Musharraf is defendable via Holy Qur’an and Sunnah and Article 227 constitution of Pakistan

All I am saying  if Musharraf appears in the court and say “I was a Muslim leader from 1999 to 2008 and according to the Article 227 you cannot imposed me Article 6”

Islam is a religion based on the principles not based on the whims. I would like to bring your attention towards the verses of Qur’an

“O ye who believe! Be steadfast witness for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you dealt not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is informed of what you do.”

(Reference  1: Chapter 6, Surah Al Maida verse 8)

And, I like to quote the following verse to clarify my position that why am I intervening!

“Whose interventh in a good cause will have the reward thereof, and whoso interventh in an evil cause will bear the consequence thereof. Allah overseeth all things”

(Reference 2: Chapter 5, Surah Al Nisa verse 85)

My case to fight Musharraf begins with the following verse

“O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority (means ruler of the country); and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if you are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day, that is better and more seemly in the end”

(Reference 3: Chapter 5, Surah Al Nisa verse 59)

Since 9/11, muslim world is in more deplorable state. My analysis and research concludes that one of the main factor is the word “Islam” has not entered into their heart as in the wholesome. It is the ego, the lust and the greed of power overcome and has taken the shape often justified by the misuse of Holy Qur’an. However, the word Islam or Muslim is the one who submit one’s desires in front of Allah.

In the days of Holy Prophet (SWT) and Khilafat-e-Rashida, the word “allegiance” was coined. Who put one’s allegiance to whom? If we understand this word “allegiance” in today’s world; our half of the problem can be solved easily. My understanding to the word “allegiance” is the holder of the passport. If you hold a British passport then it means that the British Government is responsible for your security, justice, welfare and etc. It also means that one have to live according to the law of the British Government. So you automatically took British oath or in real meaning you took an allegiance on British government hands. Same rule applies to American, German, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries passport holders.

Since 1973, the constitution of Pakistan says “All sovereignty belongs to Allah”. The Pakistani leaders and their member of parliamentarians; whenever they took an official position they took oath under the constitution. In short, the Islamic platform is already present in Pakistan and I do agree that there are no Islamic laws in real essence but no one can deny the Islamic reflections in our societies. Remember my reference 1!

The dilemma starts when some stupid and idiot jihadis did 9/11 and killed innocent civilians and they challenged America and breached the international laws. The imperialist George Bush decided to bomb the whole Afghanistan just because of some stupid jihadist mistakes. Both side committed a heinous crime; killing and mass murdering civilians; just to prove their ego, lust and greed. But being a muslim, what is my first duty? Should I lament first to America or to first stupid jihadis? Of course! To first jihadist. Remember Reference 1!

Let’s come back to Musharraf case. In case, if any of your neighbouring country or their khalifa or leader decided to wage a war against any country ; don’t we think is their responsibility to consult and share the idea among neighbouring countries?? If khalifa or leader of Afghanistan is expecting support from Pakistani Khalifa or leader then they should consult Pakistani government before they wage war. Have they ever consulted? The answer is NO! So there is no moral responsibility lies on Musharraf to support Afghan Taliban. Musharraf with all his Islamic rights can exercise whether he wants to support or not to support. He was a Khalifa, Emir or the leader of the whole Pakistani people.

Whether or not Pakistani people put their allegiance on Musharraf’s hand? Let me bring you the fact in Islamic context.

Point 1: Wasn’t the people of Pakistan distributing sweets at the time when Musharraf come into power?

Point 2: Wasn’t the political party now the third biggest largest party Tehreek-e-Insaaf support the Musharraf’s step?

Point 3: Was there any bloodshed or were the people of Pakistan remain acquiescence? The important point to be noted that not even a single jihadi organisation make any noise on Musharraf’s coming in 1999.

According to Pakistani Maulana Tausif ur Rehman while giving an explanation whether Hazrat Ali (A.S) put an allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) or not? He used the argument  Hazrat Ali (A.S) did not wage a war against Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and he remain acquiesced so in short he put an allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA).

(The reference of Maulana Tauseef ur Rehman speech is available on you tube)

Therefore, Pakistani people did put an allegiance on Musharraf’s hand. Thus, whoever holds a Pakistani passport has a duty to obey Musharraf in the context of Reference 3. In other words, Musharraf as a Khalifa or leader of Pakistan is also responsible for well-being, security and welfare of Pakistani people.

There are lot of people in Pakistan who blame Musharraf that he handed over many Muslims to America. In return, Musharraf response was always “No Pakistani is handed over to America. It was all foreigners who have handed over to America only if their own government was not ready to take them”. This is the point where reference 3 needs to revisit in the context of reference 1. Being a Khalifa or leader of Pakistanis, he only holds responsibility of Pakistani people not other people. There are people who bring another saying s like every muslim is a brother of every other muslims. If this is true then why Afghanistan, Phalestine, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt are not the same and why are they having  different passports and Saudis don’t even issue a passport to other nations, no matter how long you stay there! How well the other muslim world treat other muslim nation??? Then, why all blame lies on Musharraf?

