What's new

Ahmadis in Pakistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still no counterterrorism strategy
by Mosharraf Zaid



One of my closest friends has never once, in more than fifteen years, ever responded to my salaam with a salaam. I have never held it against him. If he did, and a budding Mullah Chinioti heard him say it, he could be imprisoned for three years. I don't blame my friend for never wanting to take the risk. Being risk-averse is not a choice made when you reach adulthood for Pakistani Ahmedis. It is a way of life. Every murdered Ahmedi in Pakistan helps reinforce the fear and the stoicism of this patriotic community of Pakistanis. And every murdered Ahmedi is a stain on Pakistan's rich canvas of disgrace and guilt.

The press in Pakistan is awash in self-conscious hand-wringing about the massacre of Ahmedis by the TTP in Lahore. No such trepidation or nerves were on display at any previous point in this bloody and unending war between the TTP and the Pakistani people. Pakistanis that aspire for a "liberal" social and political space are incandescent with rage about the blasphemy law, about Zulfi Bhutto's kneeling before the "mullahs" and about Zia's escalation of state-sponsored, legal and constitutional hostility towards Ahmedis. Most Pakistanis, however, far and widely disconnected from what has come to represent "liberal" in Pakistan, would rather stay silent. There is surely a degree of shame and guilt for living in a country that has, even if it is by some degrees of separation, essentially participated in ghettoising an entire community. For most Pakistanis, however, there's something more important than this shame. There is a fierce commitment to Islam.

This narrative of overarching religious devotion needs to be understood for what it is. Most Pakistanis are not particularly religious, but are very, very particularly devoted to the symbols of their religion. There is scarcely a symbol more central to Pakistani Muslims than the life, times and person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him. The flat and comprehensive finality of the Holy Prophet is non-negotiable.

Of course, that commitment does not, under any moral, legal or political framework, justify the way that Ahmedis are treated in Pakistan. In fact, the real outrage may be that Pakistani Muslims allow themselves to live in a country where religious fanatics posing as vigilantes see it fit to distribute their twisted version of justice on the lives of the innocent minorities of Pakistan.

The religious issue of the status of the Ahmedi faith in Pakistan is further complicated because it is also a legal issue. If Pakistanis, whether they call themselves liberal or not, are interested in beating the fanatics, and making Pakistan a safe place to live for all Pakistanis, then remembering certain facts is central to the project of fixing Pakistan.

The religious identity of Pakistan's Constitution was the product of a democratic discourse. It is easy to demonise Zia, particularly given his government's slavish pandering to a tiny sliver of mullahs. But frankly, reality also requires us to remember that Bhutto's own rhetoric and most of the mainstream discourse preceding Bhutto (notwithstanding Ayub's colonised vision for Pakistan) was not uncomfortable with Muslim identity. To the contrary, it had a healthy mix of political Muslimness, without any of the political Islamism that infected Pakistan under Zia.

That middle-of-the-road approach to Islam in the public space has not turned out very well. Arguably, it has bequeathed to Pakistan the TTP and its various components, and affiliates, including the increasingly brazen Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. But the emergence of Pakistani soil as the birthing place of so many terrorists is not solely a product of the Pakistani political conversation, and Islam's place in it. It is also a product of the Pakistani military elite's insatiable appetite for shiny new weapons.

The success or failure of the PPP- and Muslim League-dominated mainstream politics of Pakistan -- which has always absorbed "Muslimness" into the discourse -- can be argued about. There is no argument, however, about one fact. Since well before Bhutto, one bankable reality in Pakistani politics is that so-called Pakistani liberalism will always score high with the west and fail spectacularly at home. The righteous indignation of Pakistan's "progressive" and "liberal" elite -- whenever Pakistani extremism or fanaticism rears its ugly head -- has very little bearing on what takes place in this country. Of the most important issues to any sincerely progressive person in Pakistan -- such as how women are treated, how the powerful are unaccountable and how minorities are treated -- it is the Pakistani fanatic that has won every single argument since 1947.

