|Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema is delivering speech at Ahrar Conference Muntan|
- I just want to talk and discuss about Islam and other non Islamic organisations like Ahmadis/Qadianis who portrayed them in a guise of Muslims to deceive and betray all human society as its a well known fact their forefather who claimed to be their prophet was planted by British in subcontinent to uproot soul of JIHAD From Muslims . Jews are Jews , Christians are Christian ,
Hindus are Hindus so should be Qadianis (Non Muslims) My aim is to discuss Islam with any Muslim or Non Muslim who want to talk and want to know the reality of Islam. that's it ! Let Me welcome all of you interested with good faith .
Friday, 7 December 2012
Friday, 30 November 2012
In November 2012, the Government of Pakistan banned Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema, leader of Tehreek-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat and secretary general of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, from delivering speech in the Chichawatni and district Sahiwal area due to the security situation in Muharram. The president of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan Syed Ata-ul-Muhaimin Bukhari also banned from delivering speech for three months in Multan, Sahiwal, Raheem Yaar Khan, Gujrat and Jhang.
Sunday, 12 August 2012
Freedom of the press is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.
With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of freedom of scientific research (known as scientific freedom), publishing, press and printing the depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go as far down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is often covered by the same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to spoken and published expression.
Besides legal definitions, some non-governmental organizations use other criteria to judge the level of press freedom around the world:
Reporters Without Borders considers the number of journalists murdered, expelled or harassed, and the existence of a state monopoly on TV and radio, as well as the existence of censorship and self-censorship in the media, and the overall independence of media as well as the difficulties that foreign reporters may face.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) uses the tools of journalism to help journalists by tracking press freedom issues through independent research, fact-finding missions, and firsthand contacts in the field, including local working journalists in countries around the world. CPJ shares information on breaking cases with other press freedom organizations worldwide through the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global e-mail network. CPJ also tracks journalist deaths and detentions. CPJ staff applies strict criteria for each case; researchers independently investigate and verify the circumstances behind each death or imprisonment.
Freedom House likewise studies the more general political and economic environments of each nation in order to determine whether relationships of dependence exist that limit in practice the level of press freedom that might exist in theory. So the concept of independence of the press is one closely linked with the concept of press freedom.
Status of press freedom worldwide
Every year, Reporters Without Borders establishes a ranking of countries in terms of their freedom of the press. The Worldwide press freedom index list is based on responses to surveys sent to journalists that are members of partner organisations of the RWB, as well as related specialists such as researchers, jurists and human rights activists. The survey asks questions about direct attacks on journalists and the media as well as other indirect sources of pressure against the free press, such as non-governmental groups. RWB is careful to note that the index only deals with press freedom, and does not measure the quality of journalism.
In 2010, the countries where press was the most free were Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The country with the least degree of press freedom was Eritrea, followed by North Korea, Turkmenistan, Iran and Myanmar (Burma).
Freedom of the Press
In 2009 Iceland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden topped the list with North Korea, Turkmenistan, Myanmar (Burma), Libya, Eritrea at the bottom.
The Lira Baysetova case in Kazakhstan.
In Nepal, Eritrea and China (mainland only), journalists may spend years in jail simply for using the "wrong" word or photo. The Georgiy R. Gongadze case in Ukraine According to the Press Freedom Index for 2007, Iran ranked 166th out of 169 nations. Only three other countries - Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan - had more restrictions on news media freedom than Iran. The government of Ali Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council had imprisoned 50 journalists in 2007 and had all but eliminated press freedom. Reporters Without Borders (RWB) has dubbed Iran the "Middle East's biggest prison for journalists."
Regions closed to foreign reporters
Jammu & Kashmir, India
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England established parliamentary sovereignty over the Crown and, above all, the right of revolution. A major contributor to Western liberal theory was John Locke. Locke argued in Two Treatises of Government that the individual placed some of his rights present in the state of nature in trusteeship with the sovereign (government) in return for protection of certain natural individual rights. A social contract was entered into by the people.
First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica
Until 1694, England had an elaborate system of licensing. No publication was allowed without the accompaniment of a government-granted license. Fifty years earlier, at a time of civil war, John Milton wrote his pamphlet Areopagitica. In this work Milton argued forcefully against this form of government censorship and parodied the idea, writing "when as debtors and delinquents may walk abroad without a keeper, but unoffensive books must not stir forth without a visible jailer in their title." Although at the time it did little to halt the practice of licensing, it would be viewed later a significant milestone as one of the most eloquent defenses of press freedom.
