Muslim Council of Britain - The Islamist Big Brother

Muslim Council of Britain has many affiliates. Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, Salafi, progressives as well as orthodox; the council does seem to strive to represent the interests of British Muslims.

We can safely assume that theological differences among various sects are put aside while dealing with key issues which affect all Muslims alike. i.e., Islamophobia, community tensions, discrimination at workplace, mosque applications getting refused on flimsy grounds etc.

It doesn't matter to the council for example if a shia  muslim holds a theologically distinct position regarding the superiority of Imams over the Prophets, a belief which is fiercely contested by the Sunnis. But why should it matter?

Your local council, or a fiery UKIP candidate, or your boss don't need to know these intricacies while judging you to be a person of concern around the place. Your beard, hijab or the need to go for prayer breaks will be sufficient to provoke prejudice against you.

Similarly, it doesn't matter for the MCB if a certain proportion of their membership is barelvi sub-sect of sunni Islam. Barelvi's tend to be more devotional towards the saints and sufis of the past and their present day successors. They find it much easier to prostrate themselves before their holy men and indulge in mystical music and dancing. An observant barelvi will spend much of his life in certain social and religious practices which are shunned by the wahabi/salafi sect of Islam. Wahabi/Salafi Muslims are strict monotheists. To them, barelvis are 'Mushrik', polytheists. The act of 'shirk' is enough to condemn a person to eternal hell!

Both wahabis and barelvis are proud members of the MCB, and why shouldn't they be? As it doesn't matter to the local residents to protest against a mosque project if it is going to be a barelvi or a wahabi mosque. We all look and sound the same to them, right?

Why should then the MCB go out of its way to say that Ahmadis cannot be called Muslims?

According to their statement the MCB feels that muslims are unduly pressurized to refer to Ahmadis as muslims.

In my experience, it is infact the ordinary mainstream Muslims who are being pressurized unduly to boycott Ahmadis and consider them non-Muslims. Most of my muslim friends consider me a muslim like themselves. But if some of them unfortunately cross paths with a takfiri Mullah, they change their views. Not all of them, but some of them. And when I confront them about their views their standard reply is that 'I am not expert in such things, but the Maulvi knows much more than I do.'

A famous slogan goes 'whoever doesn't believe them to be kafir is a kafir himsef'.

Hate filled pamphlets called for the boycott of Ahmadis are common sight in the UK threse days.

We should sympathize with those poor souls who are being held hostage by the enemies of freedom of belief and expression. The MCB is playing big brother for UK muslims, just like its proud affiliate, the Majlis Tahaffuz Khatme Nabuwwat, AMTKN, a well funded organization which is responsible for Ahmadi persecution worldwide.

Imam Ibrahim Mogra of the MCB, a polite and well-spoken muslim faith leader, spent an hour on the BBC Asian Network trying to explain to the audience what it is that gives him and the MCB the right to say such an absurd thing.

Imam Ibrahim Mogra. Image courtesy ukasian.com

Mogra cites the two fundamentals of Islam, 1) Belief in Allah as the only God and 2) Belief in Muhammad as the final messenger of God.

He says that because Ahmadis do not believe in the finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad and they hold a distinctly unislamic belief in another prophet after him, therefore they cannot be Muslims.

A number of Ahmadi callers to the show refuted the Imam's assertions by stating that almost all muslims are awaiting another prophet to arrive any day now, hence his stance is not only illogical but against the commonly agreed doctrine of the majority of Muslims.

I could go into more details on this fine and nuanced theological debate, but it should be sufficient to say that Ahmadi Muslims believe in a messiah, namely Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian who claimed to have fulfilled the prophecy regarding the awaited prophet. Others however believe that Jesus who is in heavens will descend on a minaret in Damascus and conduct a worldwide holy war against all non-believers.

My point is that whereas shia belief challenges the fundamental concept of prophethood of sunni Islam, and whereas the barelvi practices clearly contravene the fundamental idea of the oneness of God as held by the non-barelvis, both these groups are muslim in the eyes of the MCB. Ahmadi Muslims do not hold any beliefs that cannot be interpreted from the words of Quran and the sayings of the Prophet. Then why display such malice against a persecuted, peaceful minority? 

I know the answer, and it is time that you know it too.

