Abdul Rashid Ghazi, the administrator of Lal Masjid Islamabad is in the belly of the beast. The antics of his students from the two seminaries, Jamia Hafsa and Freedia, have put him in the spotlight the world over. He has even ignored the denunciation of some MMA leaders and said that the Lal Masjid will stick to its stand on the enforcement of sharia and the demand that the government reconstruct the mosques it has demolished. An articulate and soft-spoken gentleman, Ghazi monitors the media very closely. The Friday Times spoke with him on the phone to ascertain his view on the ongoing crisis in Islamabad. Excerpts:The Friday Times: You are demanding the reconstruction of demolished mosques even though they were constructed illegally and on state land. Why?
Abdul Rashid Ghazi: LetÂ’s put this in a perspective. A mosque cannot be built on land belonging to an individual unless he was to voluntarily donate it for that purpose. But that is not the case with any other land, whether you call it state land or something else. If there is a locality, which requires a mosque, and people of that locality decide after joint consultations among themselves that a mosque needs to be built, then they can do it on land that does not belong to anyone. Constructing a mosque in such a place, where one is needed, is basically the job of the government. But if a government doesnÂ’t do it and the people require mosques, they can build them according to the procedure that I have mentioned.
Once a mosque is built and people begin to pray therein, that place remains a mosque until the end of this world. That place cannot be razed to the ground and it cannot be turned into something else. In case of some natural calamity, if a mosque is destroyed or becomes dysfunctional, people can put markers there and whenever they can make it functional again, can and should, do so. That piece of land remains a mosque forever.
This was as far as sharia is concerned. Now letÂ’s look at the issue from the bylaws of CDA [Capital Development Authority]. The bylaws are very clear on the status of the mosques and ziarats [tombs]. Mosques cannot be demolished. The mosques that have been demolished were qadeemi [old] mosques. When the capital was being constructed, CDA began buying land from people and also encroached upon land that housed mosques. Later, some of that land was reclaimed. So what we are demanding is commensurate both with sharia as well as CDA bylaws. I must, however, clarify that tombs do not enjoy the status of the mosques.
So you are prepared to rebel and use force if the government does not reconstruct the mosques?
I donÂ’t know what you mean by rebellion. If demanding that the government act according to the sharia and its own laws is rebellion then you can perhaps use that term. But I wonÂ’t use it for what we are doing. In fact, if there is any rebellion, it is from the governmentÂ’s side, which has disregarded religious as well as its own laws and rebelled against the sharia.
But you do believe in the use of force, including if necessary kidnapping people and putting the fear of God in them?
I am happy you have referred to an event about which there has been much disinformation. The woman, who was kidnapped, as you put it, was known to indulge in immoral practices. This fact was known to the police also but it failed to act against her. The police told me that every time they tried to proceed against the woman, no one from the locality would agree to become a witness. Upon this I called in the people and asked them why they refused to provide witnesses to the police. They ultimately agreed to become collective witnesses and I called the SHO and told him that he could now proceed against the woman. He began hemming and hawing. When I asked him why he was reluctant to act now that he also had witnesses, he said that his hands were tied because of orders from above.
So, I said okay and called the SP. I told him what the SHO had said and he admitted that such was the case. I asked him if he had any doubt about the womanÂ’s activities and he said no. He agreed with me that the woman did run a brothel but said that he couldnÂ’t do anything against her. It was at that stage that we decided to act in collaboration with the people of the locality.
So, you agree that if the government doesnÂ’t act, a pious Muslim can take the responsibility of amr and nahi in his own hands?
Look, it depends on how one views it. The government is supposed to do certain things, perform some functions. If it doesn’t do them, the vacuum will be filled. If no one picks up the garbage from in front of my house even after I have repeatedly requested the concerned department to do so, what will I do – I will have to clean up myself. After that if the department comes to me and says that what I did was against the law, I can only shrug.
Even Imam Al Ghazali said that after a state is established, amr and nahi devolve on the state. How can you begin to do these things?
I agree with you. We shouldn’t have to do any of this. It’s the government’s job. But need I tell you the lack of governance and disregard of laws in this country BY the government. Al Ghazali was presupposing that there would be a state. But what happens when there is none; how should one react to that? Forget the issue of mosques and sharia and the rest – please tell me how the government departments act in other areas of governance. We want this system changed. This system only works to the advantage of the elite; it has nothing for the common man. What we are doing, or hope to do, is simply to raise our voice against this system and the injustices it perpetrates and perpetuates. These are demands; nothing more.
Your boys and girls are going around threatening women drivers and forcing shops to close down. Is this your idea of raising a voice against injustices or bringing good governance?
(Sighs). I donÂ’t know how and what to feel about these allegations. All I can say is that not one of our girl-students has done any of these things. This is the job of agencies or some gangs that want to give us a bad name. I can concretely tell you about the issue of women drivers. My wife drives. How can I, or anyone on my watch, can go out and stop women from driving? This is sheer disinformation.
The religion minister Ijaz-ul Haq saved you from the terrorism charge and you apologised to the government and agreed never to indulge in anti-state activities again. But now you have created another crisis.
I am happy you have asked this question immediately after I spoke about disinformation and dissembling. On that TV programme, the minister and I were together, though we were differently located. After the TV anchor had asked this question, I got disconnected, though it wasnÂ’t deliberate. The minister showed a paper to the anchor in which I had supposedly apologised. Later, I told the anchor that he should have realised that the piece of paper was a letter we had written to wifaq-ul madaris and had nothing to do with any alleged apology I had made to the government or any agreement. I also said that the minister should say it on oath that he was speaking the truth.
The fact of the matter is that even back in 2004 and in the presence of several religious scholars, the minister had admitted that the entire case, which had involved me in some ridiculous plan to bomb five government installations, was a misunderstanding. I didnÂ’t accept his version but was asked by other ulema to give the government a face-saver. Also, the other boys who had been captured were tried in an anti-terrorist court, which acquitted them after seven or eight months. The government never went into appeal against that decision. If they were indeed terrorists or planning a terror attack, why did the government let the case quietly drop after the judgement of the ATC?
You want the sharia enforced; what would that do to the non-Muslims in this country? How would we react if India were to say that it would legislate on the basis of Hindu law?
I thought this country was created as a homeland for Muslims. I donÂ’t know if you believe that?
ThatÂ’s more complex than how you put it; you might also want to read JinnahÂ’s speech to the Constituent Assembly.
We are only acting according to the Constitution and that document says this country will have Islamic laws.