Milton's central argument was that the individual is capable of using reason and distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad. In order to be able to exercise this ration right, the individual must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in “a free and open encounter." From Milton's writings developed the concept of the open marketplace of ideas, the idea that when people argue against each other, the good arguments will prevail. One form of speech that was widely restricted in England was seditious libel, and laws were in place that made criticizing the government a crime. The King was above public criticism and statements critical of the government were forbidden, according to the English Court of the Star Chamber. Truth was not a defense to seditious libel because the goal was to prevent and punish all condemnation of the government.
John Stuart Mill approached the problem of authority versus liberty from the viewpoint of a 19th century utilitarian: The individual has the right of expressing himself so long as he does not harm other individuals. The good society is one in which the greatest number of persons enjoy the greatest possible amount of happiness. Applying these general principles of liberty to freedom of expression, Mill states that if we silence an opinion, we may silence the truth. The individual freedom of expression is therefore essential to the well-being of society.
Mill’s application of the general principles of liberty is expressed in his book On Liberty: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind".
The Indian Constitution, while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a). However this right is subject to restrictions under sub clause (2), whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt, court, defamation, or incitement to an offense". Laws such as the Official Secrets Act and Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (PoTA) have been used to limit press freedom. Under PoTA, person could be detained for up to six months for being in contact with a terrorist or terrorist group. PoTA was repealed in 2006, but the Official Secrets Act 1923 continues.
For the first half-century of independence, media control by the state was the major constraint on press freedom. Indira Gandhi famously stated in 1975 that All India Radio is "a Government organ, it is going to remain a Government organ..." With the liberalization starting in the 1990s, private control of media has burgeoned, leading to increasing independence and greater scrutiny of government. Organizations like CNN-IBN, NDTV and Times Now have been particularly influential, e.g. in bringing about the resignation of powerful Haryana minister Venod Sharma.
Nazi Germany (1933-1945)
In 1933 Freedom of the Press was suppressed in Germany by the Reichstag Fire Decree of President Paul Von Hindenburg, just as Adolf Hitler was coming to power. Hitler largely suppressed freedom of the press through Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. As the Ministry's name implies, propaganda did not carry the negative connotations that it does today (or did in the Allied countries); how-to manuals were openly distributed by that same ministry explaining the craft of effective propaganda. The Ministry also acted as a central control-point for all media, issuing orders as to what stories could be run and what stories would be suppressed. Anyone involved in the film industry—from directors to the lowliest assistant—had to sign an oath of loyalty to the Nazi Party, due to opinion-changing power Goebbels perceived movies to have. (Goebbels himself maintained some personal control over every single film made in Nazi Europe.) Journalists who crossed the Propaganda Ministry were routinely imprisoned or shot as traitors. The Sicherheitsdienst and other Nazi police organizations also created a network of internal, domestic spying, so that for example, the White Rose Society was in constant fear of discovery and execution.
Poland and Lithuania
Freedom of Press laws are first passed in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1539.
The world's first Freedom of the Press Act was introduced in Sweden in 1766.
Between September 4, 1770 and October 7, 1771 the kingdom of Denmark-Norway had the most unrestricted freedom of press of any country in Europe. This occurred during the regime of Johann Friedrich Struensee, whose first act was to abolish the old censorship laws. However, due to the great amount of mostly anonymous pamphlets published that was critical and often slanderous towards Struensee's own regime, he reinstated some restrictions regarding the freedom of press a year later, October 7, 1771.
Implications of new technologies
Many of the traditional means of delivering information are being slowly superseded by the increasing pace of modern technological advance. Almost every conventional mode of media and information dissemination has a modern counterpart that offers significant potential advantages to journalists seeking to maintain and enhance their 'freedom of speech'. A few simple examples of such phenomena include:
Satellite television versus terrestrial television: Whilst terrestrial television is relatively easy to manage and manipulate, satellite television is much more difficult to control as journalistic content can easily be broadcast from other jurisdictions beyond the control of individual governments. An example of this in the Middle East is the satellite broadcaster Al Jazeera. This Arabic language media channel operates out of Qatar, whose government is relatively liberal with respect to many of its neighboring states. As such, its views and content are often problematic to a number of governments in the region and beyond. However, because of the increased affordability and miniaturisation of satellite technology (e.g. dishes and receivers) it is simply not practicable for most states to control popular access to the channel.