Ahamdiyya Islam has challenged the orthodox establishment in Islamic countries for over a hundred years. Whether it is the concept of violent jihad or the place of science in the muslim society, women's rights or interfaith relations, rejection of political Islamism or the use of modern methods to defend Islam against the missionary onslaught in the colonial days; Ahmadiyya Islam has been winning hearts and minds all around the world. And this does not sit right with the orthodoxy.

The early opponnets of Ahmadiyya Islam were great scholars in their own right. They still hold revered status among the orthodox Muslims today, but most of them accepted the Ahmadi Islam as a part of Muslim polity. They may have declared them 'kafir' in a theological sense, but they did not dare deny them their identity.

It is only when in 1974 Pakistan a Saudi backed conglomerate of mosque and Parliament took the ill-fated step of enforcing jealousy and hatred as a law. Yes, such laws exist. They were jealous of the advances the Ahmadis had made in all spheres of life in Pakistan and abroad. Statesmen, businessmen, scientists, military heroes, diplomats and economists, Ahamdis had proven their true value to the nation and the Muslim world as a whole. In fact, most new converts to Islam were because of the Ahmadiyya missionary work around the world.

After causing hundreds of targetted killings in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, when the same jealousy and hatred spills over to the UK with the scholars and Imams of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, people like Asad Shah get murdered in Glasgow.

And the same hatred and jealousy is the cause of such statements to be made which reek of complicity and guilt.

Ahmadi Muslims do not need a certificate of approval of their faith. But as a political entity, Muslims who self-identify as Muslims must stand united, regardless of theological differences. If MCB is failing thousands of Muslims in this country like this, I am happy to join any other council which does what it says on its label.

No reform please. We are Muslims.

Luton's 'Preservation of the Finality of Prophethood Forum' has finally published a rebuttal to the Ahmadiyya Muslim advert which had reportedly offended the Muslims of Luton. This is a paid advert published in this week's Luton on Sunday.

And the point is?

I was pleased to see that the writers of the advertisement have used civil language which is a remarkable achievement by itself. I am sure that the hate speech laws would have caused many edits before the piece was sent to the printers.

I say this because in my experience, all 'Khatme Nabuwwat' (Finality of Prophethood) organizations are known for their venomous language against the Ahmadiyya Muslims. This language often breeds violence against the community, the most recent example of which was in Hyderabad, India, where a drunken mob attacked the Ahmadiyya Mosque during the Friday prayers.

It is refreshing to see that Luton's anti-Ahmadiyya Mullahs are willing to share their beliefs with the community without inciting violence and hatred.

How does their definition of a Muslim help any of the readers is another matter.

When did the finality of prophethood become one of the central tenets if Islamic beliefs?

The committee of 22 Mosques in Luton would struggle to find a verse in Quran to justify this belief. They do present a verse in the advert

' Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets.' (33:40)

The term used here is 'Khataman Nabiyyeen', translated by the classical translators like Pickthal, Yusuf Ali and Arberry as the Seal of Prophets. This term has been understood by the commentators to mean the best of the prophets. But since the founder of the Ahamdiyya Muslim Community claimed to be a subservient prophet to Muhammad (peace be upon him), his opponents have rejected the more sublime understanding of the verse in favour of a pedestrian one.

Before the inception of Ahmadiyya Islam, classical Islamic scholars had no doubt about the coming of a prophet within Muslims who would reform them and teach them the true wisdom of the Quran. He has been referred to in the Hadith as 'Eesa Ibn Maryam', Jesus, Son of Mary. Muslims have been, and most are still waiting for the Promised Messiah.

Herein lies the great dilema for our friends at the Finality Forum. How can they declare an end to the institution of Prophethood when their own advert claims that 'Lord Almighty in His Grace, never left mankind without any religious guidance'?

What they don't share with their readers is the unanimous belief of all the 22 Luton mosques, and the Muslims around the world that Jesus will descend from the heavens and he will be a prophet for the Muslims. A hadith in Tabarani, quotes the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)

'And remember, there is no prophet between me and him (the Promised Messiah)'

There are many other prophetic sayings (Ahadith) which refer to the Promised Messiah as a prophet.

There is no difference of opinion between the Ahmadi Muslims and the rest about the absolute supremacy of the Quranic message until the end of days. i.e., Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Seal of Prophets. His era continues until the day of judgement. The hadith quoted in the advert 'there will be no prophet after me' only refers to a new prophet bringing a new book or a new law.

