Ahmadis in Pakistan

[khuramonline]

before sizing the moment, I urge you to read the posts made on this thread. Fatwas are non binding i.e. its not mandatory to respect what is said on fatwa. its just a bloody legal opinion. btw i failed to see your point.

Actually my first post was in response to a picture posted by someone. That was scanned copy of an appeal published in a newspaper to sought fatwas against a number of ppl who just attended valeema function of some ahmedy

That pic was then deleted by mods. Thats why you didn't get my point.

 

[T-Faz]

Fear and*silence​

By Mohsin Hamid**** Dawn, 27 Jun, 2010

Why are Ahmadis persecuted so ferociously in Pakistan?*

The reason can’t be that their large numbers pose some sort of ‘threat from within’. After all, Ahmadis are a relatively small minority in Pakistan. They make up somewhere between 0.25 per cent (according to the last census) and 2.5 per cent (according to the Economist) of our population.

Nor can the reason be that Ahmadis are non-Muslims. Pakistani Christians and Pakistani Hindus are non-Muslims, and similar in numbers to Pakistani Ahmadis. Yet Christians and Hindus, while undeniably discriminated against, face nothing like the vitriol directed towards Ahmadis in our country.

To understand what the persecution of Ahmadis achieves, we have to see how it works. Its first step is to say that Ahmadis are non-Muslims. And its second is to say that Ahmadis are not just non-Muslims, but apostates: non-Muslims who claim to be Muslims. These two steps are easy to take: any individual Pakistani citizen has the right to believe whatever they want about Ahmadis and their faith.

But the process goes further. Step three is to say that because Ahmadis are apostates, they should be victimised, or even killed. We are now beyond the realm of personal opinion. We are in the realm of group punishment and incitement to murder. Nor does it stop here. There is a fourth step. And step four is this: any Muslim who says Ahmadis should not be victimised or killed, should themselves be victimised or killed.*******************************************************************************************************************************

In other words, even if they are not themselves Ahmadi, any policeman, doctor, politician, or passerby who tries to prevent, or just publicly opposes, the killing of an Ahmadi, deserves to die. Why? Because anyone who defends an apostate is themselves an apostate.

Aha.

This is what the persecution of Ahmadis achieves. It allows any Muslim to be declared an apostate. For the logic can be continued endlessly. When an Ahmadi man is wounded in an attack and goes to a hospital for treatment, if the doctor agrees to treat him, she is helping an apostate, and therefore she becomes an apostate and subject to threats. When a policeman is deputed to protect the doctor, since she is an apostate, the policeman is helping an apostate, so he too becomes an apostate. And on and on.

The collective result of this is to silence and impose fear not just on the few per cent of Pakistanis who are Ahmadis, or even on those who are Christians and Hindus, but on all of us. The message is clear. Speaking out against the problem means you are the problem, so you had better be quiet.

Our coerced silence is the weapon that has been sharpened and brought to our throats.

This is why Nawaz Sharif’s statement in defence of Ahmadis met with such an angry response. Because the heart of the issue isn’t whether Ahmadis are non-Muslims or not. The heart of the issue is whether Muslims can be silenced by fear.

Because if we can be silenced when it comes to Ahmadis, then we can be silenced when it comes to Shias, we can be silenced when it comes to women, we can be silenced when it comes to dress, we can be silenced when it comes to entertainment, and we can even be silenced when it comes to sitting by ourselves, alone in a room, afraid to think what we think.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

^^^^^

very very short and sweet. Actually, the most intelligent article I have read today.

I could not agree more.

 

[apophenia]

Inequality is not a new phenomenon; it has been a focal point of our history dating back to pre partition days. Highlighting isolated incidents of discrimination against minorities can never bring the issue to resolve. Well all need to dial back a notch in our attitudes because we are too extreme for our own good, liberals or the conservatives we are all alike. Constitution of Pakistan does not support or protect perpetrators’ of violence in the name of religion and nothing will change even if Ordinance XX is removed, it will only give birth to newer type of discrimination. We need to educate ourselves that it is possible to love your own way of life without hating other's, a slow but sure process. liberty and freedom will remain elusive until we unite to challenge hatemonger’s and their ideology head on.

 

[T-Faz]

A very moving elegy posted on PakTeaHouse.

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

Just an hour ago he had looked and smiled
at his young bride, at his newborn child
taking leave from his aging mother, one last time
he had wished them all goodbye before heading outside

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

Grenades exploded, bullets sprayed,
all this as our brothers prayed
blood, gore, carnage everywhere
yet not a single word of despair

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

The attack so sudden, devastating terror
the calm, the bravery fuelled with prayers
the resilience, the fortitude, the courage
these tales I’m sure will be told for years

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

He called his father, his mother, his wife
I’m hurt he said, I may not survive.
The phone is ringing no one answers…
Oh Allah, oh Lord please, please keep him alive!