Web-based publishing (e.g., blogging) vs. traditional publishing: Traditional magazines and newspapers rely on physical resources (e.g. offices, printing presses) that can easily be targeted and forced to close down. Web-based publishing systems can be run using ubiquitous and inexpensive equipment and can operate from any global jurisdiction. To get control over web publications, nations and organisations are using Geolocation and Geolocation software.
Voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) vs. conventional telephony: Although conventional telephony systems are easily tapped and recorded, modern VOIP technology can employ sophisticated encryption systems to evade central monitoring systems. As VOIP and similar technologies become more widespread they are likely to make the effective monitoring of journalists (and their contacts and activities) a very difficult task for governments.
Naturally, governments are responding to the challenges posed by new media technologies by deploying increasingly sophisticated technology of their own (a notable example being China's attempts to impose control through a state run internet service provider that controls access to the Internet) but it seems that this will become an ever increasingly difficult task as journalists continue to find new ways to exploit technology and stay one step ahead of the generally slower moving government institutions that attempt to censor them.
In May 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama signed legislation intended to promote a free press around the world, a bipartisan measure inspired by the murder in Pakistan of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The legislation, called the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, requires the United States Department of State to expand its scrutiny of news media restrictions and intimidation as part of its annual review of human rights in each country.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Pakistan’s human rights record has dramatically improved since the reforms that took place after the tenure of President Zia-ul-Haq in 1988. The situation of human rights in Pakistan is a complex one, as a result of the country's diversity, large population, its status as a developing country and a sovereign, Islamic republic as well as an Islamic democracy with a mixture of both Islamic and colonial secular laws. The Constitution of Pakistan provides for fundamental rights, which include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the right to bear arms. These clauses are generally respected in practice. Clauses also provide for separation of executive and judiciary, an independent judiciary and freedom of movement within the country and abroad.
The founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a moderate secular state blended with some Islamic values and principles. No Pakistani Government has ever come up with a detailed conclusion on what he exactly meant by this. Nevertheless, Pakistan's status as an Islamic Republic should not be confused or compared with other Islamic Republics in the region, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unlike Iran, Pakistan is not a theocracy, but rather an Islamic democracy where elections regularly takes place on time and are mostly free and fair. Most of Pakistan's laws are secular in nature, most of which were inherited from the United Kingdom's colonial rule of modern-day Pakistan before 1947. In recent times, there has been increasing pressure on Pakistan to amend or replace some of its outdated laws made during the time of the British Empire.
Although the government has enacted measures to counter any problems, abuses remain. Furthermore, courts suffer from lack of funds, outside intervention, and deep case backlogs that lead to long trial delays and lengthy pretrial detentions. Many observers inside and outside Pakistan contend that Pakistan’s legal code is largely concerned with crime, national security, and domestic tranquility and less with the protection of individual rights.
The 2009 Freedom in the World report by Freedom House gave Pakistan a political rights rating of 4 (1 representing free and 7 representing not free), and a civil liberties rating of 5, earning it the designation of partly free.
Political abuse of human rights
Provincial and local governments have arrested journalists and closed newspapers that report on matters perceived as socially offensive or critical of the government. Journalists also have been victims of violence and intimidation by various groups and individuals. In spite of these difficulties, the press publishes freely, although journalists often exercise self-restraint in their writing.
The 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act, which established Anti Terrorism Court, and subsequent anti-terrorist legislation, has arisen concerns about protection of fundamental rights.
In 2002 citizens participated in general elections, but those elections were criticized as deeply flawed by domestic and international observers. Societal actors also are responsible for human rights abuses. Violence by drug lords and sectarian militias claims numerous innocent lives, discrimination and violence against women are widespread, human trafficking is problematic, and debt slavery and bonded labor persist.
The government often ignores abuses against children and religious minorities, and government institutions and some Muslim groups have persecuted non-Muslims and used some laws as the legal basis for doing so. The Blasphemy Law, for example, allows life imprisonment or the death penalty for contravening Islamic principles, but legislation was passed in October 2004 to eliminate misuse of the law.