But what becomes of the Muslims when they lose their way? When some of them start using their distorted understanding of the Quran to usrup the rights of mankind? When the quest of scientific knowledge is deemed sinful and difference of opinion is met with fatwas of heresy? Don't they need reform? And a prophet is, as the advert points out ' a reformer and an orthodox humanitarian'.

Whether or not you accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim to be a prophet is not relevant here. The fact that you need to contradict yourselves to counter his claims reveals the stubbornness so symptomatic of a people in dire need of reform.

Luton's 22 mosques belong primarily to the Barelvi (sufi) sect. Ibne Arabi, the great Sufi mystic, known as the Seal (Khatam) of Mystics by many, saw the coming of a prophet in Islam as an absolute necessity. He awaited the second coming of Jesus in a 'new body' who will follow the law of Quran.

But Ibne Arabi is considered a bit of a heretic himself by the more puritanical Wahabi Muslims. A great Indian scholar, Shah Waliullah of Delhi, highly regarded by the non-barelvi sects as an authority in Quran and Hadith states that only prophethood with a new law has come to an end. He also wrote that the Promised Messiah will be a true image of Muhammad himself.

For any Deobandi Mosques in Luton, I present the definitive statement of Qasim Nanotawi, the founder of Deoband sect in India, who said that the coming of a new prophet after the Holy Prophet does not break the 'Seal'. This has been a hotly debated issue between the Barelvi and Deobandi sects, each blaming the other for agreeing with the 'Qadianis'.

How unorthodox of the orthodoxy. A newfangled definition of a Muslim? That is the last thing one expects from them.

Despite the contradictions I have pointed out above, the advert is a step in the right direction.

By promoting their own cause and desisting from hate speech, the forum has taken a leaf out of the Ahmadiyya book. I urge them not to stop here. Please copy the whole book. Lets start by being more inclusive and less dogmatic. Lets remove any notions of a separatist, ghettoised interpretation of Islam from our minds and show more loyalty and commitment to the country we call our home. And above all, let us share the humanitarian, tolerant message of the Quran in our towns and cities.

Tony Blair, Middle East and the Doomsday Cults

Tony Blair says that we should get ready for a battle between the open-minded West and the closed-minded Middle East. Its the same-old modern day cursades narrative which has claimed millions of lives so far and counting. Not long ago, he participated in the worst military adventure the west has ever embarked upon in its history. Thanks to a misguided, malicious and greed-driven war in the Middle East, we are on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe. But, Mr. Blair refuses to learn a lesson. He wants more!


He says that the Muslim societies have been over-run by a supremicist ideology which have put them in direct conflict with the West. But it takes two to tango, so there must be a supremicist mindset at work in the West too which encourages the hubris of military conquest of the Middle East.


Blair must be very aware of his role in psychologically mauling a whole generation of young Muslims who grew up in the post 9/11 world. Social media has awakened this generation to the horrific attrocities of war. Those images and video clips, real or fakes, are constantly making the rounds on the internet, adding fuel to fire already lit by their local hate preachers.


You simply cannot force this genie back in the bottle by more war. This will not only compromise the already struggling moderate voices in the Muslim countries but also embolden the extremists even more.


There is a growing network of various groups, increasingly inter-connecting and unifying across the Islamic world calling for a global caliphate/Khilafah. Some groups are more open about the idea of a global Jihad to bring about this revolution. Many agree with each other on principle and are increasing their influence among the young Sunni men and women living in the west. The traditional strands of Sufi, riualistic Islam focused on persoanl piety have been sidelined as weak and unambitious.


Although various Khilafah movements may pose a threat to the Arab royals, the transition from a non-political Sunni/Wahabi to a political one seems to be very easy and frequent. It is very difficult to contain or control this phenomenon through policing, even if you are Saudi Arabia.



Doomsday cults are thought to be fringe groups of conspiracy theorists, but think again. The state of Israel and its Zionist zealots are a doomsday cult. There are countless Christians who believe that the US and its allies must protect the Holy Land as it is the promised site for the return of Jesus. Sunni preachers have been warming up their congregations for the imminent appearance of the Mahdi, and the latest interpretations of hadith literature promises Syria to be of vital import in this respect. Then there are those skeptics who feel that Mahdi has to be created through war and consensus of Muslims, and to add to the mix, there seems to be unlimited hatred for the Shia by thousands of Jihadis converging in Syria. Shia Muslims themselves are being told about the re-emergence of the Mahdi is a certainty and the present day conflict was foretold in many prophecies before.


