Saturday, February 20, 2016

Imran Khan is a Nonstarter

February 16, 2016
By Saeed Qureshi
Imran Khan the Chairman of Pakistan Insaf Party (PTI) could have flashed like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as a glowing star across the political horizon of Pakistan. But all these years in the politics he has remained a nonstarter. Once in a while he appears on the stage, frets and fumes, throws his tantrums and then recedes into the oblivion to reappear all of a sudden at a time of his own choice.

He runs his political bandwagon by fits and starts. He is sincere and possesses boundless passion and limitless energy to make a difference but his fury and passion is invariably short-lived.  He suffers from a chronic malady of inconsistency and conceptual bipolarity. 

He swerves from extreme to extreme on both sides of his agenda. He thunders like the charged clouds but then drifts away after a strong but brief shower of hyperbolic statements and high sounding propositions.

Pakistan has ever remained in the dire need of revolutionary persons because the resolution of Pakistan’s daunting problems is beyond the competence of mediocre or self-serving individuals and parties. In the prevailing chaos, hanging over Pakistan since the demise of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Imran could have created a niche of a liberator, a redeemer or a revolutionary for himself with a bag full of meritorious accomplishments.

He won the first and the last cricket world cup in 1992 thanks to his managerial skills and because of sudden favorable turn of events. In 1994, he established Pakistan's first and only cancer hospital, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Center, bearing the name of his mother Shaukat Khanum who died of cancer.  It is a charitable cancer hospital with 75 percent free care.

He was relatively young and robust when he made his debut in Pakistan’s politics, by founding; his own political party - Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996, under the slogan of "Justice, Humanity and Self Esteem."  He was then bubbling up with a brimming zeal and reservoir of ideas for the betterment of Pakistan and to change the destiny of the people of Pakistan. But after almost over a decade of his presence in the political arena, it simply looks as if he has been merely dribbling and not directing the ball into the goal post.

Undoubtedly, he is thoroughly honest and utterly unimpeachable. He is the repository of a reputation for being incorruptible. He has lofty ideals about Pakistan but he has failed to capture the necessary instruments and use the right strategy to translate these traits into concrete output.

He talks very emphatically about the rotten system of Pakistan as exhibited and reflected from his stressful facial features and restless body language during a debate, discussion or talk shows. But beyond that, barring occasional lashing outbursts at public rallies, he has failed to craft himself into a firebrand leader who would keep inspiring the masses.

Indeed, he is a non-conformist who shuns and is disgruntled about the style and antics of the traditional political players. He certainly looks distinct when it comes to the question of principles and ethics. But somehow, he runs short of mobilizing the masses a la Chavez of Venezuela, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, Mahathir of Malaysia, Lenin of the former Soviet Union, Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Ahmed Ben Bella of Algeria, et al.

Yet these are too lofty personages to be compared with most of the leaders in the third world countries, let along Imran Khan. But at least a cue can be taken from them as to how a momentous change can be brought about. Mr. Khan yearns to cast himself in the role of a number one victor, but finishes as a kind of a runner up or still far behind. 

The pent up passion and gusto remains dormant and unleashed in him once he feels he has lighted himself by a robust public rhetoric or a forceful delivery of his point of view at an electronic media forum.

There is no dearth of  pious platitudes and rosary plans formulated and doled out by the best and the most of fertile minds that if implemented would make the earth a much better place to live. But what matters is that there must be someone who can actually show these plans and projections, the light of the day.

The grandiose ideas and exalted ideals that Imran Khan has professed on numerous occasions are still like fables in the books. The sincerity and earnestness drips from his every motion, and words and utterances.  However, his outpourings have yet to trigger a salubrious change in the sterile socio-political landscape of Pakistan.

 Is Pakistan turning into a civil society because of a relentless revolutionary movement led by firebrands and visionaries like Imran Khan.? Is there a re-awakening and pulsating awareness visible somewhere? The answer to these questions is certainly in the negative. So let us admit that Imran Khan has his limitations. But are these the inlaid genetic limitations that impel him to run fast for a time and then relent and rest till he can recapture his breath again?

