Question from Pakistan
The housing loan which the prime minister, Imran Khan is giving under the scheme of Mera Ghar, Mera Pakistan, is not being given by banks. It’s being given through the banks but from the exchequer. As you know very well that all the land in each city  has been grabbed by  the Army and the corrupt Bureaucracy since decades and they have formed societies and selling the plots at highly inflated prices in Crores (tens of millions of rupees). 
Every month they increase the electricity rates, the gas rates, the petrol price. They have once more taken billions of dollars of loan from the IMF. So now, can we take a loan from the government as there is no other way for ordinary people like us to acquire a home? (End of question)
A. Regarding ‘loans’ acquired from governments, such money is in reality not a loan. It is merely taking from the haraam, zaalim, rahzin (dacoit) government what it has acquired by robbery and oppression, and continues to extract by force from the people in the form of a variety of zulm taxes and many other haraam fees. You will only be taking temporarily from the government a small portion of what these robbers owe you. It will be in the form of a ‘loan’ while in reality it will be a portion of what the government has usurped from you by oppression and dacoitry. They are always indebted to the people, and they will understand the meaning of their highway robbery and zulm on the Day of Qiyaamah. Feel no inhibition regarding taking a ‘loan’ from the government, and if there is some legal loophole by means of which you can avoid repayment, take maximum advantage of it.


Q. Eid in Pakistan was on Thursday together with Saudi Arabia while all other Asian countries celebrated Eid on Friday. Please comment.
A. Rooyat (sighting) of hilaal was not possible in Pakistan. The Saudis have bought out Imran Khan. The Pakistani government is dancing to the tune of the Saudis. The Saudis do not go by sighting the moon. They do their own haraam calculations. Imran Khan has struck up an unholy monetary alliance with the Saudi kuffaar, hence Pakistan had to toe the Saudi line. The Maulana who was the head of the National Hilaal Committee was removed and a Pakistani government puppet was appointed. These people have no understanding of the Deen.

Sit-in: a comparison

Saleem Safi
November 14, 2019

Sit-in: a comparison
Polybius, the Greek historian, propagated the notion of historic recurrence and the historic cycle of striking similarities. In other words, he believed that history repeats itself. However, his soul would be restless to see the repetition of political history and events in such a short span of five years in Islamabad.

In 2014, Imran Khan marched over Islamabad and staged a sit-in at D-Chowk to protest alleged rigging in the 2013 election. Today after five years, Maulana Fazlur Rehman is leading a sit-in for the same reasons – rigging in the 2018 elections. Imran Khan stood on a container demanding the then prime minister’s resignation. Maulana too has a container and the same demand.

In 2014, when Imran Khan was assaulting the capital with protest, Pakistan was facing daunting challenges on the national and international fronts. Internally, terrorism was playing havoc with deadly suicide bombings on a daily basis. Military operations had been launched in North Waziristan resulting in the displacement of hundreds of thousands Pashtuns. Externally, relations with India and the US were strained. However, in such a testing time, the Chinese president was coming to Pakistan to inaugurate the CPEC project. Unfortunately, this historic visit was postponed due to Imran Khan’s sit-in.

Similarly, today in 2019, Maulana Fazlur Rehman has come to Islamabad with his highly charged but well disciplined followers at a time when the Jammu and Kashmir issue has become a tragedy and the Afghanistan issue has entered a decisive stage. On this account, it seems that there is no difference between Imran Khan and Maulana’s politics and sit-ins. However, in some respects, there are glaring differences between the 2014 and 2019 sit-ins.

First, Imran Khan’s sit-in was legal as long as it remained at Abpara Chowk, since it was permitted by the then government. But it became illegal after moving ahead towards D-chowk by breaking its promise. Maulana’s sit-in is democratic and legal as long as they stay at H-9 Park and do not break the agreement which they have respected so far.

Second, police officers were assaulted and government officials were threatened during Imran Khan’s sit-in but nothing such has happened yet in Maulana’s sit-in. Third, in Imran Khan’s sit-in the sanctity of state institutions was violated with impunity: dirty clothes were hung in the premises of the honourable Supreme Court, and parliament and the PTV center were attacked. But in Maulana’s sit-in, nothing of the sort has happened yet.

Fourth, Imran Khan’s sit-in did not even spare the media. They pelted the Geo office with stones and misbehaved with female journalists like Sana Mirza and Farhat Javed. But in Maulana’s sit-in we have seen touching scenes of a female reporter who is reporting in the rain while Maulana’s supporter is holding his own umbrella over her to protect her from the rain. Moreover, Imran Khan’s sit-in split the media while Maulana’s sit-in helped, albeit for some time, with a slight decline in media censorship.

Fifth, Imran Khan’s sit-in was widely alleged to be a scripted show and fingers were also raised towards the umpire but Maulana’s sit-in is free from such allegations and impression – and in some aspects has even been seen as the opposite. Sixth, Imran Khan’s sit-in was dominated by the middle class, mainly from central Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). Maulana’s sit-in has brought the poorest class of society from KP, Balochistan, Sindh and the Seraiki Belt. However, there is no meaningful participation from Central Punjab. Similarly, Imran Khan was seen on the container along with citizens of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, but there is no one of dual nationality on the container with Maulana.

