Administration and Police – 2002

2002

Prosecution of a Group of Ahmadis

Lahore; February 26, 2002:     The police registered a case under PPC 295A and the anti-Ahmadiyya PPC 298C against five Ahmadis namely, Rafiq Butt, Abdul Hakim Nasir, Zahid Pervez, Muzaffar Ahmad, Taufiq Ahmad and Mirza Nasir Beg. The accused hurriedly took their plea to the High Court. The judge declared that the police did not have sufficient supportable evidence to levy the charges. They dropped the case consequently.

 

Authorities undertake sacrilege

Rabwah; August 13, 2002:      The Jamia Ahmadiyya building in the town had Quranic verses written on it. Mullah Allah Yar Arshad took exception to that and wrote to the police to efface them. The local police officials asked for directions from their higher authorities who told them to go ahead and undertake what the mullah had demanded (The Daily JANG; August 17, 2002). Accordingly, in the presence of a heavy contingent of police and the Elite Force, the authorities undertook the sacrilege and over-painted the verses. The next day the rain washed away the whitewash. The SHO arrived again along with his team in the darkness of dead of the night on 15 August and had the dishonor to efface the verses once again.

Obviously the police took their cue from the capital, from where the impression was otherwise given in those days that it was the mullah who is beating the retreat.

It is relevant to mention that Mullah Arshad belongs to the erstwhile anti-Pakistan league of clerics, Majlis Ahrar Islam.

 

Severe harassment by the Police at Goleki.

Goleki, Distt: Gujrat; February 27, 2002: A contingent of police raided Ahmadi homes at Goleki in the early morning hours on 27 February. They detained a few Ahmadis including the local president. When asked as to why, the police inspector stated that he knew nothing, he was only complying with the orders of the Superintendent of Police. He, however, indicated that a drive was underway to suppress religious extremists.

Goleki has a history of religious strife, but Ahmadis have always been at the receiving end. A few non-Ahmadi zealots had formed there an association, “Anjuman Naujawanan Tauhid wa Sunnat” i.e. Association of Youth for Unity (of Allah) and the Way (of the Prophet). In this garb, anti-Ahmadiyya miscreants have fomented agitation in the village for the last many years. They, in league with local administration, managed to have the Ahmadiyya mosque sealed, obstructed burial of Ahmadi dead in the common graveyard, and committed acts of severe violence that resulted in bloodshed and eventually murder. As a result, a few of these criminals are behind bars. However, as Ahmadis are the target, they get implicated. The police and other authorities say good words and offer sympathy to Ahmadis in private for their good conduct, but also harass these very victims in order to appease the mullah and the aggressive party.

Although, at this occasion also, the police had nothing against Ahmadis, they detained two officials of the local community and took them to the police station. The follow-up was a painful and distressing exercise in tension and stress for the entire Ahmadiyya community of the area. Eventually, the police released the detainees, but why arrest innocent victims, in the first place?

 

The Government leads the way to religious obscurantism

Islamabad :     The bureaucracy in Islamabad occasionally competes with mullahs in taking extremist initiatives. It is not a thing of the past; it is happening these very days in Islamabad, while the government spokesmen do not tire of asserting liberal credentials of the regime. The Ministry of Religious Affairs now requires Pakistani pilgrims to Mecca to fill in a revised proforma whereby he/she is made to sign a sworn statement to the following effect:

 

Declaration for a pilgrim is required to state that he is not an Ahmadi and that he ascribes to the dogma of Finality of Prophethood.

Declaration for a pilgrim is required to state that he is not an Ahmadi and that he ascribes to the dogma of Finality of Prophethood.

 

 

The pilgrim is required to state that he is not an Ahmadi and that he ascribes to the dogma of Finality of Prophethood. However, a sentence has been freshly added to it at its end by the Ministry, whereby the applicant makes the statement on oath that: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a cunning* and deceitful* (IMPOSTER) person. The certification has been further amended for the applicant to deny that any person claiming to be a prophet can even be a ‘good man’.

*Translated from Ferozsons Urdu-English Dictionary – (emphasis added)

It is a rare government in 21st Century that indulges in abusive diatribes in religious matters, and chooses to impose the same on its citizens.

Vigilance of authorities against Ahmadis on absurd grounds

Lahore: The Home Department of the Punjab issued a Memo Nr. 7-9-H-SPL, III/2002 dated 8-6-2002 to the Inspector General of Police, and Endst No. 17967-69/CC dated 19.6.2002 urged the Police to take necessary action on the report that Qadiani Leadership “have directed local office bearers/workers to launch a campaign to press and convert at least 50 Muslims to Qadianiat annually”.

In Pakistan, all religious, political and social groups constantly endeavor to increase their membership, as a matter of routine. It is not unlikely that Ahmadis do the same, but it is a concoction and fabrication of the Home Department to suggest that Ahmadis seek converts by pressing the Muslims. How can one believe that in the present environment of persecution, Ahmadis could even consider a policy of conversion by force. They possess no such force. The suggestion is aimed at justifying unwarranted action against members of the Ahmadiyya Community. No wonder, a Superintendent of Police (District Kasur), in his Circular Nr: 4634-37/SBK dated 21.6.2002, ordered the following: “Copies are forwarded to all SDPOs for necessary action against the Qadianis in the district and compliance”.