Furthermore, the social acceptance of many these problems hinders their eradication. One prominent example is honor killings (“karo kari”), which are believed to have accounted for more than 4,000 deaths from 1998 to 2003. Many view this practice as indicative of a feudal mentality and as an anathema to Islam, but others defend the practice as a means of punishing violators of cultural norms and view attempts to stop it to as an assault on cultural heritage.
Pakistan was recommended by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in May to be designated as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) by the Department of State because of its government’s engagement or toleration of systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.
Enforced disappearances (missing persons)
Main article: Missing persons (Pakistan)
This section requires expansion.
In Baluchistan ISI and police use to arrest or kidnap political leader demanding for more autonomy or freedom from Pakistan. They also arrested student activist and teachers who were protesting against the exploitation of Pakistan government. Many human-right activist in Pakistan have protested against force disappearances and kidnappings.
Humanitarian response to conflict
Violence in Pakistan and the Taliban conflict with the government have heightened humanitarian problems in Pakistan. Political and military interests have been prioritised over humanitarian considerations in their offensives against the Taliban, and issues likely to get worse as people are encouraged back home prematurely and face once again being victims of the insurgents.Displacement is a key problem and humanitarian organisations are failing to address the basic needs of people outside displacement camps, nor are they able to address issues such as the conduct of hostilities and the politicisation of the emergency response. Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute argue that aid agencies face dilemmas with engaging with the government, as this does not always produce the desired results and can conflict with their aim of promoting stability and maintaining a principled approach.A principled approach limits their ability to operate when the government emphasises political and security considerations.
Internally displaced people
There were over 500,000 people displaced in 2008, mainly from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on the border with Afghanistan, and a further 1.4 million from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in May 2009. By mid-July 2009, Pakistan’s National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) put the total of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) at just over 2m, while unofficial figures are as high as 3.5m. Most of those displaced (up to 80%) were taken in by relatives, friends and even strangers - Pashtun communities in particular have displayed great efforts in assisting the displaced despite their own high levels of poverty. Still others use schools, but only a small minority live in approximately 30 official camps, mainly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.
There is little support for those living outside of camps, official support consists only of some food and non-food items and government cash grants.Many of those who have been taken in are looked after by political and religious groups providing assistance in return for membership or support. The government has been struggling to provide support to an area traditionally marginalised and remote and is also keen to downplay the scale of the crisis.Before military operations are undertaken, little preparation is made for the predictable increase in displaced peoples in order to avoid attracting the attention of opposing forces.There are also suggestions that help given to IDPs is informed by cultural and political expediency, as in the case of a $300 family cash grant.
The international community's assistance is marginal in comparison to local efforts due to the rate and scale of displacement; the scattering of displaced populations among host families and in spontaneous settlements; access difficulties due to insecurity and the role of the military in the relief effort. International humanitarian organizations have focused on camp-based populations and this limited interaction has hampered their attempts to analyse the full complexity of the situation, the context, its different actors and their interests – all of which are key to ensuring that the humanitarian imperative is achieved in this complex operating environment.
The cluster method often used for the coordination and funding of humanitarian responses to IDPs have been criticised many agencies have bypassed the UN cluster, such as OFDA and DfID. However, operational agencies also indicated that donors have also been slow to challenge government policy due to their overall support to the Pakistani counter-insurgency effort, as well as lack of influence.
The government has come under criticism also for downplaying the crisis, but also for weakening the position of the UN though the ‘One UN Approach’ in Pakistan, leaving a UN unable to function properly. Furthermore, in an effort to force refugees back to the areas the have fled (in order to create a sense of normalcy), the government has cut off power and water supply to the IDP camps.
"Friends of Pakistan"
Many donors see the conflict as an opportunity for more comprehensive engagement in an effort to promote stability in the region, to promote a legitimate government and curtail transnational threats. The ‘Friends of Pakistan’ group, which includes the US, the UK and the UN, is key in the international community's drive to promote stability. The US has adopted a joint ‘Af-Pak’ (Afghanistan and Pakistan) strategy in order to suppress the insurgency and defend its national security interests. This strategy seeks engagement with the government and the military intelligence communities, develop civilian and democratic governance, for instance through the provision of services and support in ‘cleared areas’ in FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and increasing assistance including direct budget support, development aid and support with counter-insurgency work. The UK equally sees an opportunity to counter instability and militancy through a combined military and 'hearts and minds' approach, through judicial, governance and security sector reform. The UNDP/WFP takes a similar line.
