2010 11:54:39 PM
First mosques, then hospitals:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/gunmen-kill-12-in-raid-on-hospital-treating-mosque-attack-victims-1988108.html
btw, the Hindu-Zionist-Bahai-freemasons then escaped in a police vehicle. 40 policemen were present at the hospital BEFORE the attack, but thanks to the superior planning of the elders of Zion, no attacker was arrested or killed. Undoubtedly, they will be back.
I used to think that at least the punjab police will be slightly more competent than the Mumbai police when it comes to direct exchange of fire with terrorists ...this optimistic belief was based on little more than my subconscious Punjabi chauvinism: the notion that after all even policemen are punjabis and punjabis do armies, police services and cabs. After all, our ancestors policed the whole bloody British empire, so even in our decayed state, the residual karma of the Raj should show some effect.... but its seems that too was an overly optimistic assessment.
Posted by: omar | Jun 1, 2010 1:13:54 AM
I remember reading and then rereading this document when applying for a Pakistani passport afetr the death of the munafiq Zia.
This piece of perfidy, against the basis of Jinnah's Pakistan, makes even the Numerburg Laws long held up as a beacon of state terrorism pale into insignificance.
Yet today, our commentators have long forgotten the tragedy of few days, the murder of fellow Pakistanis and are thinking of ways of galvanising the glorious, noble Ummah to save our brothers in Palestine.
To qoute Bullah Shah:
aiwain parh parh ilm hazaar kitaban,
kadi apne aap nu parheya hi naen
aiwain larhda shaitan de naal bandeya,
kadi nafs apnay naal larheya hi naen
Posted by: Wasif | Jun 1, 2010 4:55:27 AM
The Pakistan National Identity Card form has the same clause:
http://www.pakistanconsulateny.org/PDF/nicop-form.pdf
Posted by: 1stheycame4U | Jun 1, 2010 10:23:29 AM
As I recall Prof Eqbal Ahmed refused to sign this clause. And was given the Pakistani passport...hats off to him.
Posted by: Seema | Jun 2, 2010 3:39:18 AM
Thanks, Seema.
I found the artcile on Eqbal Ahmad:
http://pakistaniat.com/2006/10/13/eqbal-ahmad/
"What about Eqbal’s stand regarding the Ahmadis? He was clearly against their persecution. Bhutto had got Parliament to declare them as “non-Muslims”. Gen Zia took this a step further by having Pakistani passports declare the holder’s religion, and by making Muslim applicants sign a statement denouncing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as an imposter. When applying for his passport from the New York embassy, Eqbal refused to sign the statement. Afraid of the international scandal that would ensue if this was made into an issue, the Pakistan government granted him the passport.
I knew Eqbal as a colleague in the human rights and peace movements in Pakistan and India, and spoke of him in that context. To me, as to so many others, he was always “just Eqbal”. Always courteous, he would listen attentively with genuine curiosity to anyone, regardless of differences like age, status and experience, and ask thought-provoking questions that provided new insight. He extended the same courtesy to those who opposed his progressive, secular world view — from military dictators to religious extremists. Some criticised him for this — there are extremists among progressives too, who prefer not to hear the other side."
Posted by: maniza | Jun 2, 2010 10:30:39 AM
Good start: see below. Now they have remove the Ordinance still in place since Zia's time and the clauses in the ID card application and the passport inserted during Zia ul Haq's time and the Amendment to the Constitution under ZA Bhutto's time.:
Article in Express Tribune June 5, 2010:
The passage through the National Assembly of a resolution which terms the killing of Ahmadis in Lahore a ‘brutal massacre’ is to be welcomed. It demonstrates the kind of courage we need from our legislators. Perhaps male members of the house, in a country where machismo reigns supreme in many spheres should ask themselves why it was three women legislators – from the PPP, the ANP and the MQM – who insisted the motion moved by former information minister Sherry Rehman be taken up. There had been some danger that, like the Senate, the National Assembly would simply remain silent on the issue – as it has done in the past following such instances – fearing a backlash from hardliners within and beyond the house. This never came. In fact, over the past few days it is becoming clear the hardliners are essentially bullies, seeking to attack when they see weakness. They most often opt not to do so when those who oppose their views stand up for themselves rather than being cowed down. Of course, in all of this one cannot ignore the irony that while most Pakistanis chose to remain silent on the brutal killing of the Ahmadis, many did take to the streets to protest against Israel’s actions in the Mediterranean Sea off Gaza. Of course this is not to say that those who died in the Israeli raid gave their lives for nothing or that Israel is a peace-loving state, but that why do we say nothing when monsters kill in our backyard?