Or else, are these limitations imposed by external forces and agents that bridle him and keep him under the tab not to exceed the fixed contours set for him? Is he hostage to the dreaded exposure of sensitive information about his private life which restrains him from going out of the way and walk ahead defiantly?

His political philosophy has been undergoing a ripening process since 1996 when he turned a politician. At the outset, he was a resolute proponent and a votary of the quick fix tribal system of justice. At that time he discarded democracy and institutional based governance.  Thereafter, he swung to support democracy and representative form of government with a civil society tag. So he has been experiencing and undergoing changes and transformation of perceptions and precepts with regard to his political doctrine.

Khan supported General Musharraf’s military takeover in 1999, but denounced his presidency a few months before the 2002 general elections. He was elected MNA from Mianwali, in 2002 elections. Once in office, Khan voted in favor of the pro-Taliban Islamist candidate for the prime minister in 2002. 

Similarly, Imran Khan bitterly criticized Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, but later joined him in 2008 against Musharraf. The Guardian portrays Imran Khan as a person who “preaches democracy one day but gives a vote to reactionary mullahs the next.”

The rest of the political legions in Pakistan are a bit on the higher or lower side of Imran Khan. He can certainly make a difference if he breaks his self or externally imposed shackles and embarks on a political clean-up and reformation mission in the political wilderness of Pakistan with unswerving courage and unmindful of the odds or consequences.

First of all he has to firmly formulate and clarify his political goals and mandate as to what he intends to do. Thereafter, he has to stand unshakably and uncompromisingly by his ideals and political philosophy. He should make himself a steadfast defender and resolute exponent of his manifesto and agenda for change.

“Revolution is not a garden party” said Mao Zedong, the legendary Chinese revolutionary leader and founder of the People's Republic of China. If a leader appears and disappears for fear of incarceration or succumbs under pressures then better he may not talk big or pretend to be an ideologue or a savior. Anyone including Imran Khan who wants to rebuild Pakistan as a modern, and stable state will have to wage a relentless war against the corrupt and decadent system and its unworthy protectors.
A real national leader will have to vie and wrestle with his political contenders in order to excel. This is like fighting a multi-directional battle. Pakistan needs ruthless surgical overhaul of its entire body politic and radical restructuring of its moribund socio-economic edifice. 

Can Pakistan throw up such an undaunted, absolutely upright and ruthless redeemer to rescue Pakistani nation from a perpetually trauma and unrelenting swindling by its trashy leaders? Such a person should be an aggressive runner and not a whimsical nonstarter like Imran Khan.

His Dharnas (sit-in) proved to be a strategy of catching the political bandwagon from the wrong side. The reason is that the Dharnas can sustain for a short period of time but then turn out to be an exercise in fatigue and futility for both the torch bearers and the followers. 

Besides a whole horde of opportunists were allowed to enter the party thus polluting its pristine mandate and disfiguring its glitter.  This is exactly what is happening to Imran Khan and his party PTI presently. Of late there seems to be a visible disarray and fragmentation in his party.

Finally his marriage solemnized after a long spell of time proved to be a disaster because of the wrong or unpalatable choice of a spouse. One would wonder if his choice of a partner of life could be erratic, how he would be able to diagnose and cure the innumerable maladies afflicting the body-politic of Pakistan. 

It shows that he is prone to making whimsical or hasty decisions. Finally PTI provincial government in the Pakhtunkhwa is under the shadows of poor performance. Its chief minister Pervez Khattak is being blamed for a host of irregularities.
Note: This article was written some time back. It is being reproduced with the necessary changes.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders

