The Kot Radha Kishan tragedy
At the time of the Partition, it was claimed that Pakistan will be made a model state similar to Medina where humans will be respected, the difference between the powerful and the weak will be eliminated, and nobody will be declared guilty until their crime is proven. Unfortunately, after 67 years of independence, Pakistan is still not a state where there is supremacy of justice, and people are declared guilty on the basis of their religion or sect. There is no denying the fact that extremism and religious and sectarian prejudice have become a scourge in Pakistan since 1979. Our political and religious leaderships have failed to come up with a clear national strategy to get rid of this scourge. It will be wrong to declare the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy as just a one-off incident. The events related to this tragedy have raised many question marks. Finding the answers to these questions is not only the responsibility of the national political and religious leadership, but also of the society as a whole.
If we look at the factors which led to this tragedy, it can be said that many similar incidents have taken place in the past, but we have never witnessed this level of brutality and viciousness. If we try to understand the stance of the Christian community and local residents without discrimination, we can see that some pages of the Holy Quran may have been desecrated. Even if this had indeed happened, local residents did not fulfil the obligation that they were supposed to fulfil as Muslims and Pakistani citizens. The local police also displayed a very irresponsible attitude. The question is: even if we assume that the couple had committed the crime, why were they not arrested? If the couple was not arrested, why did local residents not take any legal action instead of resorting to violence? And if the couple was innocent, why was protection not offered to them?
If truth be told, the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy is a black blemish on the face of Pakistan, our religion and humanity. In order to remove this blemish, Pakistanis and Muslims will have to bring about a fundamental change, and that fundamental change involves refraining from making allegations against anyone on the basis of assumptions. If a person is guilty of blaspheming or any other crime, it is the responsibility of courts, rather than crowds, to punish them. Unfortunately, such incidents take place in Pakistan due to illiteracy, poverty, unemployment and the absence of the rule of law.
Whether it was the tragedy of Shanti Nagar or Gojra, Joseph Colony or the Ramsha Masih case, one thing is clear that all measures, which were taken on the basis of emotions without investigating, have undermined the blasphemy law. When critics of the blasphemy law demand its abolition, they are given the justification that this law should remain on the books, given the moral and social decay in society. The abolition of this law will provide a boost to those who want to run this society according to their own will and desires. They will accuse and target anyone for the sake of their personal interests. This law acts as a deterrent for those who think they are above the law and want to become self-appointed petitioners, judges and executioners.
As far as the wrong use of the blasphemy law is concerned, religious scholars believe that those who misuse it are as guilty as those who actually commit blasphemy. This is because if a person is wrongly accused of saying or writing something blasphemous, it means that those making wrong accusations are guilty of blasphemy. There is no denying the fact that the leaders of all non-Islamic religions in Pakistan have agreed that the blasphemy law should remain, but it is important to stop the wrong use of this law. Those who are really guilty should be punished whereas those making false blasphemy accusations against innocent people should be made a symbol of abomination.
The Pakistan Ulema Council (PUC) has a very clear stance about the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy. The PUC leaders expressed this stance together with Christian leaders at a press conference. According to that stance, those who are guilty should be punished but innocent people must not be targeted.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 11th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (34)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1734686655-0/Express-Tribune-(10)1734686655-0-270x192.webp "hurdles in materialization of gcc s economic ventures in pakistan")
1734587529-0/Express-Tribune-(1)1734587529-0-270x192.webp "pakistan to host another icc event")
1734606611-0/Express-Tribune-(8)1734606611-0-270x192.webp "sindh govt announces public holiday")
@Gp65: ET: Please help me with me right to reply to someone who has written to me: "You are misleading when you say it was a small tax. It was not. It was in fact punitive." Show me how it was punitive, when, and where exactly? And, Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam, yet it is tax. Its rate is fixed but not the total amount. Also, it is levied only who have a certain amount of wealth over a certain period of time. Aurangzeb re-instituted Zakat and it one of the few exceptions of Zakat being levied in later Islam. Show me when and where the Jizya was collected and also non-Muslims were forced into compulsory service. Mere assertion does not make it a factual statement. Your claim of "factual rebuttal" is not entirely true.
Tragedy by any other religion would still be a tragedy- learn from it- time is really running out
If the following is done there will be calls from everywhere to remove the blasphemy laws: (1) Punish the persons who wrongly accuses others of committing blasphemy. (2) Make blasphemy of other religions also, not just Islam, a punishable offense. (3) Make both offenses as above a non-bailable offense and also requiring punishments as severe as for committing blasphemy. (4) It should be the responsibility of the person accusing another person of committing blasphemy to prove that the other person has committed blasphemy. Burden of proof should lie with the person making accusation. If he is unable to prove so, he should be deemed as having made false accusations and punished accordingly.
@ObserverUSA: "If today any State offers to exempt from compulsory military service in lieu of an affordable tax, Muslim or non-Muslim, most would opt out of compulsory military service in lieu of an affordable tax." If truly implemented, the concept is great. But not all Muslims rulers have faithfully applied it. But their deviation does not take away from the concept.
@ad: Indeed. They are reacting as if Haafiz Saeed has written a column.
Unfortunately, such incidents take place in Pakistan due to illiteracy, poverty, unemployment and the absence of the rule of law.///
Nice try to avoid the real reasons: Extremism and Hate for other religions
@Seadorff:
Jizya is a special tax on non-muslim minorities because they were offered protection by muslims. The army at the time was composed only of muslims, so non-muslims were exempt from military service. Poor people, females, children etc., are exempt from jizya - it is only paid by able bodied men. In other words, you don't have to serve in the army, but you have to pay tax.