We have also seen and heard over the past few days bold discussions at other forums on the attack on the Ahmadis and the discrimination against the community. Television talk shows have taken up the matter, allowing leaders of that community to put forward their views before the public. This marks an important step forward. Key issues, even if they are controversial, need to be spoken about. Only then can we move towards resolving them and pushing back the tide of intolerance that has overtaken us over the past few decades. The National Assembly has joined this process; hardliners have been shown their voice is that of a minority. Similar efforts to win back the soul of our country must be made over the weeks ahead, with legislators, the media and social activists joining hands for this purpose.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/18824/courageous-condemnation/?sms_ss=facebook
Posted by: maniza | Jun 6, 2010 12:57:45 PM
Excellent and timely conversation on a core issue. I simply love it. I am encouraged by this conversation and also by the enlightened women in Pakistan parliament who showed that they could speak truth to power, something the men failed to do. To those three women, I say--you go girls!
Moreover, Pakistan is our country. Together let's make every effort to ensure that no religious bigot impose his outdated and rotten ideology on the people. Let each Pakistani citizen think for himself or herself. People should be free to choose and practice their faith. We must not allow the government to divide Pakistani citizens into first class and second class. All Pakistanis should enjoy equal status.
Keep the conversation going!
Good luck to all.
Iftikhar
USA
Posted by: Iftikhar Ahmad | Jun 10, 2010 7:22:47 AM
the title of this blog is very good.shame on qadianis and shame on mirza ghulam qadiani the puppet of british empire.
Posted by: teechi teechi | Jul 8, 2010 9:01:14 AM
Hate-filled cowardice always uses a pseudonym- It hides behind a mask while lobbing ugly missives. You don't have the guts or the courage to be able to sign your own name to your hatred.
Posted by: maniza | Jul 8, 2010 7:58:54 PM
I as a comment would like to paste a part of this very article which is more than "good enough" to represent the beliefs of many "free thinking" and those pakistanisin who believe that the true spirit of Islam (And of any religion for that matter) does not lead to any biased or ectremist thinking and practices in matters of religion(s) :"the Harvard Human Rights Journal states “The right to religious freedom was not only central to the struggle for the independent state of Pakistan in 1947; it was also an important part of a larger worldwide debate over human rights at that time Zafrullah Khan, the Pakistani representative to the session, Pakistan’s first foreign minister, and an Ahmadi, hailed the adoption of the articles as an “epoch-making event” and considered them entirely consistent with Islam’s emphatic denunciation of compulsion in religion. Re-asserting Jinnah’s ideals, Khan said the following to the General Assembly at the occasion of the adoption of Article 18 of the UDHR: Pakistan is an ardent defender of freedom of thought and belief and of all the freedoms listed in Article 18. For the Pakistani delegation, the problem had a special significance as some of its aspects involved the honor of Islam . . . . The Muslim religion unequivocally claims the right to freedom of conscience and has declared itself against any kind of compulsion in matters of faith or religious practices.” also would like to paste : "Countries should ban Pakistanis, all Pakistanis, this includes the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister from traveling abroad to countries who claim to be open societies---until this declaration is removed, erased, deleted from the form." And say we are for giving all others what we like to have for ourselves or our near & dear ones.....
Posted by: Aimal Shah | Feb 24, 2011 1:33:09 AM
Maniza, Try Eqbal Ahmed's strategy. It works.
