”]Salman Taseer killed by his own security guard “Mumtaz Qadri” in reaction to Taseer’s statement terming the blasphemy law as a black law.  He fired 27 bullets into Salman Taseer’s body. 500 religious Scholars alone from Karachi urged Muslims to boycott the funeral ceremony.

The statement which has been endorsed by senior Barelvi leaders such as Professor Saeed Shah Kazmi, Allama Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Syed Shah Turabul Haq Qadri and Hajji Mohammad Tayyab calls the assassin Mumtaz Hussain Qadri ‘Ashiqe Rasool Ghaziye Mulk (Lover of the Prophet, Commander of the Country)’.

“We pay rich tributes and salute the bravery, valour and faith of Mumtaz Qadri,” the statement said, adding that the ministers, politicians, ‘so-called’ intellectuals and anchor persons should learn lessons from the governor’s death. The scholars said that those who insult the Holy Prophet (pbuh), even if they did not intend to, were liable for death.

Hajji Mohammad Tayyab, who is also the secretary general of the Sunni Ittehad Council, told The Express Tribune that scholars had “repeatedly urged the president, prime minister and Governor Taseer himself that if their knowledge about the blasphemy law are limited, they should consult them and avoid debating over the issue as it would inflame the people and then anything could happen.”

Shah Turabul Haq Qadri’s son Siraj, also a senior member of the JASP, endorsed the statement and said it was now binding on every Muslim.

Jamiat Ulemae Pakistan (JUP) central executive committee member Maulana Shabbir went as far as saying that in his opinion Salmaan Taseer was ‘Wajubul Qatil’ (must be killed according to divine law). “He had called the divine law of God, a black law and tried to protect a condemned blasphemer,” he said.

POLL

Mumtaz Qadri have done the Right action or Wrong ?

[poll id=”5″]

New Hope for Middle - East Order

The writer is student of International Relations and working in Islamabad Policy and Research Institute. ( Mudasir Nayab )

After a stalemate of almost two years, the US has started a new session of Israeli-Palestinian direct peace negotiations. These talks in Washington pursue a two-state solution to establish security for both sides. But mutual trust is lacking between the two sides as the Israeli Prime Minister said: “A true peace, a lasting peace, would be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides.”

The foremost objectives of these peace talks have been to resolve the issues of creation of an independent state for the Palestinians, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, demarcation of borders, division of Jerusalem, freezing of Jewish settlements in the occupied territory, return of Palestinian refugees, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to work towards peace, keeping their own national interests in view. The Palestinian leader urged Israel to freeze settlement construction in areas the Palestinians want as part of their new state, and to end its blockade of Gaza; moreover, Israel should accept the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state comprising the land that the Israelis occupied in the 1967 war East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Efforts for peace in the Middle East are not new and negotiations between Arabs and Israelis have been held regularly under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which provided for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war”, and “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. The first breakthrough in negotiations came about in the shape of the US-sponsored Camp David Accord of 1978 between Egypt and Israel, which under the principle of ‘land for peace’ called for setting up a “self-governing authority” on the West Bank and Gaza, leading to “final status” talks. However, the Palestinians did not support the agreement as they were not party to it.

Another effort for a peace deal in the Middle East made after the Gulf war of 1991 leading to the 1993 Oslo Accords. Its importance lies in the fact that it brought the Israelis and the Palestinians face to face in mutual recognition. These accords provided for the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza. It was an interim agreement provided for the Palestinian self-governing authority but only for a five-year transitional period. The final decision was to be taken after that since nothing happened in and after the transition period. This phase too ended in failure.

Negotiations were again started at Camp David in 2000 but they were unable to bring peace as Israel insisted on retaining control of East Jerusalem as well as its West Bank settlements, and totally denied the return of the Palestinian refugees which, they said, would destroy the present demographic composition of the Israeli state.

In 2002, Saudi Arabia came with the proposal that if Israel withdraws to the lines before the 1967 war, and a Palestinian state is set up in the West Bank and Gaza, along with a just solution to the refugee’s problem, Saudi Arabia and all other Arab states would recognize Israel.

The 2003 Geneva Accord was another significant effort for the peace process provided that it would give Palestinians almost all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip drawing Israel’s borders close to what existed prior to the Israeli annexation of territory at the end of the 1967 war. Jerusalem would be divided administratively with East Jerusalem serving as the capital for the Palestinian state and West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In return for removing most of the Israeli settlements in those areas, the Palestinians would limit their “right of return” of refugees to Israel to a number specified by the Israeli government and will put an end to any further claims and demands from Israel. Yet again the results were the same and both the parties criticized the Accord as they were not ready for any compromise.

Facts prove that the talks were never conclusive because peace in the Middle East needs depending on overcoming certain obstacles, both political and religious. But both parties are not showing any flexibility. The first obstacle is the division of Jerusalem, which is of religious significance for Muslims, Christians and Jews. Israel had captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war, and encouraged Jews to settle there to consolidate Israel as a Jewish state. Therefore, it is very difficult for Israel to vacate East Jerusalem. Also it will be equally difficult for Palestinians to abandon the demand for return of the Old City.

The second major obstacle in the way of peace is the return of refugees. Israel has consistently ruled out the return of the refugees to what it claims to be now its own territory. They argue that the problem of refugees dates back to 1948, while all the solutions proposed have reference to 1967 war.

So, now again, the conflicting parties are on the table of negotiations. If they persist in the traditional stiff behavior, the results cannot be different. To ensure peace, both the parties have to change the “we are right, they are wrong” attitude.

Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is extremely important to bring peace in Middle East. For this the U.S. will have to abandon its pro-Israeli approach if it wants the negotiations to bear fruit. The only viable solution to this problem is partition into two states. The obstacles of territorial composition must be addressed mutually and concessions howsoever painful have to be given from both sides.

Source: http://www.thelondonpost.net/MSM11oct201000100.html

The Hindu Justice - Indian Courts Fails to Provide Justice for Muslims

Decision of Ayodhya Babri Mosque after 18 years shocked Muslims of this subcontinent, might they are not surprised by the decision. What could you expect from so called biggest democratic government of INDIA ?  However, it ruled that the land be split among three contesting parties — Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board — equally.

From one prospect it looks like that it’s a good decision for brotherhood, but this raises one question is this a justice? How comes your house been divided among two other parties because they claimed once some 3000 years before their forefathers use to live at this place.

There is not a single evidence of RAM Mandir been proven , but Babri Mosque certainly is 600 years old. This is norm in India from Hindus to claim any mosque claiming Mandir property, so to demolish that mosque.

However, today INDIA proves that they are dummies and they have rubber courts to justify. Hindu cannot justify this is in its blood.

Why Babri Mosque was Demolished on 6^th December ?

Because in 1225 A.D ,Sultan  Mehmood Ghaznavi demolished one side of Somnath Temple. And that event was to be dated 6^th December. So the Hindus of India Decided in before the beginning of 21^st Century in 1992 to Demolish Babri Mosque on 6^th December.

Why India got saved from any bad incident or from any type of rational protests ?

Because the whole decision was against Muslims , and actual this is the victory for Hindu Ram Mandir advocates . Actual , Muslim property now being divided among three parties. Muslims , Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara.

WHAT THE JUDGES SAID

Justice S U Khan

“Disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belong to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque, but it was constructed on the ruins of the temple or some of its material was used in the construction of the mosque.”

Justice Sudhir Agarwal

” It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janma Sthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiff- Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman. and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants, Rajendra Singh and others.”

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma

” The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain, but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949.”