February 13, 2016
By Saeed Qureshi
With a backlog of the double-digit defeat in the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton bounced back with a renewed vigor and robust confidence during the sixth debate of the Democratic Party race and the second exclusively between Mrs. Hillary Clinton and Senator Sanders. The debate was held on February 11, 2016 at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Milwaukee is the largest city in the State of Wisconsin.
While both the candidates were quite aggressive and assertive in dishing out their plans and policies as the next president of the United States, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be more composed, persuasive and eloquent. She responded to the jabs of her Democratic opponent in a rather calm and unruffled tone. In response to the personal salvo from Mr Sanders such as “Secretary Clinton, you’re not in the White House yet,” Hillary chose to deflect it by ignoring those comments.
Comparing the merits of both the democratic contenders, one may point out that Sanders if elected would be a fresh entrant into the power corridors as well as occupant of the highest and most prestigious position of the president of the United States.
If elected, Mr Sanders would be the first Jewish president of the United States. Mr. Sanders is known as a proponent of socialism. He may face stiff resistance from well entrenched super duper private enterprises and business cartels in implementing his socialist agenda.
Understandably there could be hurdles in his way from the Congress where the Republicans most of whom are the sponsors of huge businesses and financial enterprises.
Even their Democratic cohorts may oppose Sanders’ agenda of change. Senator Sanders’ socialist manifesto encompasses no tax breaks to billionaires and “creation of millions of jobs for low-income kids so that they’re not hanging out on the street corners.”
In his debates Sanders’ entire focus has been on overhauling the economy, taxation on the affluent classes and expanding health-care. It means that in a capitalist economy based upon free enterprise, he wants to expand and enlarge the role of the government.
He aims at diminishing the overbearing influence of the huge business enterprises like Wall Street, Insurance companies, and banks as well as industrial and business cartels. He wants the Medicare and other social services to be under the control of the government; partially or wholly.
This is like a revolution although it cuts across the influence and rip- off of the wealthy classes and cartels. His plan to extend and expand the government network would entail huge additional government spending for which he would increase taxes on the affluent sections.
Mrs. Clinton if elected would be the first female president of the United States of America. She is a moderate and wants to bring about changes in the present set up of governance for which she claims to have ample experience and a package of far reaching reforms for the economic uplift of the country and for extending more benefits and services to the people.
In Mrs. Clinton reckoning, Mr. Sanders’ package of plans would cost the national exchequer additional trillions of dollars or 40 per cent over the existing spending. She alleged that Senator Sanders was not being truthful in revealing the cost of the programs such as his proposed expansion of government healthcare.
On the volatile issue of the immigrants both seems to on the same page. Both support a benign policy about immigration and maximum accommodation of the uprooted people from civil war ridden societies. But their perceptions and plans differ in regard to their settlement.
Mr. Sanders criticized Mrs. Clinton for telling CNN in 2014 that the children who entered the United States from Central America should be sent back, which was taken by the Latinos with a great deal of bitterness.
However, Mrs. Clinton clarified that she was not against the children coming into United States. She merely wanted to convey to the parents that they should not send their children to America alone who invariably fall into the hands of smugglers.
During their debate quite an interesting situation developed. The moderator of the debate asked both the contenders to name their role model leaders. Mr. Sander named Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. In comparison Hillary mentioned the legendary South African leader Nelson Mandela and Mr. Obama. This was interpreted as a race based choice: Sanders for white leaders and Hillary for none-whites.
Bernie Sanders is a very experienced person as a senator. In case of victory he would be one of the senior presidents. His advanced age (74) may hamper his decision making prowess. He is earnest about his ground breaking reforms. But first of all it depends on his being elected as the president. Secondly, would the ground realities be favorable for him to move forwards with his watershed program and policies?
On the contrary Hillary Clinton is relatively younger (68). She possesses a reservoir of experience first as the first lady and second as the secretary of state in foreign affairs. By virtue of her being the Secretary of State (2009-2013) during the first tenure of president Obama, Mrs. Clinton lays claim of having wider and extensive experience in the domain of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Sanders rebutted this claim of her by censuring Mrs. Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq and also being responsible for the consequent ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya. He alleged that her myopic and erroneous judgment on Libya and Iraq led to civil wars in those lands which are still raging.
Over the most pressing question of discrimination against African-Americans in employment, education, housing and the criminal justice system, Both Mrs. Hillary and Sanders seemed to be on the same page. Yet Secretary Clinton went beyond by denouncing the faith based discrimination especially against the Muslims whom she overwhelmingly portrayed as the first line of defense for the United States.
It appears that Mrs. Clinton is focused on reinforcing her support among the minority population to dilute the influence and relative popularity of Senator Sanders among the youth, minorities and underprivileged, low income groups and working classes.
The writer is a senior journalist, former editor of Diplomatic Times and a former diplomat.This and other articles by the writer can also be read at his blog

