Though Allah will determine who is Shaheed on the Judgment day, depending on the intention (neyaat) of the person, for Muslims there is little choice regarding calling someone Shaheed or not. Allah has already told Muslims who can be called Shaheed and who cannot. Since Allah has told Muslims what qualifies a person to be called Shaheed, a Muslim only need to know the reason and background of death and if dead person qualifies as Shaheed, Muslims should call that person Shaheed. In same way, if a dead person does not qualify to be called Shaheed, it is wrong to call such person Shaheed. [Sometime there are ambiguous reasons for death and in such cases Muslims can still call a person Saheed, without sin].
One reason of death that qualifies a person to be called Shaheed is to die performing their duty. All soldiers that died in Lal building fiasco died performing their duty, and thus they are all Shaheed.
As for those that died fighting the soldiers were criminals, and thus they cannot be called Shaheed. Calling killed criminals Shaheed would be making joke of the word Shaheed. These people were criminals and were breaking the laws of the country, and thus got killed by the soldiers.
Note: One should not compare these criminals with people that fight state for their rights, rights to live the way they like to live or rights to practice their religion, where their way of lives and religious practice does not affect others. These criminals can not be compared with group of people living on land occupied by a country and thus fighting for independence of the land they live. These criminals were not fighting the state for things that are to do with their personal lives and religious duties that does not affect others. Actually, these criminals were doing various crimes throughout, and it was duty of state (Pakistan) to save other citizens from their crimes and stop them doing such crimes at all cost.
Some of the lists of their crimes:
They illegally occupied acres of land that did not belong to them, and built buildings on them (calling that building Madrassa), and that was crime.
They illegally occupied acres of land to extend a Mosque (Lal Mosque) that was given to them to run, and that was crime. [Such place that was mostly built on illegally occupied land could not be called Mosque, as to call that place Mosque ‘house of Allah’ would be accusing Allah of being corrupt, unjust, and thief, thus it would be a big sin].
They illegally occupied children library and kept it occupying by force, and that was crime.
They had illegal arms with them that they were openly showing, and that was crime.
They terrorized other co-citizens living in the area (who had same right in Pakistan as them), and that was crime.
They took laws in their hand and were openly inciting others to take laws in their hand, and that was crime.
They attacked other people businesses and interfered with their lives, and that was crime.
They kidnapped others, including police and rangers, and that was crime.
They vandalise other people’s property in their area (including girl’s school) and that was crime.
They were threatening the state with their arms and suicide bombing, and that was crime.
They were not allowing state functionaries to enter building they occupied illegally, and that was crime.
They snatched rifles of rangers, and that was crime.
They vandalized and burned government buildings, and that was crime.
There are many in the list of their crimes … Etc … etc … etc.
Actually, these people were breaking many laws of Pakistan. Throughout, state (Pakistan) was tolerating them so that they would come to their senses (something no state would tolerate this much), still they did not realized. They kept pushed their luck and tolerance of state, to bring the situation to such extend that many citizens living in the state (and outside world) started feeling that there is only anarchy and no government writ in Pakistan.
Situation became so bad that many citizens of Pakistan started getting impatient and feeling insecure. Fortunately, time came when state acted, though still kept trying to negotiate with them retards (that was wrong of the state, but still state went along), but then when negotiation failed, state let loose their power, still these criminals did not surrendered but started fighting the state and thus got killed. Now, it is anyone’s guess that such criminals cannot be called Shaheed, as calling them Shaheed would be making joke of the word Shaheed.
Some other ambiguities of this operation: Jame-e-Hafza was a women only Madrassa. It was not a co-education Madrassa. So, we have to think what all those Male terrorists with arms doing there?
Example of making other do anything by force (right and wrong does not matter): As for making others do what a person likes (regardless of it being Islamic, non-Islamic, or misguided Islam), it is completely against Islam.
Just imagine: Suppose anyone started interpretation of Islam wrongly and started believing that to keep beard is haram. Than that person start a group, that reaches to 10000 heavily armed militants, who then stops everyone on the road and start shaving beard of anyone with beard. Would that be fine? Suppose that a Muslim passes with beard (put yourself in his place) and they caught him, beat him, kidnap him and take him to their den, where they tell him that his keeping beard is against Islam and that if he do not have beard, it would be ibadah. Then they shave his beard. They further warn him that next time he is seen with beard he would be shot dead.
Well, this man knows Islam and knows that these people are misguided and to keep beard is sunnah of Prophet (SAW). Nevertheless, if that person stops keeping beard so that they do not harm him, would this person be doing that for Allah or in fear of these criminals? If he is doing that in fear of these criminals, would it be not that these criminals are making him do ibadah to them (as according to them beard is haram and thus they are forcing others to stop keeping beard as Ibadah). Obviously, these criminals would not be doing all this for Allah and thus it would be Fitna.
Similarly: Forcing others to keep beard who do not want to keep beard would be same. If anyone would force them without beard and other start keeping beard because of fear, they would not be making other do Ibadah to Allah but Ibadah to themselves. That would be fitna. If anyone wants other to keep beard, they have to diligently argue, and convince others in most decent way, but even then others do not want to, they should just leave others alone peacefully. Else they would not be making anyone do Ibadah but would be creating Fitna. It is duty of state to stop all sort of fitna in the country.
In such situation, what is the duty of state? Is it not that to fight these militant criminals and finish them? If state duty is to fight and finish these criminals (who force others to shave), then it is same duty of state to fight and finish any criminals that force others to do what they think is right (regardless of it being right or wrong). At least state should ask these criminals to stop all their activities of forcing their own laws and if they do not understand the language of words, they should be stopped with language of force. If state personnel dies in the hand of these criminals than obviously that state personal died performing his duty, and would have got Shaheed.