The dilemma:- Musharraf was an army personnel and cannot become the President of the country

When the constitution of Pakistan says “All sovereignty belongs to Allah” and Article 227 says “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions” then every law should subject to Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.

Musharraf’s step to become the president of Pakistan can easily be defended as Prophet Muhammad (SWT) and all the four Khalifas or Imams were the leader of the army. They all learnt how to fight, how to lead the army and how to die. When Prophet Muhammad (SWT) was a leader of the army and he knows how to draw sword and this SUNNAH had been copied by all four Caliphs and Imams. So how could the constitution and people of Pakistan can ignore the Holy Prophet (SWT) sunnah? This law which is against the teaching of Holy Qur’an and Sunnah should be challenged first!

Army personnel can become Khalifa or leader, if the countrymen put their allegiance on him. In Musharraf case, people of Pakistan did. This process is justified islamically.

Moreover, the article 62 or 63(g) says, whoever mocks the Army, he/she should be disqualified from the membership of the parliament. Why does not the Nawas Shareef action in 1999 to not bring the Chief of Army staff’s plane to the ground can be considered as a mockery to the army? It is a judicial murder to Musharraf.

Who needs to be tried on treason charges?

1)      The fake bearded Mullah

Reason: - The late Dr. Israr Ahmed was explaining the moments on you tube when Pervez Musharraf called upon every scholars from Pakistan to consult after 9/11 incident.  Dr Israr Ahmed praised Musharraf that he is not a “Hypocrite” because he clearly said that America can bomb us too. So the Mullahs who said that Pakistan Army was following the same goal as American were; not justified. America was fighting for a different cause. The Musharraf response tells that he was fighting for different cause that is to protect Pakistan and Pakistani people. Hence, the goal of the Musharraf and the American army was never be the same.

Further, if a Muslim leader called upon every scholar then it is a duty of scholars to inform the rights he has been given in the light of Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. The late Dr Israr Ahmed and other scholars never told or advised the nation that a leader has been selected and he is allowed to exercise his rights islamically.

A lot of people criticize that Musharraf sends the Army to the north of Pakistan. Wasn’t his right to send the army anywhere in the country? Don’t you think when Yazid send the army over Hazrat Hussain (AS) , the same Maulana Tausif ur Rehman and late Dr Israr Ahmed justified Yazid’s acts. So why cannot Musharraf send the army?

There is another incident happened recently in Bahrain. When some unarmed civilians took part in protest, Saudi government knocked the “FATWA” door and one of the scholars gave the fatwa and declared such protest is forbidden in Islam. What did Saudis and Bahrainis do after the fatwa? The Saudi and Bahraini army bulldozed and razed over unarmed civilian; hence killing many civilians though they were unarmed.

All Mullahs should be tried for treason charges as they deliberately hid verses and ahadiths from the Khalifa i.e. Musharraf. They just did not hide only but they spread the false rumor against him and the state; hence they did a conspiracy to destabilize the state.

2)      The chairperson of news channel, newspapers and the media

During the Red Mosque incident, they did report unjuslty and while even given many chances and choices to negotiate; they reported falsely and given the impression to malign Musharraf and the state. The newspapers articles were full of false reports that army killed many children and women. The fact was only 94 or 100 armed people were killed and including one woman who does not want to come out. Not showing the report fairly, thus media also did a contribution in conspiracy against the state.

3)      The issue with Chief Justice Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudhry

In Islam, Caliph can be impeached on two conditions. One is if he is unjust and second is if he goes against the Holy  Qura’n and Sunnah. Islam also tells how to impeach that is to give a proper notice to the Caliph and if he does not listen then it is a duty of the whole Muslim Ummah to impeach the Caliph.

None of the acts of judiciary hinted out that they impeached on Islamic baisis. On the other hand, CJ too much involvement of your cases shows that he was trying to involve in your policy.

Musharraf did act on Prime Minister’s reference. Musharraf sent the reference against CJ to the Supreme Judicial Council. His first step should be appreciated as it shows that he believes in supremacy of law and shows his clear intention. But when CJ become personally involved in one’s case then impartiality can be questioned. If CJ step was in the interest of Pakistan then does he not think that Musharraf has already fought two wars for the country and he faced more than seven suicide attacks and the economy of Pakistan was getting better and the poverty was being eradicated by his policies; then in what context CJ Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudhry took a SUO MOTTO action? Does he consider Musharraf as an unfaithful person? How?

If it were in the interest of Pakistan, then why didn’t he take a SUO MOTO action over the recent rigging in general elections? Since Musharraf left, CJ took many SUO MOTO cases against the PPP government but surprisingly he did not take any SUO MOTO case against the Nawas Sharif’s government. He can be tried too over the conspiracy against the state as he has links with Nawas Sharif’s family.

Regards,Hammad