Saturday, February 6, 2016

An Assessment of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

February 6, 2016
By Saeed Qureshi

The death and ascension to Heaven of Jesus Christ or Hazrat Isa (in Arabic) two thousand years ago is as enigmatic as are his birth, physical Resurrection or Reincarnation towards the end of time. It was at the behest of Jewish religious authorities that the Roman governor Pilate ordered Jesus Christ to die on cross for being blasphemous and heretic towards the Jewish faith.

Both Christians and the Muslims believe that instead of dying on the stake, Jesus ascended to the Heaven under divine will and would return towards the end of time in physical form. For Christians he is the son of God and living with his father in a Heavenly abode. 

For Muslims also he is residing in Heaven but as an apostle of God.  During his short span of life (33 years) Jesus in his sermons, mentioned about his reincarnation or second coming to earth and the establishment of the “Kingdom of God” to be ruled by him for a thousand years.

The Muslims believe that some time before being hanged on the cross; God lifted Hazrat Isa to the Heaven. Instead another person who resembled Jesus was hanged. The Christians believe he did die on the cross, was entombed on Friday the same evening. Sometime between Friday and Sunday he went up to the Heaven. The year was 33 C.E. which also denotes the age of Jesus at the time of his death or ascension.

The Christians believe that after his return to earth Jesus will defeat the Antichrist, the False Prophet and Satan in the battle of all battles: Armageddon.  Thereafter he would rule the “Kingdom of God” or the earthly paradise for one thousand years. 

After a thousand years Satan, upon his release from the abyss (or hell), would surround Jerusalem and other holy places with a huge force of Gog and Magog. But this time God would intervene and destroy the satanic force through a huge fire.

The Islamic tradition or belief is that Hazrat Isa would descend from Heaven in the midst of a fierce battle initiated and fought by a Muslim leader called Mahdi (the promised one)   against the anti- God-forces led by Dajjal (an evil and  anti-messiah figure in Islamic eschatology). Jesus would join Imam Mahdi in his fight.  After the death of Mahdi, Jesus will assume the leadership and keep fighting against Dajjal till Dajjal is killed and Islam prevails.

The beliefs of Muslims and the Christians converge on the miraculous birth of Jesus, his ascension to Heaven and the second coming to earth before the end of the time. However, there are diverse opinions on this issue within the mainstream Christian sects both protestants and Catholics and besides some of the latter day Christian sects including Jehovah witnesses.

The three latter day religions of 19th century namely the Mormons ( USA), Baha’i ( Iran) and the Ahmadis (India) don’t believe in the second coming of the Jesus Christ of Nazareth, son of Mariam and Joseph and to establish and rule the “Kingdom of God on Earth”. 

