A recklessly irresponsible and vicious column in Urdu Daily â Sahafatâ : C. M.

Naim
"Sahafat" is a relatively new Urdu journal, but it has plenty of funds behind it
, for it has at least three separate editionsâ Delhi, Lucknow, and Mumbai. Its Chief
Editor is someone named Aman Abbas, and the Delhi edition is edited by a Hasan S
huja'. I'm not familiar with their experience and reputation as journalists. The
paper carries an almost daily column by Hasan Kamal, the respected journalist a
nd progressive poet.
Sahafat's coverage is extensive when it comes to religious news, particularly de
aling with the Shi'ah community in India and with Iran. But its political covera
ge, both national and international is much better than most Urdu news papers. T
he Lucknow and Mumbai editions give good coverage to regional news and issues. A
s does the Delhi edition. The latter, however, seems to be more rabidly anti-Ame
rican, anti-Ahmadi, much involved in the internecine politics of the so-called S
hahi Imam and the family feuds in the Jami'at-al-Ulama, Hind, and viciously oppo
sed to Muslim pragmatists like Maulavi Vastanavi of Deoband.
It also regularly publishes analyses by someone named Ayaz Mahmud, who would be
amusing if he were not so recklessly irresponsible and vicious. Following is wh
at appeared in the Delhi edition of Sahafat on May 29, 2011. In this column Mr M
ahmud informs the readers of Sahafat:
1. Western media daily invents new terrorists, complete with pictures and geneal
ogies.
2. It is a part of the Western nations' "Qadiani Mission," for which they falsel
y put blame upon Al-Qaida, Taliban, and Lashkar-i-Taiba.
3. Osama bin Laden was the secret commander-in-chief of the Qadianis and was rec
ently killed in secret in a fake operation in Pakistan.
4. Their next target can be Nawaz Sharif, for he initiated a rapprochement with
India.
5. In this conspiracy, people get their faces altered, then films are made showi
ng them in fake actions. These films are first broadcast on Al-Jazeera channels,
and then by the Western media.
6. The United States is dead set against any rapprochement between India and Pak
istan, and will stop it at any cost.
7. The unnatural deaths of Z. A. Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and removal o
f Pervez Musharraf were all orchestrated by the United States and its supporters
in Pakistan.
His previous columns have also made egregious attacks on Ahmadi Muslims, though
this is the first time for him to claim that OBL was a "Qadiani" army commander.
Mr Mahmud should have the right to indulge in these fantasies but that he does
so under the patronage of an otherwise rather sensible newspaper is disturbing.
And his obscene attacks on the Ahmadis are criminal and should be looked into by
responsible journalists and their professional organizations.
C. M. Naim,
Professor Emeritus,
University of Chicago
May 28, 2011
URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamUrduSection_1.aspx?ArticleID=4730

Forward to a friend | Print

COMMENTS
5/30/2011 12:50:48 PM Ghulam Mohiyuddin
A free press does not mean an editor/publisher has to accept any trash sent to h
im for publication. You have the right to publish your trash in your own paper.
No one can stop you from doing that. But an editor/publisher has to use his judg
ement to choose and to reject. In its traditional sense freedom of the press res
tricts the power of the government, not the power of the editor/publisher.

5/29/2011 9:25:28 PM car313

A free press is exactly that. There is nothing like a half-free press. Freedom o
f speech is a yes-or-no situation. We either tolerate free speech or we don't.
IMHO any restriction whatsoever on free press and free speech simply plays into
the hands of those who would want to gag and choke voices.
IMHO again, Shahafat is a small price to pay for something as valuable as free s
peech. Let them print what they want. It is up to the people to either respond t
o it or ignore it.

5/29/2011 11:41:59 AM Ghulam Mohiyuddin

The editor/publisher is ultimately responsible for publishing such rubbish howev
er much he may try to distance himself by saying that a columnist's views are hi
s own.