Ahmadis in Pakistan

[Meesna]

Hate speech

A strong case can be made against the JI leader for fomenting aggression and religious persecution under the country’s laws regarding hate speech and incitement to violence.

The street power and political clout wielded by Pakistan’s religious right have resulted in the state and society being held hostage by extremist elements. The latter stop at nothing to further their agenda of inciting hatred, divisiveness and violence. The latest example is that of the Jamaat-i-Islami chief, Syed Munawwar Hasan, who during a sermon in Lahore on Friday threatened a fresh movement against the Ahmadi community if it “did not accept their minority status” and the government kept silent about “their blasphemous and unconstitutional activities”.

Mr Hasan did not specify any particular instance substantiating his charges, leading one to read his comments as hate speech and also as an attempt to blackmail the government into further victimising an already persecuted community. Given the incendiary passions the issue arouses, any call by religious parties in this context is certain to be attended by violence. A strong case can be made against the JI leader for fomenting aggression and religious persecution under the country’s laws regarding hate speech and incitement to violence.

Even beyond this particular case, it has now become a matter of urgency that the government show an active and uncompromising stance on the issue of hate speech and incitement to violence or other sorts of criminal activity. Pakistan’s polity is already rent by religious, ethnic and sectarian divisions. Allowing irresponsible and divisive opinions to be aired publicly will deepen these fissures. Once it begins, the process of religious, ethnic and other communities being pitted against one another will prove difficult to bring under control. Spiralling violence, particularly in view of other issues being faced by the country such as militancy and terrorism, can then be expected. It is in the interests of both the state and citizenry to take a stand against inflammatory hate speech and lobby for the prosecution of those who break the law.

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Hate speech

 

[khuramonline]

Why they are not considered Muslims because they are not

Well ... they think they are Muslims . They believe they are Muslims. They don't say that they are Muslims because they are good citizens and don't break laws.

Whether you declare them non-muslim ... but after all they are Muslims. I remember a thing an ahmedy told me. Some maulvies went to his home for getting Chanda for local Masjid. That my friend told them that he is ahmedy so chanda for local masjid was not due from him. Those Maulvies said ... "So what you are ahmedy... Aakhir Musalman he ho na"

 

[Meesna]

Pakistan's Medieval Constitution - WSJ.com

Pakistan's Medieval Constitution
6/21/10

It is the only Muslim nation to explicitly define who is or is not a 'Muslim.'

In the early hours of May 28, Khalid Solangi was shaken awake by his wife. She told him that she'd heard news of a bloody attack on two Ahmadi mosques in Pakistan. Khalid's older brother, an Ahmadi Muslim American, had recently flown to Lahore for a wedding and they feared he was one of the victims. "My wife said to me, 'Your brother has never missed the Friday prayer.'"

And so Khalid dialed his sister-in-law's number. She confirmed the worst: Her husband had called from his cellphone minutes earlier, asking her to pray for him and the others trapped inside the mosque. "The next thing we heard was that my brother had been martyred," said Khalid. "He had gone to Pakistan for a wedding. He didn't even live there."

When the dust from the bombs settled and the Taliban gunmen stopped their shooting, nearly 100 innocent Muslims lay dead inside the mosques where they had gathered for Friday prayer. This wasn't the first act of terror committed against this minority Muslim sect.

Since 1953, when the first anti-Ahmadi riots broke out in newly independent Pakistan, the Ahmadi community has lived under constant threat. In 1974, Pakistan amended its constitution to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims.

Ten years later, among a slew of anti-blasphemy laws—one of them famously known as "Ordinance XX"—the military dictator Zia ul-Haq made it a crime for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims. They were forbidden from declaring their faith publicly, using the traditional Islamic greeting, and referring to their places of worship as mosques. In short, virtually any public act of worship or devotion by an Ahmadi can be treated as a criminal offense punishable by death.

Unsurprisingly, attacks on the Ahmadi community followed. In 2005 eight Ahmadis were gunned down in a mosque in a small town in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province. A year later a mob burned down Ahmadi homes and shops in a small village in the province, forcing more than a 100 Ahmadis to flee.

Last winter, while I was home in Lahore, I drove to a beige building near my house to get my passport renewed. The officer, in a small effort to assist me, made Xs next to the lines that needed my signature. First I signed the badly photocopied sheet, again and again. Then I found myself being asked to confirm that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad—a 19th century Punjabi reformer and founder of the Ahmadi movement—was an "imposter."

