Was Sifwat Ghayyur a Martyr?
Posted on August 13, 2010 |
Filed Under Opinion, Pakistan | 5 Comments
(This post is in response to a comment that was left by a Gentleman on a Forum about a Blog post of mine regarding news of ‘Martyrdom’ of Sifwat Ghayur. The commenter wanted to make the point that Sifwat Ghayyur might not be categorized as Martyr. Here goes my response with Original comment first)
Dear Farrukh Sahab,
when I visited your blog recently, I found that you have written a piece of article on the sad demise of Mr Safwat. While writing the title of the article, you have clearly maintained that Mr Sifwat “accepted martyr doom”.
I respect your opinion if you wish to categorize him as a martyr, but at the same time, I would like to share with you another pieces of articles which may convince you to review your decision of calling him as a martyr. Dear Farrukh Sahab, I strongly recommend you to please read these two articles on following links.
I hope that after reading these articles, you will prefer reaching a rational decision instead of an emotional one.
God bless you.
Dear Sikandar Sahab,
I hope you are doing fine and are in best of your health.
I happened to gather your point of view about ‘use of word martyrdom’ for demise of anyone, in the light of two Articles (part of same series) you recommended written by worthy Amar Jaleel and published with Daily Dawn on September 17 and 24, 2006 respectively.
Here, I would like to put forward that Mr. Amar Jaleel has rightly pointed out that the word Martyrdom is misused by a lot of people specially in countries like Pakistan. Moreover, I feel like agreeing with Mr. Jaleel in his definition of Martyrdom who writes in one of his articles:
A person earns the status of a shaheed, a martyr, when he dies fighting against the evil forces either in the way of his God or for his country or for a noble cause.
And at some other point in the other article Mr. Jaleel further defines his concept of martyrdom:
Martyrdom is a great honour that a Muslim achieves if the cause for which he gives his life happens to be noble, it serves humanity and is overall praised….Shahadat is a distinction that never comes effortlessly to every person….In conventional Sufi doctrine, any person, irrespective of his faith, attains martyrdom when he dies while performing a noble act.
Having understood the concept of ‘Martyrdom’ and problems of usage of word ‘Martyr’, lets apply this concept in case of ‘sad demise’ of Mr. Sifwat Ghayur.
when I visited your blog recently, I found that you have written a piece of article on the sad demise of Mr Safwat. While writing the title of the article, you have clearly maintained that Mr Sifwat “accepted martyr doom”…I respect your opinion if you wish to categorize him as a martyr, but at the same time, I would like to share with you another pieces of articles which may convince you to review your decision of calling him as a martyr.
In my point of view, Martyrdom was the right word for Mr. Ghayur’s death since I am not able to find any better word to suit the description of his demise because:
1. He was a honest and humble man serving the nation selflessly (in light of Sufi Doctrine of Martyrdom).
2. His actions had a strong impact on the well being of the people of the area and humanity in broader context.
3. His cause was noble.
4. He was fighting the evil forces for his country.
And he died while performing the above mentioned acts selflessly. One might claim that he was doing his ordinary job for which he was getting paid, but those who knew Sifwat Ghayur, knew it as well that his work was more than ordinary policing job for which he was getting paid with a meager salary.
I hope that after reading these articles, you will prefer reaching a rational decision instead of an emotional one.
Dear, when I categorized Mr. Ghayur as Martyr, my such act was not emotional in anyway. Further, after reading both the articles you happened to recommend, I am more than convinced that he accepted Martyrdom in both religious and Sufi contexts.
Lastly, I would like to Thank you for your candid analysis and starting this healthy discussion. I don’t know if I was able to communicate my humble point of reference while calling Mr. Ghayur a martyr. I am not sure if you find it agreeable or not (and you have every right to disagree), but I would say that for those who knew Mr. Sifwat Ghayur, his ‘Martyrdom’ was a great loss to Pakistani nation.