As children of Jinnah's Pakistan, perhaps aspiring liberals and progressives need to start to ask questions about the nature of our citizenship, the nature of our engagement, and the nature of our politics within the broader canvas of realpolitik in Pakistan. The most important paint on this canvas is the green-coloured traditional South Asian Muslim sentiment of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Pakistan's central conversation is not a Sufi rock concert. It is a race for the next rupee, whilst carefully stepping over a cocktail of Barelvi, Deobandi, Wahhabbi, post-modern, Salafi and Shiite veritable "landmines". Pakistani Muslim orthopraxis is diverse and contested -- but it is central to defining the lowest common denominator in Pakistan's issue-politics.

Asking questions about how to improve the rate of success of liberal causes in Pakistan requires us to take a break from mullah-bashing, and introspect. It is a political minefield if you're a reformer interested in stripping Pakistan's Constitution of its Muslim identity. It is an orchard ripe with fruit if you're interested in exploiting existing religious stereotypes and biases in Pakistani society. Where can we reasonably expect every politician to eventually land every single time?

A transformed political landscape is a long-term project. Without substantially more grounded and active participation of Pakistani liberals in mainstream politics, it has no chance of fruition. In the meantime, Pakistanis, like the ones at Ghari Shahu and Model Town, are dying. I'm not interested in the guilty pleasures of trying to figure out if they were Muslim or not. I'm interested in catching the murderous criminals that did this, and making sure they don't do it again. We can have all the uncomfortable religious conversations we like once we're all secure from these bombs and bullets.

Let's not forget that Benazir Bhutto is among the thirty thousand victims of terrorism in Pakistan since 2001. Since the TTP came together in December 2007, they have killed indiscriminately at mosques, at schools, at universities and in markets. Every law -- both written and unwritten -- in Pakistan is used to protect its VIPs, and yet the TTP got to Shaheed Mohtarma, and killed her.

We are too self-conscious as a nation. Too beholden to mullahs on the one hand, and too dislocated from our own culture and context on the other. The terrorist attacks in Lahore were more of what has become a standard part of life in Pakistan since 2007. The TTP may be ceding ground to the Pakistani Army and the friendly skies that US drones explore on a daily basis. But they are winning the war. The longer we remain stuck in a useless ideological conversation, the more ground the TTP will gain.

The most important tribute we can pay to those that were slaughtered by the TTP in Lahore is to formulate and execute a transparent and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Anything less would be a continuation of the failed politics of Pakistani liberals, and the unchallenged run of success enjoyed by Pakistani fanatics. Of course, many of us have been advocating a CT strategy now for the better part of three years. I am not hopeful.

In the meantime, I will continue to be ashamed every time I meet my Ahmedi friends. Whatever religious disagreements we may have, Pakistani Muslims should have been protectors of the weak, not spectators to their torment. The TTP's bloodlust does not abdicate us from that responsibility.
 
. .
.
Quiet a few laws in Pakistan are not taken seriously by media or government, incitement to murder (Geo/Alim Online), banned organisations getting way with anything and massive corruption in all areas. Amazing such small things are taken more seriously.
 
Last edited:
.
It is against the law, and the outlet can be brought down.

However they could've remove the story from the 1st page as well and inserted some fillers. Lol a Minar-e-Pakistan pic would've suffice.

The real culprit is the law, not the IHT or ET for that matter.

Actually the law prohibits members of the Ahmedi/Qadiyani/Lahori Group from using the word mosque and Muslim for themselves. It does not state that other people, including constitutional Muslims can't call them mosques.

The relevant law (PPC 298B-1) reads:-

Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation-

(d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship a "Masjid";
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Hence if a Christian calls it a mosque, legally speaking it's not a crime. Although mullah brigade will set that person on fire and feed his charred body to the dogs and vultures.

Anyways, the column was a very bad written one, even worse than Ali Sethi's novel. Both his father and mother can write pretty well, he has no talent whatsoever.
 