This is standard. Every Pakistani Muslim applying for a passport must sign a statement deriding Ahmad, but I had forgotten about the procedure.

I asked the officer what would happen if I didn't sign above the line. He looked at me blankly: "You don't want passport?"

Later that day I went with my friends to a restaurant in Old Lahore—the city's historic quarter—where cramped alleys lead to centuries-old Mughal mosques, forts and gateways. We ate kebabs and shared a hookah. On our way home, passing Lahore's busiest road, I saw a banner on a building facing the Lahore High Court: "Jews, Christians and Ahmadis are enemies of Islam." We passed a patch of grass where a bronze statue of Queen Victoria had once stood. It has been replaced by a tall glass box containing a Quran.

That the Ahmadi movement agrees with every tenet of Islam, save the additional belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad came to the Muslim community as a promised messiah, is irrelevant. The legal system has left minorities such as Christians and Hindus, and within Islam, Ahmadis and Shiites, socially and politically isolated.

Routinely, the graffiti along Lahore's stylish boulevards will proclaim that Shiites are infidels. More than 100 Christian houses were burned in a town in central Pakistan last year over a claim that a Christian had defiled the Quran. That same year, 37 Ahmadis were charged under the blasphemy laws.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the issue is more to do with power and influence, less to do with religion. That is my opinion.

They read the same Holy Book, pray pretty much the same way, believe in same God (SWT) etc.

Real justice is to embrace Islam and accept Mohammad (Saaw) our ultimate leader.

The Ahamadis too submit to Allah alone. As for whether Mohammad (Saaw) was the last Prophet or not, its the "same minor" difference u find between more radical Shias and Sunnis.

totally politicized nonsense. They are citizens of Pakistan. Day by day I am more and more convinced that the religious parties in Pakistan have gotten way too big for their boots; they need a leash put on them, and I say that with full confidence.

It was '''secular'' Z.A. Bhutto who began this trend when he bent over backwards and submitted to them blindly, just so he could increase the size of his constituency.


once again, POWER blinds

 

[T-Faz]

the issue is more to do with power and influence, less to do with religion. That is my opinion.

They read the same Holy Book, pray pretty much the same way, believe in same God (SWT) etc.

Real justice is to embrace Islam and accept Mohammad (Saaw) our ultimate leader.

The Ahamadis too submit to Allah alone. As for whether Mohammad (Saaw) was the last Prophet or not, its the "same minor" difference u find between more radical Shias and Sunnis.

totally politicized nonsense. They are citizens of Pakistan. Day by day I am more and more convinced that the religious parties in Pakistan have gotten way too big for their boots; they need a leash put on them, and I say that with full confidence.

It was '''secular'' Z.A. Bhutto who began this trend when he bent over backwards and submitted to them blindly, just so he could increase the size of his constituency.

once again, POWER blinds

Did you know that when the law to declare Ahmadies as non Muslims was put forward in 1974. Hakim Ali Zardari (Zardari's dad) and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi vehemnetly apposed the law but were not able to stop it from passing.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Did you know that when the law to declare Ahmadies as non Muslims was put forward in 1974. Hakim Ali Zardari (Zardari's dad) and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi vehemnetly apposed the law but were not able to stop it from passing.

i wouldve also opposed the law then, the same way I oppose it today

why?

because it's a stupid law which I have not even an iota of respect for. It's a pointless law. And as usual, more important issues exist yet they waste their time on stupid things.

 

[T-Faz]

For now it is just about repealing Ordinance XX and in general the hudood laws, according to whom rape becomes Zina and the women is punishable.

That brings me to another point when Dr Abdus Salam won the Nodel Prize, he had to be invited by Zia and when they met, tempers flared as Dr Salam argued with him on the laws that he brought in. Sir Zafarullah Khan also did not let him enter his house when he was on his death bed.

Becuase of Zia, a very high number of excellent personalities resigned their posts. The enigmatic Agha Shahi and Agha Hilaly left the government, many others followed suit and Zia promoted the likes of Nawaz Sharif to high positions.

Nawaz Sharif was finance minister under him.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it was Gen. Zia (RIP) who planted the seeds that would create future problems.

As a military figure, I respect him. He also did good things for Pakistan.