The Discussion Continues
Dear Farrukh Sahab,
I regret to inform you that I disagree with your contention for calling an on-duty police man as a martyr.
I am surprised that why the words of Amar Jaleel did not catch your attention when he writes,
“In conventional Sufi doctrine, any person, irrespective of his faith, attains martyrdom when he dies while performing a noble act. If a person dies while rescuing trapped men, women and children from a blazing building, he invariably attains martyrdom. He was not a paid fireman. Rescuing people from flames was not his duty. He was a passer-by. He saw children surrounded by leaping flames. In the spur of a moment, he plunged into the burning building and saved a few lives before he himself was burnt to ashes. In his death he attains martyrdom.”
(This indicates that a person performing a duty, however honestly, can not be called as martyr because he was being paid for it no matter how meagerly)
Amar Jaleel clearly argues again, “Unfortunately, dying in the performance of paid duties, no doubt a gallant way of dying is mixed-up with shahadat.”
I was further disappointed that you had conveniently drawn para-meters of why Mr Sifwat should be called as a martyr. You did it without realizing what the worthy writer says about drawing parameters of martyrdom.
He writes, “It is not at all possible to draw parameters, inculcate conditions and device principles for attaining martyrdom. The hallmark of martyrdom is that it is achieved without eyeing for rewards either in this world and the world hereafter.”
(Even a lay man knows that a law enforcement personnel tries to perform well in order to get rewards from his or her seniors. Mr Sifwat had received a number of medals for his participation in going against the militants. This shows that he was looking for rewards and medals. But, a martyr on the contrary, does not have any greed for such rewards and medals.)
Finally, Mr Amar Jaleel says, “A pickup carrying law enforcing personnel turns turtle and falls in a ditch. A few of the personnel die in the accident. The news agencies bestow upon them the honour of martyrdom.”
(I think no other argument of Mr Jaleel is stronger than this when he calls news agencies tempering the title of Martyr for the law enforcement personnel).
To me and Mr Jaleel, Mr Sifwat is not a martyr because:
1. He was being paid for his official duties.
2. The track record of his service conveys that he was fond of achieving medals, awards and promotions. What he did, he did not do it selflessly, but for a clear motive of attaining medals, awards and promotions.
3. Apart from official duties, Mr Sifwat is not reported to have done anything on his own against militants. What he did, he did it while using official perks and privileges. A martyr on the other hand does all his best on his own without the support from any other side.
Farrukh Sahab, you are still entitled for your right to disagree with me or with Mr Amar Jaleel. Moreover, you may be knowing more than me about “Policing” because you yourself are a police man, with such a background, you may be in a good position to reach a rational decision.
Thank you for your time.
Take care. And have a good day!
My Response
Dear Sikandar Sahab,
Hope you are doing fine.
I am glad that once again you did a candid analysis of my take. Well, I still disagree with your frame of reference (since your point of view is an out come of ‘frame of reference’).
Apart from this, I am still ‘on board’ with worthy Amar Jaleel and find him on my side (another beauty of a prolific writer that we both are referring to his writings and getting two different meanings ). I think, the difference of opinion between you and me, based on reading of same piece of writing, is an out come of our different sets of experiences and to me it is justifiable and fair.
Therefore, I feel like stopping here in exchange of this healthy argument.
Further, I would recommend you to please try finding some material on Sifwat Ghayyur and work done by him selflessly; you might consider interviewing some his junior and Senior colleagues or others related to him, only than you will be able to realize to what sort of person he remained throughout his life.
I wish you all the best and God bless you.
Some Related Posts (Automatically genetrated)
Comments
5 Responses to “Was Sifwat Ghayyur a Martyr?”
Leave a Reply
If there is ample proof that Mr Sifwat Ghayyur was discharging his duties honestly, and by the way he happened to be an obstacle for his killers, and in order to clear their pathways to keep on smoothly their heinous activities he has been put to death, I would like to be the first person to believe him as a ‘martyr’ regardless of the prizes, awards, perks and privileges that Mr Sifwat Ghayyur received or was striving for.