Posted by: Anis | Feb 24, 2011 8:15:09 PM
I am so glad you took time out to right this. I was forced to sign on it as well. The question I have is, majority of the mainstream generic muslim pakistanis don't consider Agha khaanis / Ismaiilis as muslims. Heck, most Agha khanis don't relate directly themselves.I have no personal issue against them,as most of my best friends are from that denomination. But the wussy govt of pakistan, would dare not put any such prejudice against them!
Posted by: siddiqa | Feb 25, 2011 9:13:48 AM
And then we hear those middle upper middle class yuppies saying "We need to show positive image of Pakistan yaar!"
Posted by: M Ali Khan | Feb 25, 2011 11:55:51 AM
“He had no choice! He was forced to!”
Oh please!!! Who forced him? Why did he comply? Some leader he was!
Posted by: Ali Aziz | Feb 26, 2011 1:11:29 PM
Maniza writes: "Hate-filled cowardice always uses a pseudonym- It hides behind a mask while lobbing ugly missives. You don't have the guts or the courage to be able to sign your own name to your hatred."
Not ALWAYS Maniza. Sometimes hate-filled people just hide behind the impersonal remoteness of an internet connection. How's your own ugly-missive-lobbing and hate-filled prejudice coming along these days? Although I never got an apology (good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for one!), I hope your venom has dissipated, having been absorbed into your better self and transformed into better understanding of what it means to be a just and compassionate Human Being. I just figured that since you are going to write about hatred and injustice, you should be reminded to make sure you also conquer your own...
Posted by: Todd Shea | Feb 27, 2011 11:34:29 PM
Yes. What an outlandish and absolutely preposterous thought to have entertained! To even have thought such a thing--quite unforgiveable! The idea even that an American guy with a dubious history in development and life in general would land up in Pakistan in 2005 and might be there for not so good reasons--ie. might be a spy. What an outrageous opinion to even entertain. Spies, Americans, under the guise of other activities in Pakistan in 2005-2011? NEVER!!
Posted by: maniza | Mar 1, 2011 1:21:14 PM
Maniza, while it's certainly understandable for people to feel suspicion at first glance that a white guy doing relief work in Pakistan might be a spy, you know very well that you went much further than that in the course of the discussion about the NY Times video about me. It's all there in the 3 Quarks Daily historical archive. You displayed fully your unjustifiable racism, bigotry, smugness, inconsideration and arrogance towards me because your worldview just couldn't reconcile that a white guy in Pakistan might actually be doing good without any hidden agenda or inappropriate intentions. And even after being shown by myself and several others that your universally negative and bigoted assertions were nowhere near to reality, decency or simple fairness, you revealed your stubborn unwillingness to admit that anything you said was out of line. You can be whatever you want to be, but I just think that you should deal with your own racist thinking before calling out others for theirs. As for me, if I was a spy then I certainly couldn't still be working in Pakistan right now and I sure as heck wouldn't have been nominated last month for a national award honoring my service to Pakistan. Not bad for a guy with a "dubious history in development and life in general," right? It must be nice to live the perfect life of Maniza, where judgments from on high can be dispensed from the perspective of one who enjoys a non-dubious past. My Mother died when I was 12, and I went through a Hell that I almost didn't survive, but I crawled out of that Hell to make something valuable out of my dubious life. Of all the things that I hope my Mom would be happy about in the way that I turned out, I think that she would be happiest that I had clearly listened to her and remembered that she told me all Human Beings are important, no matter who they are or where they're from or what color they are. And that we should help each other in this life. I know that my being a white American male disqualifies me from ever being a true humanitarian in your eyes, but I will continue trying my best to help people in need and set an example that others can be inspired and energized by in pursuing their own journey through life. I went to Haiti for two months right after the earthquake to help people- do you also imagine something sinister in my motivations for going there or any of the other disasters I've deployed to? Ask yourself Maniza, What kind of example are you setting for others? Do you actually intend to continue revealing yourself as a petty, flippant, ignorant, shallow and unrepentant soul?
Posted by: Todd Shea | Mar 4, 2011 6:02:21 PM
Post a comment