Seventh, Imran Khan’s sit-in was more like a party with full entertainment for participants. But nothing of that sort is happening in Maulana’s sit-in. Only poems and Naats are being played. Except for Eid, there were no congregation prayers in Imran Khan’s sit-in, but in Maulana’s sit-in prayers are held five times a day on a daily basis.

Eight, the Imran Khan sit-in was a single political party show and there were no leaders of other opposition parties with Imran Khan. Even the Chaudhry brothers, who supported the sit-in, used to go stand with Tahirul Qadri – the imported political cousin of Imran Khan. Ninth, no opposition parties – like the PPP, ANP and the MQM – supported Imran Khan’s sit-in. On the contrary, opposition parties like the PPP and ANP backed the PML-N government despite their own grievances against the system. But now all of the opposition has stood with Maulana on the container and demanded the resignation of the government and fresh elections.

Tenth, Imran Khan’s sit-in benefited Musharraf and his successors and damaged the democratic forces. But Maulana’s sit-in has been a great test for Musharraf’s successors and rejuvenated the democratic forces. Last but not the least, the PML-N faced the main brunt of Imran Khan’s sit-in but now the PML-N seems to be the main beneficiary of Maulana’s sit-in.

This is the difference which is visible between the two sit-ins. However, what hasn’t changed is the stance of students of politics like us. In 2014, we accepted Imran Khan’s right to protest but opposed the toppling of an elected government though coercion and sit-ins. Today, we also support Maulana’s right to protest but strongly oppose any forced overthrow of the government.

In 2014, we were requesting Imran Khan that, while he had a right to protest, he should not take the law into his hands. But he was not in the mood to listen. Now we make the same request to Maulana. He has listened so far. Let see what he does next.

The writer works for Geo TV.

Email: saleem.safi@janggroup.


Q. Is there a hadith that refers to this time of the ummat, saying that if we follow one tenth of the Deen it will suffice? If yes, please can you explain the true meaning. Molvis are using this Hadith to condone and justify the wrong that molvis do. They validate their sins and transgressions on the basis of this hadith. They say that their sinful actions come under the scope of ‘one tenth’, therefore, there is no need to worry. I was sitting with one molvi who was saying that Imran Khan was a very good person, and that he has only a few mistakes like mixing with dancing women. He started using this ‘one tenth’ Hadith saying “people call him munaafiq”, but if Allah has given this Ummat leeway, then who are we to say so and so is bad, so and so is a munaafiq?
Does this Hadith really mean we can bend the Deen to accommodate haraam and immorality, and it will be acceptable to Allah Ta’ala?
A. The molvi who uses and misuses the ‘one tenth’ Hadith to justify and accommodate fisq, fujoor and haraam is either a moron or an agent of Iblees. The Hadith never means what stupid molvis are propagating. It is a capital sin to use a Hadith to justify fisq and fujoor, and to negate the prohibitions of the Shariah. The ‘one tenth’ refers to acts of Ibaadat and Taqwa. The Taqwa of the Sahaabah was of such a high level that neglecting even one tenth was intolerable for them. Thus, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Sahaabah would abstain from ‘nine tenths’ (90%) of all halaal trade transactions for the fear of indulging in Riba. In our day, the very thought of abstaining from 90% halaal trade is a ‘mad man’s’ pipe dream. On the contrary, we plunge into inordinate depths of nafsaaniyat to halaalize explicit riba and haraam dealings. Hadhrat Umar’ statement is the actual tafseer of the ‘one tenth’ Hadith. In our day, we struggle to attain even one tenth the Taqwa and Ibaadat of the Sahaabah. But as far as haraam, fisq and fujoor are concerned, Muslims are required compulsorily to abstain 100% in exactly the same way as the Sahaabah. Thus, zina remains haraam for us 100% just as it was 100% haraam for the Sahaabah. It never means that the Sahaabah were allowed to commit 10% zina, and we in this age are allowed 90% zina. The ‘one tenth’ Hadith never means that the Sahaabah could engage in 10% association with dancing girls and prostitutes while we in this age are allowed to mix 90% with dancing girls and prostitutes like the character Imran Khan. It does not mean that the Sahaabah devoured 10% carrion, and we are allowed 90% carrion, and we shall then be Jannatis. The molvi who subscribes to such a convoluted idea is clearly under the spell of shaitaan. Iblees has urinated in his brains, hence he disgorges such insane reasoning. Haraam will always remains 100% haraam for Sahaabah and for all Muslims until the day of Qiyaamah. A Sahaabi who abstained from Tahajjud and all the Ibaadat which the later Fuqaha described as Nafl and Mustahab, would be doomed. Practically, all acts of Ibaadat ordered by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were Waajib. There was no categorization of the A’maal into the Fiqhi classes formulated by the Fuqaha in later centuries. But if people of weak Imaan of our age are negligent and abstain from the deeds of Taqwa, they will not be doomed. This in a nut shell is the meaning of the ‘one tenth’ Hadith.

the majlis vol 23 num 12