Remember that under sharia Muslims had to pay zakat that non-muslims did not have to pay.
Under sharia, minorities are afforded rights and protection. The sad thing in Pakistan is that minorities are not protected but exploited. Don't confuse Pakistan with islamic sharia.
@normskyy
You are mixing two things here, the example of Greeks and Romans do not apply here because when Jazia was imposed in India it was muslims who were in minority and majority of non-muslim population was footing the bill. Zakat is a form of charity and not part of tax collection so you cannot claim that muslim pay zakat so should not be taxed.
@Ranjha: Bigots like you give a bad name to liberals.
@ObserverUSA: Protection of faith, relgious place how when customs like Jauhar was practiced to avoid ending enslaved in harem by women and others? Read the history of qutub complex,Nalanda university,babri and many other demolished religious structure in india. How many of other faith shrines where distroyed to build their own. It even stands with proof as Carved in Urdu,Persian on those structures what and how many destruction material they built it from Here's the link http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb_complex
I think the suggestion that if blasphemy accusations are not proven, then the accuser will be charged with the same, can act as a deterrent to those looking to settle personal vendettas. We cannot implement selective punishments and enforce selective aspects of Shariah law, while the main constitution of Pakistan remains secular on paper and feudal in its reality.
@seadorff: Indeed, Akbar abolished jizya. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya In the 20th Century it was nowhere to be seen. You say: "Its a clear cut case of discrimination." Yes, but it gave the non-Muslim protection of their faith, their places of worship, and above all exempted them from military service, which was mandatory for all able bodied Muslims. (Jizya was only levied on able bodied non-Muslim individuals.) If today any State offers to exempt from compulsory military service in lieu of an affordable tax, Muslim or non-Muslim, most would opt out of compulsory military service in lieu of an affordable tax.
@normskyy: You have asked me as to what was my point? I have tried to tell you that as per this author
Read this article very very carefully. Again. Do not debase the article simply because of the Maulana. The Maulana does not look like your average garden variety man. DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY IT'S COVER ! He is not propagating hate or discrimination. He says clearly that false accusers are heinous and guilty too. He is saying the State is failing to fulfill it's responsibilities to protect the citizens, minorities. The State the police, do not have their WRIT ANYWHERE. The Maulana is fair!
Pakistanis and Muslims??? Are these two separate in Pakistan??
@Seadorff:
Jizya was charged as a tax on the population allowing them to be exempt from military service. The muslim population wasn't exempt from military service and had to pay the zakat (2.5% of annual saving). So income came to the treasury from all sources.
If you've read anything about history you will find great civilisations like the Greeks and Romans actually forced minorities to go and fight as the "shock troops" before their "own" would go to battle. Different forms of taxing and slavery etc existed for centuries as a way of running government. This changes and strategies evolve from place to place and region to region.
So what was the point of the comment???
The second last paragraph is the only one worth reading as it suggests some practical steps to correct this issue..........I would ask the author as to why this suggestion is still only a suggestion ? ....blaming the government is a ruse to shift responsibility from those who constantly display religious extremist tendencies.
Modern society should be subject to modern law which should be derived mans intelligence and humanity. Leave the religious figures to tend the places of worship.
@ObserverUSA: As per your post"In early Islam, non-Muslims were exempted from serving in the army and in other security related services and many happily accepted the trade off where they paid a small insignificant amount of poll tax for such exemptions." What about during Emperor Akbar rule? Jaziya was collected then also, that was not early Islam. Its a clear cut case of discrimination.
can somebody holds the ceiling for me!!!!plzz
"The abolition of this law will provide a boost to those who want to run this society according to their own will and desires. They will accuse and target anyone for the sake of their personal interests. This law acts as a deterrent for those who think they are above the law and want to become self-appointed petitioners, judges and executioners." How does this work? Why would abolition allow people to have self interest and run things to their desire? How is it a deterrent? Who is above the law in this sentence? I don't understand this at all. Can someone explain?
Maulana sb are a few of the sane voices in all the madness spewing in the name of Islamic melodrama. The irony is the Islam has been made a tool of obtrusive mind control by his own fraternity, and the situation is off the charts now with his own life in danger. Islam of Medina, in spirit, was a system of social justice instead of an unregulated amalgamation of rituals, and violent expressions that mullahs have reduced it to.
@Seadorff: Good point. In early Islam, non-Muslims were exempted from serving in the army and in other security related services and many happily accepted the trade off where they paid a small insignificant amount of poll tax for such exemptions. Even today, if military draft is made mandatory and it is exempted for an affordable tax, many would choose the latter no matter if the State is Islamic or not. @Ranjha: So what kind of a liberal are you? If someone you don't like gets to publish you can always point to his wrong messages. So be critical here and point out what you think is not acceptable like Seadorff did.
can't understand why you guys even need such a law?
Wow! The extremely discriminatory behaviour of the commentators here is astounding. Just because he is on the Ulema Council you have completely discounted the INTENT behind this article.
Talk about bigotry.
For all the hullabaloo over this incident, it'd be forgotten until another such incident in the neat future.
The key here is the last sentence. "those who are guilty should be punished but innocent people must not be targeted"
translation- Nobody would be found guilty. Muslim Justice.
Excellent expose. The Maulana should write more often.
seems like after " Meetha Paan" Ashrafi Sb. found a new "Paan" to speak some good english
Molana sahib, try to cut down on meetha pan, wake up and smell the coffee.
Would you please like to explain as to why Jizya was charged from non-muslims? According to you" The world was told that Allah has made humans the best of creatures on earth". Humans included non-muslims also. So, why were they discriminated?