This may sound far-fetched for some of you. But American diplomats were advising their government not to enter into any negotiations with a 'Messianic' regime in Iran, a leaked diplomatic cable (via Wikileaks) reveals. How come eschatological beliefs of some are causing so much suffering in this day and age? This is after all, the age of reason and science. Many clergymen, Christians, Jewish and Muslims alike, seem to have resigned to the fact that Messiah's do not float down from the heavens. But consider how Ahmedinijad started his speech at the UN General Assembly a few years ago. He prayed for the immediate appearance of the Mahdi, a warrior leader who will rid the world of all evil. Think again about why Bush and Blair consulted God before launching an attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. Behind the seemingly secular political rhetoric, humanitarian concerns and an agenda for democracy, the west is turning a blind eye to the absurdities of literalistic religious zealots in all camps.


Mr. Blair has said one thing that I agree with. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are nurturing a venomous generation of violent preachers which needs to be checked. While Saudi royals are happy to preach peaceful interpretations of Islam to their own citizens, they are recruiting anti-shia paramilitary forces from Pakistan and Jihadi fighters from other Sunni nations to fight in Syria. Saudi puritanical influence of the Muslim youth living in the UK is also increasingly visible.


Exclusion of the moderates and the reformists through 'Takfir' (Edicts of heresy) is the most potent instrument in the hands of these hate preachers. Takfir means exclusion, and according to some puritans, loss of right to life. This is exactly what is driving the Jihadi machine in Syria at the moment. Bashar and his allies are kafirs, worthy of death. Glimpses of this takfir are also visible in the UK, which only shows how easy it can be to recruit fighters from this country. Muslims have to combat this menace themselves first.



It is also essential for the Muslims living in the UK to create their own identity, free of the burdens and strains of dictatorships and theocracies of their ancestral countries. In fact, Muslims in the West are closer to the real Islamic ideals of logic, reason and sciences then their brethren in the Middle East. We must export our new, enlightened and rational worldview to them instead of importing antiquated, literalistic and medievalist ideas to us. Currently we are only exporting gap-year Jihadis and openly partisan statesmanship in the form of Tony Blair.



I suggest that Mr. Blair should seriously consider education, both at home and in the Muslim world as his top priority, not war. I will leave his religious views alone. Afterall, It is a matter between a megalomaniac and his own ego.

1974 -VI Kufr and Islam - Circles and Boundaries

A popular slogan of Takfiris. 'Shia are Kafir-whoever disgarees with it is also a Kafir'.

Yahya Bakhtiyar, Mufti Mahmood and many others maintained that the Ahmadis were declared Non-Muslims because their Khalifa accepted in the Parliament that they consider all others Muslims as Kafir.

Mr. Bakhtiyar confirmed this in an interview with Aatish Fishan, Lahore in their May 1994 publication. He thought that during the cross-examination, Mirza Nasir Ahmad was forced to accept that Non-Ahmadis cannot be true Muslims.

A famous Barelvi Fatwa against M. A. Jinnah. The founder of Pakistan.

This matter was settled by a comprehensive response in the Mahzarnama by the Khalifatul Mashi III, which not only quoted fatwas (edicts) of heresy, apostasy and worst by all major sects of Islam against each other, but also gave a detailed description of the Ahmadiyya opinion on Kufr , Eeman and Islam.

It all boils down to..

The Ahmadiyya point of view on this matter can be summed up by two phrases used by Imam Raghib in his Mufridaat.

Doon-ul-Eeman: Those Muslims who are at a lower standard of faith; i.e., they are Muslims because they profess to be Muslims.

Fawq-ul-Eeman: Those Muslims who are at a distinguished standard of faith. i.e., they try to fulfill all of the criteria set in the Quran to attain spiritual distinction in the eyes of God.

During the cross-examination, the Attorney General kept discussing the labels of Kufr and Islam as a corporation would use it for copyrights purposes. Something that all the Mullahs present in the house could easily relate to. But the fact is, that Quran does not treat the subject of faith as a copyright issue.

