Twelve injured during clash at Sunni Ittehad Long March

Sunni Ittehad council workers try to torch containers during long march in Rawalpindi.


Express November 27, 2010

Twelve people were injured during a clash between participants of the Sunni Ittehad Council's Long March and police at Sawaan bridge in Rawalpindi on Saturday.

The Long March was stopped at Sawaan bridge after authorities blocked the road with containers. Police shelled participants of the rally after which they retaliated. The rally participants also tried to torch containers on the road.

Earlier, Police had arrested hundreds of Sunni Ittehad Council workers and activists as the Council started a long march from Islamabad to protest against what they claimed to be the government's inability to arrest terrorists involved in the attack on Hazrat Data Ganj Baksh’s shrine in Lahore in July.

Sunni Ittehad Council Chairman Sahibzada Fazal Karim is leading the march. He said that the thousands of people will get out on to the streets today and unless all the demands of the Council are not met, the protests will continue.

According to Express 24/7 correspondent Sohail Chaudhry, more than 150 activists hade been arrested by the police.

The Punjab government has also said that the procession will not be allowed to stage a rally in front of the Data Darbar as it will not be good for the law and order situation.

Demonstrators marched in Lahore yesterday after the Sunni Ittehad Council urged the government to not grant clemency to Aasia Bibi, a Christian mother sentenced to death for blasphemy.

The march is supposed to end at the Data Darbar in Lahore.

Meanwhile, in Karachi, security was on high alert as the three-day long urs of Abdullah Shah Ghazi commenced at his shrine.

COMMENTS (6)

Pakistan One | 13 years ago | Reply This is against Shariah. Its a joke, how can you enfore shariah by adopting anti shariah methodology? It makes me laugh all day.
Human | 13 years ago | Reply Sunni Itehad or Shia Itehad; why does it matter? The silent majority of humans in Pakistan do not want to kill a woman in the name of religious doctrine. Historically, these clerical parties have used political means like protests and marches and sit ins to condemn an ecnroachment of their terrain i.e. implementation of Sharia. And historically, their political strength has never surpassed 10-15% of popular vote. Since the remaining 85-90% abstain from political-religion, there is no way of knowing how they feel about the killing of a woman in the name of blasphemy; or about putting the blame on Taliban for targeted destruction of our Sufi traditions of tolerance, hope, love, harmony and peace. I stand with all the rest of us who believe that Taliban and their extremist allies are responsible for destruction of our interpretation of Islamic virtue. I stand with those who believe the Prophet (PBUH) and God care not for those who abhore them and would definitely not want to orphan children of poor christian minorities in the name of religion. At the end, the question is not religious, but moral. Capital punishment (even though I disagree with it) is a hard choice for judges when there is even an iota of doubt. To hang someone who killed another without solid evidence is a stain on any just society. To take the same punishment and willy nilly pass it down to people on charges of Blasphemy when Sunna itself proves how such people were treated is a shame on our national morality. So before you pick a side based on the evidence on the case, ask yourself if each one of us should be held to the same law of morality? Because that could mean that we are sentenced to death whenever we curse in public; consume alcohol; or even harbor some ill feelings for our neighbours; or pass a poor homeless and hungry person on the road on our way to a full four course meal. Maybe all those sins matter to God just as much as Blasphemy. If Blasphemy is punishable by death, why not everything else?
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