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

Brethren seven seas away
pray as they watch in utter dismay
Their fervent midnight cries and woes
for God Almighty to punish the foes

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

Shoes all around, lying unclaimed
The house of Allah is blood stained
The shattered walls tell amazing stories
of unblemished wills and future glories

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

This is my son, I know his hand
said the mother, barely able to stand
From mine to Allah’s lap he goes
Have you ever heard of courage so grand?

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

The only brother of sisters three
the father who fought to keep the nation free
the judge, the general, the doctor was he
taken in a wicked killing spree

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

The wrinkled face smiled
as the well wishers filed
The young widow so composed
as she caressed her unborn child

His call came as he knelt in prayer

The mother weeps, the baby sleeps
the sister sighs, the wife wipes the corners of her eyes
the supplication, the tears, the heart-wrenching prayers
reserved only for the Lord of the earth and the skies

His call came as he knelt in Prayer

Farewell, farewell, our martyrs farewell!
You knelt before Him and in His name you fell
In the Gardens of Heaven you shall dwell
Paradise awaits, for you have served Him well

His call came as he knelt in Prayer​

 

[Solomon2]

His nitpickings as per the law and the constitution are very well debated. The constitution's section declaring anyone a non-Muslim defeats logic.

It sounds similar to the problems Alawites have in Syria:

When French Mandate authorities ruled the area after World War One, many, if not most, Alawites yearned for their own sovereign homeland along the coast of the Mediterranean apart from Damascus and the largely Sunni interior.

“The Alawites refuse to be annexed to Muslim Syria,” Suleiman Assad, grandfather of Syria’s President Bashar Assad, wrote in a petition to France in 1943. “In Syria, the official religion of the state is Islam, and according to Islam, the Alawites are considered infidels. … The spirit of hatred and fanaticism imbedded in the hearts of the Arab Muslims against everything that is non-Muslim has been perpetually nurtured by the Islamic religion. There is no hope that the situation will ever change. Therefore, the abolition of the mandate will expose the minorities in Syria to the dangers of death and annihilation.”

link

And, of course, Pakistan has followed the path of increased Arabization. So the increased danger to the Ahmadis should come as no surprise.

 

[Kompromat]

Mr. Jinnah regarded Ahmadis as Muslims

Founder of Pakistan refused to brand them as outside Islam

His friendly relations with Maulana Muhammad Ali

(The Light & Islamic Review : Vol.69; No. 1; Jan-Feb 1992; p.15-18)

The Founder of Pakistan, Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah (d. 1948), known by the title Quaid-i Azam (the great leader) accorded to him by his grateful countrymen, believed in the unity of the Muslims on the basis of their common allegiance to the expression of faith called the Kalima Tayyiba (There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah). Sectarian religious differences there may be, but all those adhering to this expression constituted, according to him, a nation with a common cause, culture, history and future.


Mr. Jinnah was on friendly terms with Maulana Muhammad Ali and a great admirer of the work of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. Once, attending a party at the Maulana's residence, Mr. Jinnah made a brief speech during the course of which he expressed appreciation of the work of the Anjuman and its English organ The Light. He said:


"I get your magazine, The Light. I am a politician, and read it for political articles, but I also read the religious articles, and I keep a file of the magazine. I receive letters from foreign countries about Islam. People abroad think that, as I am a leader of the Muslims, they can write to me for information on Islam. I forward such letters for reply to your Anjuman."

Mr. Jinnah regarded Ahmadis as Muslims.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Refuses to brand Ahmadis as non-Muslims.

In 1944, at a press conference in Srinagar, Kashmir, Mr. Jinnah gave his view on the issue of whether Ahmadis ought to be expelled from certain Muslim organisations. An Ahmadi journalist who was present, Mr. Abdul Aziz Shura, editor Roshni, has made a sworn statement, dated 15 January 1988, about the proceedings of this conference. We quote from this below:


"I, Abdul Aziz Shura, known as Aziz Kashmiri, editor of the daily Roshni, Srinagar, Kashmir, make the following declaration under oath.


"A delegation of the Kashmir Press Conference, Srinagar, which included several leading newspaper men, met Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, President of the Muslim League, at his appointed time, on 23 May 1944 at 11 a.m., at `Koshik', Nishat, Srinagar, and asked various questions.


"I asked Quaid-i-Azam, Who can join the All-India Muslim League? At this, Mr. M. A. Sabir, editor of al-Barq, told the Quaid-i-Azam that the background to the question was probably that in Kashmir Ahmadis were not allowed to join the Muslim conference. Quaid-i-Azam smiled and recorded his reply as follows:


"I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with particular reference to the Qadianis. My reply is that, as far as the constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole."