Yet the success of this approach is by no means clear, as both the government and society at large are not welcoming of foreign interference. USAID takes into account political as well as humanitarian dimensions in its decision making process. Many civilians see little distinction between aid agencies, the military operations and "western interests"; ‘you bomb our villages and then build hospitals’. Many humanitarian organisations thus avoid being too visible and do not mark their aid with their logos. friends of Pakistan must come forward to assist in her committment.Religious intolerance against Pakistani Christians by Islamists
Controversial blasphemy laws
In Pakistan, 1.5% of the population are Christian. Pakistani law mandates that any "blasphemies" of the Quran are to be met with punishment. On July 28, 1994, Amnesty International urged Pakistan's Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto to change the law because it was being used to terrorize religious minorities. She tried, but was unsuccessful. However, she modified the laws to make them more moderate. Her changes were reversed by the Nawaz Sharif administration which was backed by Religious/Political parties.
Ayub Masih, a Christian, was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in 1998. He was accused by a neighbor of stating that he supported British writer, Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Lower appeals courts upheld the conviction. However, before the Pakistan Supreme Court, his lawyer was able to prove that the accuser had used the conviction to force Mashi's family off their land and then acquired control of the property. Masih has been released.
On September 22, 2006, a Pakistani Christian named Shahid Masih was arrested and jailed for allegedly violating Islamic "blasphemy laws" in Pakistan. He is presently held in confinement and has expressed fear of reprisals by Islamic Fundamentalists.
On October 28, 2001 in Lahore, Pakistan, Islamic militants killed 15 Christians at a church. On September 25, 2002 two terrorists entered the "Peace and Justice Institute", Karachi, where they separated Muslims from the Christians, and then executed eight Christians by shooting them in the head.
On September 25, 2002, unidentified gunmen shot dead seven people at a Christian charity in Karachi's central business district. They entered the third-floor offices of the Institute for Peace and Justice (IPJ) and shot their victims in the head. All of the victims were Pakistani Christians. Karachi police chief Tariq Jamil said the victims had their hands tied and their mouths had been covered with tape. Pakistani Christians have alleged that they have "become increasingly victimised since the launch of the US-led international war on terror."
In November 2005, 3,000 militant Islamists attacked Christians in Sangla Hill in Pakistan and destroyed Roman Catholic, Salvation Army and United Presbyterian churches. The attack was over allegations of violation of blasphemy laws by a Pakistani Christian named Yousaf Masih. The attacks were widely condemned by some political parties in Pakistan. However, Pakistani Christians have expressed disappointment that they have not received justice. Samson Dilawar, a parish priest in Sangla Hill, has said that the police have not committed to trial any of the people who were arrested for committing the assaults, and that the Pakistani government did not inform the Christian community that a judicial inquiry was underway by a local judge. He continued to say that Muslim clerics "make hateful speeches about Christians" and "continue insulting Christians and our faith".
In February 2006, churches and Christian schools were targeted in protests over the publications of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in Denmark, leaving two elderly women injured and many homes and properties destroyed. Some of the mobs were stopped by police.
In August 2006, a church and Christian homes were attacked in a village outside of Lahore, Pakistan in a land dispute. Three Christians were seriously injured and one missing after some 35 Muslims burned buildings, desecrated Bibles and attacked Christians.
Based, in part, on such incidents, Pakistan was recommended by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in May 2006 to be designated as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC) by the Department of State.
Discrimination against Hindus
There have been severe persecution of Hindus by Muslims in Pakistan since its formation in 1947.The increasing Islamization has caused many Hindus to leave Hinduism and seek emancipation by converting to other faiths such as Buddhism and Christianity. Such Islamization include the blasphemy laws, which make it dangerous for religious minorities to express themselves freely and engage freely in religious and cultural activities
Minority members of the Pakistan National Assembly have alleged that Hindus were being hounded and humiliated to force them to leave Pakistan. Hindu women have been known to be victims of kidnapping and forced conversion to Islam. Krishan Bheel, a Hindu member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, came into news recently for manhandling Qari Gul Rehman.
Hindus in what is now Pakistan have declined from 23 % of the total population in 1947 to less than 2% today. The report condemns Pakistan for systematic state-sponsored religious discrimination against Hindus through bigoted "anti-blasphemy" laws. It documents numerous reports of millions of Hindus being held as "bonded laborers" in slavery-like conditions in rural Pakistan, something repeatedly ignored by the Pakistani government.