The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith (1805-1844) is the promised Messiah. The Bahais believe in Baha’u’llah (1817-1892) the founder of the Baha’i Faith (Iran) as the real Messenger of God or the promised Messiah.
The Ahmadis’ faith is that the promised Mahdi cum Messiah has already arrived in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908) in India. Mirza Sahib himself claimed to be a Mujjadad (revivalist), Imam Mahdi (precursor of Jesus), the promised Messiah (like Jesus Christ), a prophet (shadow) of Prophet Muhammad and the embodiment of many illustrious apostles of the pre-Christ times. 
He claimed to be the recipient of the divine revelations. This is rejected by majority Muslim sects who consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as an impostor and Ahmadiyya believers to be apostates and non-Muslims.
Presently we would set aside the doctrinal conflict between the proponents and opponents within the Christianity about the promised Messiah. We would analyze the theological discord between the majority Muslims and the Jamaat- e-Ahmadyia over the reappearance of the Jesus Christ or Hazrat Isa towards the end time. 
In this regard, the following conflicting points come up. The belief in the escape of Jesus from the death is common to the majority Muslim sects, the Christians and the Ahmadis alike. But it diametrically differs as to how and where he escaped.
In the holy Quran the death of Hazrat Isa on the gallows has been negated or refuted in the following Ayas:
Sura An-Nisa
“And because they said( in boast): “ We killed the Messiah Isa( Christ Jesus) the son of Mariam( Mary) , the messenger of Allah;” – But they did not kill him, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ in this ( matter) are full of doubts ,with no knowledge; they follow nothing but idle talk, for sure they did not kill him.” 4.157.
“But! Allah raised him up to himself, and Allah is exalted in power, All wise.” 4.158 
On the question of Isa’s Ascension to Heaven, the belief of Sunni and Shia sects in Islam and even the Christians is that Jesus Christ ascended to the Heaven in 33 C.E. and would return to earth at an appointed time. In holy Quran the second coming of Jesus is heralded in Sura Az-Zukhruf” as a sign of the Day of Judgment in these words”.
“And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore has no doubt about the (Hour)”. 43.61
These Quranic injunctions have been voluminously elaborated in Islamic Hadith (traditions) and by Muslim religious scholars and jurists during the last 15 centuries. The gist of those elucidations is that Hazrat Isa would come back from Heaven on earth to join his forerunner Imam Mahdi in order to eliminate the forces of evil and revive Islam through fierce warfare.
In contrast Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya contends that Jesus Christ somehow escaped from being hanged. He went to a distant place Kashmir (a valley in the Indian subcontinent) where he died like other human beings. As such there was no question of his ascension to the Heaven and subsequent physical return to earth. For Ahmadis the promised Messiah is to be a person “similar to Jesus” and he has already arrived in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian (in India).
The details of the journey of Jesus to Kashmir have not been given in any Ahmadiat religious literature. It has not been elaborated how he escaped and whether immediately he set off for his new destination and whether his disciples also accompanied him or not.
After the year 33 C. E., Hazrat Isa is completely absent from the land( Galilee and Judea) where he used to roam about, give sermons and produce miracles between  30 C. E. and 33 C.E. It clearly manifests that he disappeared from Palestine for all time to come. This begs a question that either he ascended to Heaven or had secretly migrated to some unknown and far off place.
Notwithstanding the Muslims and Christian belief of leaving the earth by way of ascension, this irreversible absence equipped Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with a strong claim and  assertion  that Jesus left the place of his residence for good and went to a destination which was remote and out of the realm of the Jewish religious priests and  Roman authorities.
Logically there is no foolproof mechanism to prove or disprove this claim that Hazrat Isa lived in hiding at an unknown place and died like other human beings. On these premises (which were not verifiable), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad negated the ascension as well as his promised descent from the Heaven. But since Quran foretold about his second coming to the earth to revive Islam, the claim of Mirza Sahib is repudiated as heretic by Sunnis and other Islamic denominations.
In regard to Islamic obligation for crusade against the opponents of Islam, Mirza Sahib advocated a peaceful propagation of Islam through pen and preaching and not by fighting with weapons or militarily. 
It is claimed by his critics that he made this claim at the behest of the British government which didn’t want Muslims to wage jihad (Islamic crusade) in favor of Mahdi of Sudan (Who claimed to be the promised Mahdi in 1881) a spiritual leader of the Muslims at that time.
Notwithstanding his claim of being the promised Messiah, the fact is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the author of over 90 books. He was resolutely committed to his conviction of being a reformer and the goal of reorienting Islam in his own manner. 
Through his books, sermons and speeches, debates and discourses, he defended Islam against the papacy and the Christian church. His claim of being the promised Messiah cuts across the Christen belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God.
Perhaps in this endeavor to denounce the Christianity and to prove him the promised Messiah, he went to the extent of belittling Jesus Christ by negating his ascension and return to earth as the promised Messiah. 