"Mr. M. A. Sabir tried as hard as he could to persuade the Quaid-i-Azam to declare Qadianis as being out of the fold of Islam. But the Quaid-i-Azam stuck resolutely to his principle and kept on replying: `What right have I to declare a person non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim'.


"The proceedings of this press conference were published, under my signature, in the Riyasati of that time and the Lahore newspapers, especially Inqilab, Shahbaz, Zamindar, Siyasat etc."

Mr. Jinnah regarded Ahmadis as Muslims.

Oh no - not again Please !!

Its been discussed to death & just that you know Quaid e azam has no religious authority neither he was well Educated in Religious matters.

 

[ARSENAL6]

It sounds similar to the problems Alawites have in Syria:

link

And, of course, Pakistan has followed the path of increased Arabization. So the increased danger to the Ahmadis should come as no surprise.

Really ?

Will we be seeing Israel turning the heat up on the Pakistan People just to cause problems ?

Like causes independant state for ahmadies

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I dont think Alawites (Alevis) have any major problems in Syria. Syria is a secular Arab Republic

President Bashar Al Asad himself is Alawite






p.s. ''increased arabization''


haven't heard that one before......

 

[khuramonline]

Oh no - not again Please !!

Its been discussed to death & just that you know Quaid e azam has no religious authority neither he was well Educated in Religious matters.

Simply ... then he did not found an "Islamic" country. So you please don't hijack his country!

 

[tnt123]

Ahmedis always had problems, ever since the movement was founded in the 19th century.

You cannot have new prophets in Islam according to ones whims and fancies. It is not acceptable.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

i have no problems with the Ahmedis, except I dont really approve of the way they treat the women. They make them cover head to toe, similar to the conservative wahhaby types.

Ahmedis however do put a strong emphasis on education I have noticed, and that is a good thing.

I personally am against all these stupid laws against them. They should be abolished, and if the government has the balls to do so - they should.


Why? Because the laws are STUPID, and it's nobodies business how they do their religious rituals. Why should we care??

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?

By Raza Habib Raja

Democracy is much more than majority

Right now, after 28th May, an issue being increasingly discussed is the status given to Ahmedis through the controversial Second Amendment.

Frankly I would like to say at the onset that I think the Second Amendment is one of the blackest and most shameful acts of legislations ever passed in the National Assembly. Its reprehensible content is reinforced by the fact that it was not an ordinance imposed by a dictator but actually passed by majority through legislative process.

The Second Amendment was passed unanimously and compared to other controversial legal ordinance such as Hadood, appears to have a “democratic’ semblance. In fact at times more than the religious arguments the supporters of the Second Amendment come up with the “democratic” defense.

Supporters say that after all democracy is a game of numbers and if the law was passed unanimously then it reflected the entire collective will of the people. They also say that democracy has to be consistently interpreted and applied. They say that you cannot be “selective” about democratic norms and apply it to your own wishes. The votes cast by the representatives are the most appropriate approximation of the public will and if a bill is passed unanimously then public will has to prevail. The art of legislation is the way of ensuring prevalence of public will.

Though apparently supported by “democratic” credentials, a critical look would reveal that actually this argument is flawed on at least two major accounts.

To begin with, any law duly passed by the legislature does not necessarily possess the direct approval of the populace. This is actually a classical principal agent problem where agents have been given authority by the principal to act on their behalf. In a legislative setting the agents are the members who are representatives. However, once elected it is not possible for them to revert back to public on each and every bill. Generally speaking the assumption is that since public has given them the vote and therefore in some ways also endorsed their manifesto. And here also vote does not necessarily imply that every single point in the manifesto has been endorsed by all the voters. There is thus a perception asymmetry here. Following this logic the only bills which have some implicit approval of the electorate are those which are based on the manifesto of the party. The Second Amendment was not the part of manifesto of the ruling party at that time and therefore the argument that it had direct approval of the electorate is flawed. I admit here that numerous other bills also may also suffer from the same problem but since supporters of Second Amendments often tout “overwhelming” support of the electorate therefore dissection of this argument was needed.

However, skeptics may retort by saying that even if a direct referendum is held there are chances that populace may still decide the same. But then is democracy just numbers?

I think the strongest case against so called democratic credentials of the Second Amendment comes from the philosophical side. Democracy is not merely a game of numbers but at a philosophical level much more than that. DEMOCRACY HAS TO BLEND IN WITH A TOLERANT CULTURE OTHERWISE ITS POPULAR HEGEMONY OF THE MAJORITY. Hitler was also after all apparently democratically elected.

Laws which are contradictory to tolerance and equality, even if completely endorsed by the majority, wont be called as democratic. There is a reason as to why all the civilized democracies have taken extreme care to ensure that while majority does get its way most of the time but not all of the time. Thus democracy in principle while agreeing to majority rule has to enshrine protection of minorities from possible tyranny of majority. Yes, majority is needed for ensuring expression of popular will but it does not mean that majority should coalesce to infringe the basic rights of the minority particularly when the later is defined along religious or ethnic lines.