Forced and coerced conversions of religious minorities to Islam occurred at the hands of societal actors. Religious minorities claimed that government actions to stem the problem were inadequate. Several human rights groups have highlighted the increased phenomenon of Hindu girls, particularly in Karachi, being kidnapped from their families and forced to convert to Islam.
Kidnapping charges were pending against a Muslim man who abducted a fifteen-year-old Christian, Samina Izhaq, and forced her to convert in August 2004.
On September 2, 2005, Ghulam Abbas and Mohammad Kashif reportedly drugged and kidnapped Riqba Masih, a Christian woman, from the village of Chak, Punjab, and took her to Lahore. The kidnappers repeatedly raped Masih and threatened to kill her and her family if she did not convert to Islam but Masih refused. On September 3, 2005, another unidentified accomplice took Masih into custody and detained her until September 6, 2005, raping her repeatedly. Later that day, the kidnappers took Masih to Faisalabad and abandoned her at a bus stop from where she made her way to her parents' home. Police arrested Ghulam Abbas and Mohammad Kashif and charged them with kidnapping and rape. Following an October 24, 2005, hearing in which a Faisalabad court denied bail, Kashif escaped from the courtroom and remained at large at the end of the reporting period. Abbas remained in police custody, and police are attempting to find Kashif.
On October 18, 2005, Sanno Amra and Champa, a Hindu couple residing in the Punjab Colony, Karachi, Sindh returned home to find that their three teenage daughters had disappeared. After inquiries to the local police, the couple discovered that their daughters had been taken to a local madrassah, had been converted to Islam, and were denied unsupervised contact with their parents.
Sectarian tensions and riots between ethnic Muslims
Several minority Muslim communities, such as the Mojahir and the Ahmadiyya have been attacked in pogroms in Pakistan over the years. Plus, the ethnic Balochi have allegedly been severely discriminated against, leading them to start a secessionist movement under Nawab Akbar Bugti called the balochistan Liberation Army.
The human rights violation of the Ahmadiyya have been systematic and state-sponsored. The religious establishment in Pakistan does not approve of the reformatory nature of the Ahmadiyya Movement, and it considers it heretic. Politicians have often found it politically attractive to support the mulla in his anti-Ahmadiyya agitation. The first countrywide violence erupted in 1953. Majlis-e-Ahrar leader's Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, Sheikh Hissam-ud-Din, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Syed Abuzar Bukhari etc. were created this violence. A high level judicial inquiry subsequently found and declared that political considerations and exigency were the main cause of the spread of the Anti-Ahmadiyya violence. Many years later, Mr. Bhutto found it politically advantageous in 1974 to have Ahmadis declared a non-Muslim minority. This was done after another countrywide violent anti-Ahmadiyya agitation conceived and engineered by the government and carried out by mullas. Ahrar leader's Syed Abuzar Bukhari, Syed Ata-ul-Mohsin Bukhari and others created Voilence in Rabwah (Now, Chennab Nagar) in 1976. Minority status was an innovation, in that, while other groups were a religious minority by their own profession, Ahmadis were forcibly declared a minority through legislation.
Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, Jamat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ullema-e-Islam created voilence in 1984. General Zia, the military dictator of Pakistan, went many steps further in 1984, when to gain the support of Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, he promulgated the notorious anti-Ahmadiyya Ordinance XX that added Sections 298-B and 298-C in Pakistan Criminal Code. Through this Ordinance, Ahmadis were deprived of most of their basic human rights and their freedom of faith. Under the provisions of this ordinance, an Ahmadi could be given rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and fined any amount. An Ahmadi can be easily charged for profession of his faith or for ‘posing’ as a Muslim. The ordinance was a green signal for anti-Ahmadiyya elements to open the floodgates of tyranny with the help of the State. The ordinance provides a ready and convenient tool in the hands of fundamentalists and the government to incriminate Ahmadis on flimsy grounds and petty excuses. In November 2012, the Government of Pakistan banned Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema, leader of Tehreek-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat and secretary general of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, from delivering speech in the Chichawatni and district Sahiwal area due to the security situation in Muharram. The president of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan Syed Ata-ul-Muhaimin Bukhari also banned from delivering speech for three months in Multan, Sahiwal, Raheem Yaar Khan, Gujrat and Jhang.