.
There is specific thread for 'Ahmadis in Pakistan' that has been made sticky for discussion purposes, post all related news and stories over here.
 
.
Actually the law prohibits members of the Ahmedi/Qadiyani/Lahori Group from using the word mosque and Muslim for themselves. It does not state that other people, including constitutional Muslims can't call them mosques.

I suspect people are concerned of being caught under the blasphemy law; calling a place of worship mosque which is not mosque under law causing blasphemy to mosque or something like that. Blasphemy law is quiet a catch all type of law.
 
Last edited:
. .
I never really cared for Ahmadis

By Fasi Zaka

June 15, 2010

The writer is a columnist and TV and radio anchor (fasi.zaka@tribune.com.pk)

I have never really been vocal about rights for Ahmadis, even privately, but my compassion trigger is easily pulled if there are atrocities against Pakistani Hindus and Christians. Part of this can be ascribed to my belief in the prejudice that the Ahmadis are a relatively well-off community, making the Christians and Hindus of Pakistan uniquely guilty of a double crime, first for not being Muslims and second for being poor. These two communities seem especially vulnerable.

I have changed my mind. And it’s not because of the attack in Lahore that killed so many Ahmadis. The whole country, Muslim and non-Muslim, is under attack by the Taliban.

What really helped me see the inhuman treatment of the Ahmadis in Pakistan is the absence of condemnation for it. Nawaz Sharif in his condolence message said Ahmadis were our brothers; it’s been enough to get the Pakistani religious world on his case. While sympathy is not outlawed for Ahmadis, it may as well be.

Those of us with a passport have declared that “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be an impostor prophet and an infidel and also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori, Qadiani or Mirzai groups, to be non-Muslims.” Most of us do not believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a prophet, but do we have to rub it in? Imagine if the UK put in that sort of column for a prophet of another faith.

We have declared not just that we don’t believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but added the connotation that he was an imposter. People who follow imposters must be crooks, right? Let’s stop the pretence that they are equal, or human.

But no, we are a peaceful people, right? Of course we are. I read a very poignant anecdote in columnist Mosharraf Zaidi’s article recently; he described how an old friend would never say salaam to him in return. His friend is an Ahmadi, he can go to jail for that. I cringe when I see Pakistanis stumbling over one another to felicitate a white westerner who chooses to say salaam when greeting us in our country. Why not put him in jail too? He could be an atheist, whereas at least the Ahmadis believe in the oneness of God.

But, you see it’s not about that. Ahmadis are a secretive people up to no good. They won’t even tell you they are Ahmadis. But who wouldn’t be secretive if they could go to jail for saying they are Muslim, or responding in kind to a salutation of salaam. Or for that matter having a Quran in their home, the same kind you and I have.
Sunnis don’t believe in the imam of the Shias. What about Barelvis and Bohris? Its time their special treatment ended. If anything we have been too moderate. We need to cut diplomatic relations with Indonesia because they refuse to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim as it may open a Pandora’s Box of declaring other groups the same. Why is the amir of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Munawar Hassan, silent on this? He could address this diplomatic issue, after all he did want to cut off diplomatic relations with many countries over the Facebook fiasco.

Pakistani Ahmadis aren’t allowed to go for Hajj, but Ahmadis from other countries are. Maybe we should cut off relations with Saudi Arabia too. Also, since we Muslims believe in equality, I would suggest all non-Muslim countries make it mandatory that we wear special collars to identify us as Muslim when we visit. Or is that going too far since we haven’t, obviously, in the case of the Ahmadis?

The truth is the bulk of this country doesn’t like Ahmadis. They are Pakistan’s Palestinians. Their humane treatment and acceptance
will decide whether we are a people who can move forward in the future, or if we will become a fragmented warlord state divided on sectarian lines.

And yes, Ahmadis are worse off in Pakistan than Christians and Hindus. We want to forcibly convert Christians and Hindus. But Ahmadis shouldn’t exist. Period.