For example in United States, Bills of Right go extra step to protect basic individual freedom. These catalogue the rights that have to be upheld by the government, thus protecting, the rights of ANY minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy. Essentially the Bills of Right RESTRICT the scope of majority and try protecting the minority.

This idea of prevention of tyranny of the majority was explored in detail by the famous British political philosopher John Stuart Mill. In his most famous essay “On Liberty” , he wrote:

”The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”

The above principle endeavours to ensure that government elected by majority does not end up being an instrument to exercise tyranny by that majority.

The tyranny of the majority (at times brought through voting mechanism) has been one of the most defining features of the last century. The chequered history in this respect has elevated the need for protection of minorities from possible abuse of the majorities as one of the foremost priorities. The UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, defines not just individual rights but also minimum protections for minorities. Article 27 asserts:

“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”

The above clearly shows that democracy is not merely a game of numbers but for any law to be democratic, it has to fulfil the criteria of non violation of basic rights of the minorities. Yes while it is true that majority rule is important as a mean of popular expression but at the same time, it is not the ONLY criteria. Democracy is a complex phenomenon and would require other caveats such as adequate protection of minorities. In a true democracy the dominance of majority is counterchecked by proper protection of minorities.

Following this logic, the Second Amendment can by no stretch of imagination called a “democratic” legislation. The supporters should at least spare the usage of the word democratic while rhapsodizing about the “unanimity” behind passing of that black amendment.

What our society needs to learn is that every privilege in this world comes with a responsibility. Freedom of expression comes with a responsibility that it would not be used to malign others and for hate speech. Authority comes with a responsibility that it would not be abused. And above all, majority comes with a responsibility that it would not be used to impose undue will on the minority.

The Second Amendment merits several questions. Does the majority have the right to assume the power of the Almighty and declare someone as Non Muslim? Does the majority have the right to marginalize a community just because it has different views? Does the majority have the right not only to induce discrimination but institutionalize it in the law of the land? And if a majority imposes its will on a minority, can it justify it as democratic?

These are pressing and uneasy questions and the tragedy is that we know the answer to each one of them. It is a matter of listening to our conscience and mustering enough COLLECTIVE courage.

Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation? Pak Tea House

 

[ARSENAL6]

Islam is extremly critcal about this.
Islam has made it very clear that Prophet Mohammid (Pbuh) is the last prophet and anyone who believes that there is another one after him is considered to be outside of Islam.
Amadis also believe that Jesus (Isa) had in fact survived the crucifixion and later died a natural death, after having migrated towards Kashmir and that he had appeared in the spirit and power of Jesus.
Furthermore it is in their book (Ahmadis) that says Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the new and improved version of Prophet Mohammid and that thier religon is the new improved version for islam.

This is beyond blasphemous to think that a religion that has been brought down by Allah(swt)the creator of the known and unknown, not change for 1400 years(Islam) and still produces miricles that will contradict many non-muslim achdemics and islmaphobes and put them to great shame for thier aguement against it, to think that Islam needs change is utter Kuffir. Islam is very clear on that.

Having said that, as Muslim we should be tolarent and spread Dawa to them and show the true Islam as intended. I am suprise to some Muslim here on this forum calling on death on Ahmadis on grounds of believe. These people must read on life of Prophet Mohammid (Pbuh)
and see how he treated non-muslims. THer were many Non-muslim that gave Prophet Mohammid (pbuh) a very hard time. Even when he went to Taif he was stoned to the point that he was coverd in blood. The Angels came down to him and said " If you want we will crush the peole of Taif with theses two mountains" but prophet Mohammid (swt) said "No, their children will become Muslim"
You see how forgivinig he was.
You mission is to spread the dean of Islam and if they don't listern then its up to Allah not you. Of course you have every right to defend your dean and your self. But if they stop attacking you you stop attacking them but keep spreading the deen ( and attcking i mean like verbal abuse, fights hits)
Which leads me to this

everyone talks about the how Ahmadis are treated badly in Pakistan or by Muslims alike but no one ever mention how Ahmadis treat Muslims badly I have personally seen bullism, attacks, even stopping muslim communities to their daily business done by Ahmadis on Muslims.

Of course it will never get reported because of the typical nature of the western media to put muslim in a bad lilght.

EDIT
As for Emo girls post
you can only declear non-muslim as such if only if it fits the Critia of Islam not by any man made law.
You couldn't have a gay Muslim - that just contradicting itself and he/she is living a lie.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it would be a lot less time consuming if we lived and LET LIVE!!!!!!! Who the flying f*ck cares?

we need to focus on real issues instead of being lazy....and selective.