For Ahmadis, this is more of the same.

 

Would you believe it?

Sind, January 2002: The government usually claims that it is doing all it can to blunt the strike of religious extremists and that it is often hampered by country’s judicial compulsions and procedures. Not so, where Ahmadis are concerned – in fact, just the reverse. In a recent case, a trial court released numerous Ahmadis who had been unjustly incarcerated for years, but the government went into appeal against the Court’s decision. Unbelievable, but true.

This happened in the well-known Naukot case. Without stating again the details of this case, the essentials are mentioned below:

a.         In August 1998, a mob led by mullahs attacked an Ahmadiyya mosque at Naukot, District Mirpur Khas in Sind. Less than a score of Ahmadis made an unsuccessful effort to defend their mosque, but could not, against overwhelming number of the attackers who numbered almost one thousand. Two of the attackers and three Ahmadis were hurt, when Ahmadis decided to withdraw. The attackers set on fire and damaged not only the mosque but also two adjacent shops, which also belonged to Ahmadis.

b.         In the follow-up action, authorities charged 17 Ahmadis under the Blasphemy Law in addition to many other clauses of the penal code. They applied the Blasphemy Law because they found on the mosque’s interior wall the Kalima (Islamic creed) and a prayer seeking God’s  blessings (Drud) on the Holy Prophet of Islam.

c.         The police arrested all the 14 Ahmadis it could find, and put them behind bars. They were taken to an anti-terrorist court. Not even one of the attackers was arrested.

d.         All these Ahmadis were kept in prison. Now it was their fourth year running behind bars. They suffered tremendously during this period while they awaited the trial, and the judges considered if they could be tried by an anti-terrorism court.

e.         At last, the Special Court judge gave the decision on January 4, 2002 that they were not guilty and acquitted them.

The State has gone into appeal against this decision. Mr Masood A. Noorani, Additional Advocate General Sind (Hyderabad) made a prayer to the Sind High Court on January 18, 2002 to reconsider the decision of the lower court. He wrote a 7-page application and cooked up 12 reasons why it should be so done. Believe it or not!

Violent mullas and policemen

Goth Ali Muhammad, district Khairpur Sind; May 2002:       Mr Mohammad Nawaz who joined Ahmadiyyat in 1979 is reportedly having a very rough time at the hands of mullahs who are in league with some policemen. Nawaz is a practicing Ahmadi, does not hide his identity as an Ahmadi and actively tries to dispel misgivings and false accusations against the Ahmadiyya Community. Mullahs do not like it, and have moved decisively against him.

Some weeks ago, they had him abducted at night from his residence with the help of two policemen. They took him in a van to some location where he was subjected to intense interrogation by a team of mullahs. There, they also told him to recant within a few days or face death. During the interrogation they recorded his statements on an audio recorder. Eventually they gave him some booklets to read and dropped him back at his residence. Subsequently, they reported him to higher police officials for being an Ahmadi activist. At this, Nawaz got scared and fled from home to avoid probable arrest and subsequent prosecution. He remained on the run for a few weeks. He has seven children, and a wife to support, and no earning capacity to support his family while in hiding.

 

Harassment by Police

Attock; April 2, 2002: At about 7 p.m. two men of the city police approached Mr Hameed Ahmad, an Ahmadi who runs a homeopathy clinic in the bazaar, and told him to report to the SHO Police. Such a call is always very disturbing for a citizen in Pakistan. Hameed got worried and consulted the community officials. Thereafter, he reported to the SHO. Hameed was told by the SHO that a mullah named Manzur, of Madni Mosque had mentioned him in his Friday sermon and agitated the worshippers. Maulvi Manzur had also represented in writing that Hameed had distributed Ahmadiyya literature in the town. Mr Hameed told the SHO that the accusation was not true. The SHO took Hameed’s statement in writing, and told him not to mention to anyone regarding that visit and the nature of questioning. The SHO instructed him to report again at 0900 the next morning.

Mr. Hameed reported to the police station next morning. Mullahs were also present there. The police warned both the parties and let them go.

 

An improper Police visitation

Chak 55/2-L, District Sahiwal; June 13, 2002: Mr Naeem Ahmad, Ahmadi had the unpleasant experience of a visit by a higher-level police contingent. Initially an inspector accompanied by two constables visited him and enquired about the nature and function of the dish antenna for TV reception at his house. They interrogated even the neighbors over alleged preaching through the MTA. Although no accusing evidence came forward, the visit was followed two hours later by a still higher team. An Assistant Superintendent of Police, an inspector and a constable arrived for further investigation. They interviewed the local mullah also. The next day they sent for Mr Naeem Ahmad to come to the police station. He was advised to shift the antenna from the roof to the courtyard (although that would adversely affect the electronic reception). No further action was taken. However, this keen interest of the police did shake him up a bit – to put it mildly.

 

Leave a Reply