Kufr (denial) has many degrees. A person can commit kufr though their actions while still professing to be a Muslim. For example, someone who does not offer his daily prayers becomes a Kafir. Sahih Muslim, the second most authentic book of Hadith has a chapter on this topic. But does this mean that all those who miss a single prayer in their life become Non-Muslims?

Imam Ibn-e-Taimiyyah, a famous Jurist who is held in high esteem by the more orthodox Sunni sects, also held the same belief. The following statement from his book was quoted by the Khalifatul Masih III in his statement.

"One type of Kufr causes the person to be removed from the Millat (Nation/Ummah) whereas the other type of Kufr does not." (Kitab-ul-Eeman, page 171).

Fawq-ul-Eeman and a Joke:

While discussing the 'True Islam' or the faith which entitles someone to be on Fawq-ul-Eeman, Khalifatul Masih III read a quote from the book of the founder of the community (page 820). This quote outlines the view of Hadhrat Ahmad on what he considered to be the pristine form of faith. Yahya Bakhtiya responded with a joke about a simpleton who responds to a Mullah's description of the razor thin bridge leading to the gardens of paradise;

'Why don't you say I can't go to paradise, Maulvi sahib'. Asked the poor soul.

The proceedings do not record if the house was amused by the joke. But one member did not like the passage being quoted and objected by saying that its just an effort to show how pious the Ahmadis are.

But it becomes abundantly clear from reading the Ahmadiyya responses, that Ahmadis consider all those who delcare and consider themselves to be Muslims as Muslims.

Another fake reference:

The questioning committee comprised of representatives from all religious parties. One of their tasks was to support their questions with appropriate references and quotes. The Attorney General appears to be caught short at numerous occasions where a carefully crafted question was sabotaged themselves by a bogus reference. Mr. Bakhtiyar read a sentence from a speech delivered by Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II in conference in London.

"Ahmadis to form a separate community from outside (the) Musalman(s)." (page 843)

This sentence does not exist in the speech.

Yahya Bakhtiyar's confusion:

What the Attorney General understood as his triumph was actually an indication of his poor grasp of the matters of faith and spirituality. In his concluding remarks he said

'According to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, he (anyone who does not accept the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) remains within the Millat-e-Muhmmadia, but he is ouside the Dairah or circle of Islam. This was all lost to me.' (page 3037-3038)

Circles and Boundries:

Mr. Bakhtiyar's questions on this issue will give the reader a good indication of his (and the house's) malicious intentions. He pretended not to understand the simple and logical explanation being given by the Khalifatul Masih.

'I thought if he (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) said that we all Muslims and we will said that they (Ahmadis) are Muslims, and ignore these fatwas that have been going on for a long time, but he bluntly said that there were not Haqeeqi Muslims among Non-Ahmadis. It was impossible for a Non-Ahmadi to be a Haqeeqi (True) Muslim.' (page 3039)

One can only express sympathy for the Attorney General's mental capabilities and that of his helpers that they refuse to accept what Quran has made so clear. A verse in Surah Hujrat (49:15) tells the Bedouins that they should not say that are Mo'mins (people of faith), but they are only Muslims.

Even Maudoodi has to accept that certain people

May be counted among the Muslims in the world, may even be treated as Muslims in society, but they cannot be counted as believers in the sight of Allah.

If I understand correctly, Maudoodi's deputies in the Parliament and their friends were trying to play God by their own admission.

Famous Barelvi Fatwa against Shia Muslims. If these are the moderates, imagine the hardliners!

This brings us back to the original objection raised by the Ahmadiyya delegation in the Mahzarnama, that

And most serious of all: it (deliberating and legislating upon such manners) clearly runs counter to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Ahadith of the Holy Prophet, and can prove to be a harbinger of many ills and disorders in the society. (pages 8-9)

If Ahmadis consider others as Muslims, why don't they pray behind them.

This probably has become the most repeated argument against the Pakistani Ahmadi Muslims that they don't pray behind a Non-Ahmadi Imam and also they do not participate in funeral prayers of any other sect. In fact, this arises because two facts are ignored.

a. All leaders/Ulema of other sects have strictly forbidden their followers to pray behind Ahmadis becuase they are Kafirs and according to them they are the followers of an impostor.

b. Why pray behind a person who considers you an apostate, worthy of death etc?. Prayers are acts of worship, not a social occasion.