But while in an effort to demean Christianity and denounce Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, he forgot the aspect that Jesus Christ was also one of the most prominent prophets (a prophet among four with a divine book) for the Muslims and they also believe in his second coming and his role to wage a crusade against the forces of evil for the revival of the pristine Islam.

As a result he came to be known as a profane revisionist, opposed to the finality of the prophet-hood of Hazrat Muhammad, rejecting the Jesus’ coming back to earth and projecting himself as the Imam Mahdi and the promised Messiah. To take the place of the scriptural Messiah, he had to claim that Jesus Christ died in this world and therefore the belief in his second coming was mistaken.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, despite a colossal opposition from both Christian and the Muslim religious scholars, clerics and various Islamic sects, succeeded in building up a network to continue his mission. Apart from the Islamic clerics and common Muslims, the Sunni movement or Tehreek-e-Khatam-e- Nabuwwat (Movement for the finality of Hazrat Muhammad is as the last prophet of God) is the most virulent opponent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his religious movement called Jamaat-e- Ahmadiyya.

Mirza Sahib introduced for his followers the system of pledge of allegiance to him as the promised Messiah besides abiding by ten conditions to follow for the rest of their life. The oath of allegiance and ten conditions are also obligatory for the Ahmadyia believers with regard to the succeeding caliphs of Mirza Sahib. 

These conditions are akin to the Ten Commandments given by God to Prophet Moses on Mount Sinai. These cover worship of God as well as to adopt correct conduct and proper relationship with God and the fellow beings.

The ten conditions underlined by Mirza Sahib are: Abstaining from shirk, Praying five times daily, Keeping away from carnal vices, Causing no harm to anyone including the animals, Being faithful to God in all circumstances, submitting to the authority of the Holy Quran and Sayings of the Holy prophet, leading a life of humbleness, Serving Mankind, Obedience to him (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) and keeping cause of Islam dearer to everything else.


Friday, February 5, 2016

Khaliq Qureshi: The Lone Crusader for the Unity of Muslims

February 4, 2016 
By Saeed Qureshi

Soft-spoken and modest Khaliq Qureshi Sahib the founder of “One Man Mission for the Muslim Unity” is a remarkable person. His paramount dream is the Islamic renaissance with its pristine glory. His heart pains over the decline of the Muslims and their persecution in the present times. He is grieved over the occupation of Muslim lands by others. His main focus is on Kashmir under the Indian occupation, Chechnya under Russia and Palestine land occupied by Israel.

Yet he sternly believes that by emulation of the life and teachings of the Holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace be upon him), Muslims can regain their splendid past. Khilafat-e-Rashida is the model of Islamic governance which Khaliq Qureshi exhorts the Muslim rulers to establish in their territories. This is the only route to the salvation of the oppressed, tyrannized and in some instances enslaved Islamic nations, he emphasizes.

Khaliq Qureshi has an intellectual approach towards the debacle of the Muslims continuing for the past several centuries. He has therefore, contemplated for years to explore as to how the Muslims can overcome this calamitous phase and rediscover their lost or faded grandeur and redeem their status of a noble fraternity.

Irrespective of what others do for this pristine cause, he launched in 1995, a solo yet monumental “One-Man Mission”. Since then he has steadfastly embarked upon that course. With an unshakable faith in the divine help coupled with an indomitable will, he has not spared any effort towards the dissemination of his universal message for the salvation of the Islamic world from the prevailing downfall. 
 The epic mission of Mr. Qureshi takes precedence over many other similar organizations aimed at and geared towards the uplift, emancipation and welfare of their communities. Usually, the humanitarian movements and welfare missions sustain upon and operate from contributions and donations.

Yet Mr. Qureshi has been funding his mission all by himself. Except the house that will be the property of his family, the rest of his possessions are dedicated to this mission. Perhaps there can be a rare parallel of such a spirit of sacrifice, sincerity and selflessness as demonstrated by Khaliq Qureshi. Thus Mr. Qureshi is on a much higher pedestal than others like him in pursuit of his noble cause.