But socially, he f*cked up a lot of things. He showed no respect at all for Jinnah's vision of Pakistan. Many of our best pilots, soldiers, sailors etc. were placed in dungeons because of his paranoia.


as for Nawaz Sharif, I have nothing really to say about him. All the politicians are the same, they all say and do the same things over and over; they just wear different outfits

 

[T-Faz]

I respect General Akhtar Abdur Rahman becuase he was the real mastermind of the operations in Afghanistan.

Zia was politically motivated, he had told Dr Salam during their argument that his laws were politically motivated. The grand plan was that in the 70's, King Faisal was going to be made the Khalifa of Islam and they cannot except other religious heads sitting around in Muslim countries.

Zia chased away such great people from their roles and even fired Junejo when he said he was going to investigate the Ojhri incident.

Since then, people have tried to undo many of Zia's laws but are finding it difficult to go through with it.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

like i said, religious parties need to be put on a leash. In the past people complain about Army meddling in politics, they never complained about the religious parties getting too strong and audacious

religion is a very good thing; but these guys' only credentials are the length of their beards. We need a proper ministry of religious affairs with educated scholars and maulvis. These religious parties should be looking for people who have strong educational backgrounds -versed well in also ''secular'' subjects like science, mathematics, philosophy etc.


as for Ojhri camp incident, I dont think we will ever know the exact truth. Some say it was the Americans; some say it was Russians; some say it was Pakistanis themselves.

It's like Zia's death in the fateful C-130 Hercules....nobody will ever know what happened, just theories and assumptions.







p.s. in fairness to the religious parties, they are the only parties where the election of leaders is ''democratic'' based on consensus.

 

[apophenia]

They read the same Holy Book, pray pretty much the same way, believe in same God (SWT) etc.

Real justice is to embrace Islam and accept Mohammad (Saaw) our ultimate leader.

The Ahamadis too submit to Allah alone. As for whether Mohammad (Saaw) was the last Prophet or not, its the "same minor" difference u find between more radical Shias and Sunnis.

Dr.Allama Muhammad Iqbal in Islam and Ahmadism wrote.

“Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder‘s own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually, amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of Prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad‘s Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mindhe, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the ‘finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

It was '''secular'' Z.A. Bhutto who began this trend when he bent over backwards and submitted to them blindly, just so he could increase the size of his constituency.
once again, POWER blinds

ZAB was always reluctant to take action against Qadiani cohort after the Rabwah incident because he was supported by them in his the election campaign. Even after the constitutional amendments were passed, Bhutto left the matter in lurch making it more complicated.

 

[Huda]

i wouldve also opposed the law then, the same way I oppose it today

why?

because it's a stupid law which I have not even an iota of respect for. It's a pointless law. And as usual, more important issues exist yet they waste their time on stupid things.

I agree with this law that AHMEDIS are non-Muslims because ahamdis didn't believe that Muhamad is the last prophet of Allah and all Muslims do believe on these words "there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is Allah's last Prophet"

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I agree with this law that AHMEDIS are non-Muslims because ahamdis didn't believe that Muhamad is the last prophet of Allah and all Muslims do believe on these words "there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is Allah's last Prophet"

Ok well that is your opinion. Makes no difference to me, has no effect on me or the others.

My problem is, why must there be a law


i.e. why must the STATE decide to declare who is and who is not Muslim? And quite frankly, who gives a SH*T???? Why can't I get a Passport until and unless I sign some stupid declaration that they are non-Muslims


its the stupidest law existing in this country; kind of like the blasphemy laws/hudood ordinance. All stupid laws, all deliberated and time was wasted --when we should be focusing on more important issues.

also stupid are the religious parties....they remain silent when fellow citizens are killed in Mosques, just because they dont ''agree'' or ''recognize'' their sect or beliefs.


religion is a private matter, not a public one.....and i say it time and time again

 

[Huda]

Ok well that is your opinion. Makes no difference to me, has no effect on me or the others.

My problem is, why must there be a law


i.e. why must the STATE decide to declare who is and who is not Muslim? And quite frankly, who gives a SH*T????

hmmmmmmmmm
your right

 

[Huda]

its the stupidest law existing in this country; kind of like the blasphemy laws/hudood ordinance. All stupid laws, all deliberated and time was wasted --when we should be focusing on more important issues.

also stupid are the religious parties....they remain silent when fellow citizens are killed in Mosques, just because they dont ''agree'' or ''recognize'' their sect or beliefs.

bcz our parliament only know how to make new laws these parliamentarians are not interested in common people's problem they don't know how to resolve the people's problem