Published in the Express Tribune, June 15th, 2010.
 
.
COMMENT: How I wonder what we are —Fauzia Yazdani

The chief minister of Punjab failed on all counts as he did not visit the families of the deceased, meet with community representatives and condemn the role of organisations that flourish in Punjab to obliterate Ahmedis from the face of the earth

President Asif Ali Zardari, on June 3, 2010, signed two recently ratified international conventions, adding Pakistan to the list of countries that have ratified all conventions related to good governance, sustainable development and human rights. The two conventions are: the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture.

The salient features of the ICCPR are that all people have the right to self-determination, respect for individuals without distinction, equal rights of men and women to all civil and political liberties and that every human being has the inherent right to live. The convention also envisages that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family or correspondence, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and no one shall be subject to coercion that would impair his freedom to adopt a religion or belief of his choice and that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. The instrument of ratification signed by the president also contains reservations protecting national rights relating to (a) Islamic law and ideology, (b) issue of self-determination, (c) anything repugnant to the provisions of the constitution of Pakistan.

Pakistan has already ratified the Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), but its record of implementing these treaties has been, on the whole, dismal. Unfortunately, for all such instruments, the state has adopted a ‘tick the box’ approach to play to the international gallery. We have non-existent corresponding national machineries and systems that are further immobilised by vested politico-religious groups but, by submitting a glossy report that ticks the international requirement box, the state absolves itself of its obligations. But how would Pakistan justify its ratification of ICCPR to the world under the shadow of what happened to one of our religious minorities?

On May 28, 2010, Pakistan was scarred for life by the heinous massacre of 95 of our fellow citizens in Lahore. The political silence over this crime against humanity is deafening. The president, prime minister and political leaders conveniently dubbed it as part of ongoing ‘acts of terrorism’ in the country, conveniently ignoring the bitter reality that this was not a fallout of the war against terror but a targeted killing of a community persecuted for its religious beliefs. What happens to our constitutional and religious vows to protect the life of our citizens and minorities? Unfortunately, I did not read or hear anywhere the famous quote from either the national or provincial government that “the perpetrators will be apprehended within 72 hours and compensation will be announced”.

The chief minister of Punjab failed on all counts of his own set standards as he did not visit either the hospitals or families of the deceased, meet with community representatives, condemn the role of many organisations that flourish in Punjab to obliterate Ahmedis from the face of the earth or suspend the police for not doing their duty. I wonder why. Could it be that the chief minister: (i) thought it was not worth the political mileage, (ii) supports the cause of extremist organisations against the Ahmedi community, (iii) thinks Ahmedis are kafir, or (iv) does not want to invoke the wrath of religious parties and the Taliban. His all-out response to settle the Gojra massacre against the Christian community has not been forgotten and automatically draws parallels here.

The role of the electronic media has largely been shifty to avoid the rage of extremist groups and religious political parties for whom, respectively, killing a member of the Ahmedi community is a preferred act of religious obligation. The media is only grappling over whether it should be called an attack on ‘mosques’ or ‘places of worship’. The heroes of our media crossed the seven seas to support the cause of Palestine, but none could muster the courage to conduct a programme on the Ahmedis with the victims’ families who are their fellow citizens, brothers and sisters.

The last hajj sermon of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) articulates human rights, respect for humanity and equality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) augments the same. The constitution’s articles 20-22, 25 and 36 focus on freedom to profess religion, equality of citizens and protection of minorities. Article 20, of the recently ratified ICCPR, calls for prohibition by law of any propaganda for war and states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”. I wonder which part of these is unclear to both our government and religious parties.

Post-1979 we, as a nation, have been pushed to use religious terminologies for legitimisation and ablution of our acts irrespective of the pungent deeds. Pakistan has been used for proxy wars by its brotherly countries to proliferate their discriminatory political and religious ideologies in the name of Islam, and we have worn the make-believe crown of the frontline Islamic state. Whenever democracy has been given a relatively fair chance in Pakistan, the people of Pakistan have shunned these religious dogmatists. But largely, we are afraid to condemn their pursuit of religious extremism for fear of being labelled ‘anti-Islam’, which factually is not the case.