With due respect I disagree with paid/unpaid criteria for assigning martyrdom.
Suppose, a paid Pakistani troop, while discharging his duties, fights against an enemy in a battle and unfortunately dies at the hands of enemy in the battle field, then for the purpose of categorizing his death, should his sacrifice be measured in a paid/unpaid scale or should we think he was fighting for the cause of ultimate benefit to whole the nation?
I totally agree with opinion of Mr. Amar Jaleel, a writer of high caliber, when he writes:
“What is of prime importance is worthiness of the cause one dies for.”
But it is probably beyond my comprehension when he writes:
“Unfortunately, dying in the performance of paid duties, no doubt a gallant way of dying is mixed-up with shahadat.”
Early Islamic State under the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to maintain hundreds of soldiers [mujahids] on state’s exchequer. The soldiers were paid for their services. Yet those killed in several battles were categorized as martyrs by the Quran and the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
A policeman or a soldier is not paid for his ‘life’. He is paid for his services. In case he is killed during rendering his honest services, he deserves to be exalted respectfully.
Dear Dr. Aijaz Ali Soomroo,
Thank you for the comment. I am appreciate it, specially, the following lines are worthy of mention:
“A policeman or a soldier is not paid for his ‘life’. He is paid for his services. In case he is killed during rendering his honest services, he deserves to be exalted respectfully.”
Very well said Dr. Furrukh and Dr. Aijaz:
“A policeman or a soldier is not paid for his ‘life’. He is paid for his services. In case he is killed during rendering his honest services, he deserves to be exalted respectfully.”
My Dear brothers… He was an IG rank officer, who gave his life, not for the medals and further promotions but to save his country from evil forces – the country that was created in the name of Allah and Islam.
He is Shaheed in all respects !
Aoa
Sir
i hav been reading ur forum since long but i now forgot the link that refers to books recommended or suggested by you for preparation of compulsory subjects or if u might give a list of books reffered/read by u during ur time of playing this gorgiious game of CSS.
will b very much helpful for me
hoping for ur kind n immediate responce as usual.
mohsin
Dear Sikander,
After hoping for your good health, I would like to further the stance taken by Dr Malik regarding the martyrdom of Mr Safwat, I would like to give my opinion as an observer. My arguments are following.
1. Without belittling an intellectual like Amar Jaleel, I would like to point out that he is not the authority of adjudicating if someone is a martyr or otherwise. He is just tendering his opinion in the light of his experiences like we are doing.
2. The argument that Safwat was doing it for the pleasure of his seniors or in the desire of medals and honors is more like a character assassination attempt. It was the government that honored his services after RECOGNIZING these. This does by no means imply that it was he who was doing everything for medals. Most of the great men whose commitment and honestly is unquestionable also received such awards. This does not mean that all of them were doing it for these awards. This logic if is applied, means that the state should not recognize the services of anyone to prevent people from thinking that the man was doing it for this prestigious recognition. Should any state so ruthless and careless survive?
3. Your example of a Jeep of soldiers falling into a ditch is also not applicable. Safwat’s death was SURELY NOT accidental. Rather, Safwat knew who he was messing with. Those who had the potency of killing more or less anyone and it were they who finally killed him as well. He must SURELY have many life threats. Yet he chose to stay in the field to fight. He could also have got paid by getting himself transferred to some other province of by simply showing luke-warm response to those who asked him to target terrorists. Rather, he chose to bravely fight knowing that he could be done with. Who can forget what was meted out to Lt Gen Mushtaq Beg, Maj Gen Imran, etc.
4. The concept of martyrdom is not confined to a certain religion. Rather, it can also be conferred by the state in recognition of services.
I hope if was explicit enough to explain.
Thanks