Temperamentally, Mr. Qureshi is a pacifist. Therefore he cannot imagine of employing violent or aggressive methods for dissemination of his momentous program that is so inextricably linked to the destiny of Muslims around the world. That is why he implores the Muslims around the world to understand that terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism cannot bring them back their glorious past or help in addressing their miseries, chaos and crises both of internal and external import.

As such he kicked off his mission some 20 years ago by writing countless letters to the rulers of Islamic states and on the grave challenges faced by the Islamic world. He beckoned and appealed to some of them to take up the onerous responsibility of steering the Islamic countries out of the prevailing impasse.

Originally, he pinned his hopes on former President Suharto of Indonesia and Prime Minister Mahatir Muhammad of Malaysia to spearhead the movement for resurgence of the Islamic glorious past and to forge unity among the Islamic countries. He went all the way to Indonesia and Malaysia in order to personally plead with the top leaders the inevitability and dire need of pulling the Muslims out of the abyss they were sunk in.

Unfortunately, he could not deliver his vital message of Muslim unity to these leaders personally owing to their preoccupations. However, he continued his ‘crusade with pen’ which definitively brought about to a fair degree, the salutary changes in the perceptions of those whom he addressed. Not only did they readily respond to his thoughtful reflections on the woeful plight of the Muslim in various parts of the world, but also agreed with him on the imperative of such a unity.

But the Muslim world is so deeply torn apart and its Islamic fabric is so fragile that despite pious platitudes little has been done practically. But Mr. Qureshi remains undaunted and least despaired. He has divine intuition which constantly impels him to steadfastly pursue his noble mission without caring for the outcome. But outcome would be there. This is what Mr. Qureshi staunchly believes.

He believes that sufferings and hardships in life are also a part of the human destiny. These ought to be there and therefore accepted and endured with gratitude and pre-ordained by God almighty. This is the kind of unshakable belief in the compassion of the Creator that keeps Mr. Qureshi unswerving on his chartered path of forging unity and brotherhood among the Muslims all over the world. Once it is done and once Muslims revert to their glittering past, no country how strong or antagonistic could inflict any harm to them anymore.

In the course of his passionate crusade for Islamic revivalism and to bring into limelight the grave atrocities being perpetrated by the oppressors on their Muslim populations, particularly in Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya, he wrote important and rather inspirational letters to the UN Secretary General, the heads of OIC countries as well as the non Muslim states. His letters written to several heads of states including the American Presidents particularly Bill Clinton and Obama, make impressive, passionate and persuasive reading.

Mr. Qureshi wants the Muslim leaders to engage the non-Muslim leaders in civilized dialogues and seek help for ending the occupation of Muslim lands by others. He feels that even if the world leaders particularly of the Islamic states are not serious in liberating the Muslim occupied territories or articulating their sufferings, then at least the search for such a leader or leaders should continue.

He earnestly counsels the Muslims to emulate, imbibe and follow the life and character of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his righteous followers whose tenure is known as Khilafat-e-Rashida. Besides, he emphasizes that the Muslims should have unflinching faith in Allah and try to build the sterling character of a true Muslim. He says that the reward of deeds depends upon the real intentions of a person as the success and victory come through the divine will. 

His correspondence, letters, communications and their replies are now compiled in his recently published book, “A ONE MAN MISSION FOR THE MUSLIM UNITY”. Mr. Qureshi has presented this invaluable book to almost all the heads of states and governments, the ambassadors of the Islamic countries as well as to the international organizations including OIC.

The front page of this precious book carries the image of the spacious valley of ARAFAT in Makkah also known as “JABAL E- ARRAHMA”. It is a fascinating book that brings into sharp focus the Muslim tragedies all over the world particularly in Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine.

Mr Qureshi enunciates and rightly so, that his mission is non-violent, a civil dialogue and a friendly persuasion. The Muslims are encouraged to read his book for understanding the depth and significance of Mr. Qureshi’s message. The book is available on his website: 

Note: Mr Khaliq Qureshi resides at Dallas, Texas (USA)