Our dilemma is that we have let foreign ideologies, finances and countries play havoc with our country at different points in time. We have stopped introspecting and have become like the ostrich. This has annihilated our culture and practice of tolerance, peace, coexistence and harmony. We stand at a point in our national history where these words sound alien to us. The question that needs answering is not “who are they?” Rather, we should be asking ourselves “who we are?” I am a Pakistani Muslim and my constitution, religion and conscience does not allow me to ignore this massacre of my fellow Pakistanis. I condemn it and resolve not to let these elements take away my beloved country. That is what I am. Who are you?

Fauzia Yazdani is an independent policy researcher and analyst and can be reached at theconsultingresearchers@gmail.com
 
.
I never really cared for Ahmadis

By Fasi Zaka

June 15, 2010

The writer is a columnist and TV and radio anchor (fasi.zaka@tribune.com.pk)

I have never really been vocal about rights for Ahmadis, even privately, but my compassion trigger is easily pulled if there are atrocities against Pakistani Hindus and Christians. Part of this can be ascribed to my belief in the prejudice that the Ahmadis are a relatively well-off community, making the Christians and Hindus of Pakistan uniquely guilty of a double crime, first for not being Muslims and second for being poor. These two communities seem especially vulnerable.

I have changed my mind. And it’s not because of the attack in Lahore that killed so many Ahmadis. The whole country, Muslim and non-Muslim, is under attack by the Taliban.

What really helped me see the inhuman treatment of the Ahmadis in Pakistan is the absence of condemnation for it. Nawaz Sharif in his condolence message said Ahmadis were our brothers; it’s been enough to get the Pakistani religious world on his case. While sympathy is not outlawed for Ahmadis, it may as well be.

Those of us with a passport have declared that “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be an impostor prophet and an infidel and also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori, Qadiani or Mirzai groups, to be non-Muslims.” Most of us do not believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a prophet, but do we have to rub it in? Imagine if the UK put in that sort of column for a prophet of another faith.

We have declared not just that we don’t believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but added the connotation that he was an imposter. People who follow imposters must be crooks, right? Let’s stop the pretence that they are equal, or human.

But no, we are a peaceful people, right? Of course we are. I read a very poignant anecdote in columnist Mosharraf Zaidi’s article recently; he described how an old friend would never say salaam to him in return. His friend is an Ahmadi, he can go to jail for that. I cringe when I see Pakistanis stumbling over one another to felicitate a white westerner who chooses to say salaam when greeting us in our country. Why not put him in jail too? He could be an atheist, whereas at least the Ahmadis believe in the oneness of God.

But, you see it’s not about that. Ahmadis are a secretive people up to no good. They won’t even tell you they are Ahmadis. But who wouldn’t be secretive if they could go to jail for saying they are Muslim, or responding in kind to a salutation of salaam. Or for that matter having a Quran in their home, the same kind you and I have.
Sunnis don’t believe in the imam of the Shias. What about Barelvis and Bohris? Its time their special treatment ended. If anything we have been too moderate. We need to cut diplomatic relations with Indonesia because they refuse to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim as it may open a Pandora’s Box of declaring other groups the same. Why is the amir of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Munawar Hassan, silent on this? He could address this diplomatic issue, after all he did want to cut off diplomatic relations with many countries over the Facebook fiasco.

Pakistani Ahmadis aren’t allowed to go for Hajj, but Ahmadis from other countries are. Maybe we should cut off relations with Saudi Arabia too. Also, since we Muslims believe in equality, I would suggest all non-Muslim countries make it mandatory that we wear special collars to identify us as Muslim when we visit. Or is that going too far since we haven’t, obviously, in the case of the Ahmadis?