Shia Fatwa against Wahabis. 'Wahabis bound for the lowest level of hell!'.

Deobandi leaders are Mushrik and Kafir.

 

After quoting miscellaneous fatwas of all sects agains Ahmadis and against each other (page 147-164) this heartfelt plea follows, which obviously fell on deaf ears;

For God's sake, do some justice! Have a modicum of fear of God. Have some sense of obligation to being the followers of our lord and master Hadhrat Muhammad, the chosen one (saw), who was the personification of justice. Tell us, how far are the atrocities and injustices being perpetrated against Ahmadis by the ulema of the majority of the aforementioned sects, justified? How far such conduct is becoming of a Muslim; how far does it behove any humble follower of the one who was "Mercy for the Universe"? If one does offer prayers behind them, one is branded as kaafir; if one does not offer prayers behind them, one is still branded as kaafir! It is a no-win situation. What is one supposed to do? Is the only way left for one to retain Islam as his faith is to abstain altogether from offering prayer in congregation—as the majority among the generality of Muslim has already done? (page 164)

A link to the fatwa delivered by Rabita-e-Alam-e-Islami against Ahmadiyya Muslims in 1974.


Previous: 1974 and Shia genocide
Next: WikiLeaks and 1974 anti-Ahmadiyya agitation

Pakistan, Shia Genocide and 1974

Muhammad Hanif, a popular novelist and journalist tweeted recently about a discussion he had with a young man at a vigil for the Quetta massacre victims. They disagreed upon the year when the Shia killings started in Pakistan. The young man insisted that it all started in 1997, while Hanif knew it to be 1985. He concluded that the kid was too young to remember and he was old enough to be right.

Majority of the Shia Muslims dying in Pakistan at the hands of takfiri terrorists, and most of those protesting against this ongoing genocide don't know or remember 1974.

It was the first year of official takfir in Pakistan.

An elected parliament which consisted for some very vocal Shia politicians, under the guidance of a Shia prime minister allowed Sunni and Wahabi Mullah's to amend the constitution to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims. One can read the speech by Syed Abbas Hussain Gardezi in the proceedings which supposedly represented the Shia opinion on the matter. I do not believe Mr. Gardezi was representing the Shia Muslims of Pakistan. He, like most of his colleagues were politicians who ushered in the dark years without realizing it.

On 6th of August 1974, day 2 of the in-camera session, the Head of the Ahmadiyya community, Hadhrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad cited numerous examples of fatwas (edicts) of Kufr by various Muslim sects against each other. He argued that Parliament should not behave like a takfiri mullah as those demanding the 2nd amendment call each other kafir too.

During the cross-examination, Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiyar refused to accept that all other edicts of heresy had anything in common with the proposed 2nd amendment. According to him, all Muslim sects were unanimous in declaring Ahmadis as Non-Muslims while the edicts quoted by the Khalifatul Masih were individual opinions of one sect against another.

Hadhrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad then quoted Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, a famous religious scholar of Paksitan (Page 284), who wrote that a well known Mullah who was also a reluctant migrant to Pakistan declared a number of sects as Wajibul Qatl, includig Shias. He then quoted another scholar who famously said "We have only started Jihad against one sect (Ahmadis). We will deal with the others once we are done with them first".

On hearing this, Yahya Bakhtiyar tried to dismiss it as an individual opinion. But Hadhrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad told him that in future other sects will gang-up against another and the cycle of destruction will go on.

'That will be Hara-Kiri". Yahya Bakhtiyar remarked; probably the only correct conclusion he made during those 17 days.

Hara-Kiri, according to wikipedia is, "The ceremonial disembowelment, which is usually part of a more elaborate ritual and performed in front of spectators, consists of plunging a short blade, traditionally a tantō, into the abdomen and moving the blade from left to right in a slicing motion".

My deepest sympathies to the Shia Muslim brothers and sisters of Pakistan. It appears that they were bound by a Hara-Kiri pact without their consent.

Muhammad Hanif and many other liberal Pakistanis taking part in vigils and sit-ins this week can also mention 1974 to everyone. Those asking the PPP government for protection should be told that in the summer of 1974 a similar massacre happened all over Pakistan, and Bhutto's first Parliament was busy surrendering to Takfiri Mullahs.