The truth is the bulk of this country doesn’t like Ahmadis. They are Pakistan’s Palestinians. Their humane treatment and acceptance
will decide whether we are a people who can move forward in the future, or if we will become a fragmented warlord state divided on sectarian lines.

And yes, Ahmadis are worse off in Pakistan than Christians and Hindus. We want to forcibly convert Christians and Hindus. But Ahmadis shouldn’t exist. Period.

Published in the Express Tribune, June 15th, 2010.

That one line explain whole story Ahmadis don't say they belong to other faith they want to be majority while they are not....
 
.
they are PAKISTANIS....

some people in this country are too stupid to look beyond their hatred
 
.
That one line explain whole story Ahmadis don't say they belong to other faith they want to be majority while they are not....

To give reply to this,,, I would just combine few of my previous posts in a single post:

My those previous posts were actually the reply to following:

anyways if the ahemids love to associate themselves to islam then what does islam say for a person who diagrees to Mohammed (s.a.w) as the last prophet of islam?? cuz if you want to go to a university you have to abide by its laws right?

Above position is similar to yours,,, and my replies were following:

Who is the Principal of that university then...???

Ulema of mainstream Muslim? or "Khalifa-e-Waqt" of "Ahmediyah Islam"...???

Now I share the REAL thing... of why actually ulema are so concerned to not accept ahmedies as Muslim is due to the fact that then seat of Principal will have to be given to "Khalifa-e-Waqt"

Ahmedies do follow same rules of Islam. Only difference is the difference of interpretations.

So in that university, rules shall remain intact.... But interpretation of the Principal shall prevail.

As I told you ... this is really the REAL reason of why ulema are really concerned to accept ahmedies as Muslims. Because then seat of Principal shall really go to "Khalifa-e-Waqt".

And Ahmedies are NOT traitors in this sense. The only possibility of attaining the situation of UNITY is that "Khalifa-e-Waqt" be accepted as the Principal of the university.

So in this Correct sense, ahmedies are the UNITERS not the TRAITERS.

it is more a "political" issue. Whose rulings/fatwas shall prevail...??? ... is also a form of politics. Suppose any day Muslims accept ahmedies as also Muslims then...???

It will mean that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed will not be considered as any lier. If he is not considered a lier, then his claims are true. If his claims are true then he is the true Imam Mehdi as per Islamic teachings. If Imam Mehdi is present in the world and has been recognized as true Imam Mehdi then he will have to be appointed as the Principal of that university.....


So it is the logic. The real source of anxiety of ulema. They will lose their religious fatwa power. apni ghalti ko bhi tasleem kerna parre ga k why they initially denied the person who was actually the true promised person.

These are the reasons that now ulema are even ready to grant permission to ahmedies that they may make even a whole new religion. Whole new religion is acceptable to ulema... but their recognition as "Muslim" is not acceptable to them ... due to above mentioned "Political type" reasons.

And position of ulema ... that whole new religion is acceptable to them ... also throws light on their practical belief in "Khatam-e-Nabuwat".

In the correct sense .... actually whole new religion is against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat" ... And position of ahmedies ... that they still insist that they are Muslims ... is not against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat"
 
.
European Convention on Human Rights Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


Extracts from European court of judgment om 13 December 2001 on case of metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others Vs Moldova

115. In a democratic society, in which several religions coexist within one and the same population, it may be necessary to place restrictions on this freedom in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone's beliefs are respected.


Ahamdi apologists have been screaming STOP DISCRIMATION AGAINST AHMADIs’ and these arguments about injustices against Ahmadiya community arise from complete dissonance with the history of Ahmadiya movement and ant Ahmadiya movement. The Ahmadiya community is denied their essential creed through Ordinance XX because they failed to represent themselves as distinct religious order after the declaration on 1974. We are all Pakistani and in most instances we all treat each other with atmost respect without getting into debate what we believe in.
 
.
my two censt ... Amhedis/ Qadfiyanis are non muslims per our constitution and per the fatwas from around the world, however, they are no less Pakistani than anybody else and they have the right to live in Pakistan peacefully.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom