Kashmir: Declare Ahmadis non-Muslims: Grand Mufti

[Jade]

We don't hate Ahmedis, but any educated person that had atleast knowledge about Islam would know that Ahmedis are not Muslim. NO, we do not want to kill Ahmedis, we are just saying that the Ahmediyya are a different religion.

If INDIA wants to truly respect the feelings of Indian Muslims they would declare Ahmediyyas as non-Muslims, simple. It doesn't hurt your stance of a secular state in India.

Indians Muslims have no complains, why should you have? If Ahmediyya are not Muslims, then who are they? They call themselves Muslim, so what is your problem?

 

[Riyadh Haque]

We don't hate Ahmedis, but any educated person that had atleast knowledge about Islam would know that Ahmedis are not Muslim. NO, we do not want to kill Ahmedis, we are just saying that the Ahmediyya are a different religion.

If INDIA wants to truly respect the feelings of Indian Muslims they would declare Ahmediyyas as non-Muslims, simple. It doesn't hurt your stance of a secular state in India.

But Icewold, there is a HUGE problem with what you suggest. Forget about India, this is a HUGE problem in our own country. Here is the problem:

1) All Pakistanis agree that we should respect religious beliefs of others and not denigrate them as "bakwaas". We also agree that it should be illegal to hurt the religious sentiments of people.

2) The Ahmadis believe that they had was a Messiah in the 19th Century. Is this bakwaas? Most non-Ahmadi Ulema and us Muslims would say, "yes, it is bakwaas". Have we not offended the religious sentiments of the Ahmadis? Is this not illegal?

3) People say that they can believe in their "messiah" if they want, and there is no problem as long as they do not call themselves "Muslims". But, Icewolf, the basic aqueeda of the Ahmadis is that they are Muslims. If we legally ban them from calling themselves "muslims", have we not curtailed their freedom of religious belief? Are we not disrespecting their religious belief?

Many of us say that we have no problem with the Ahmadis, except that:

(a) They cannot make the Azaan call in public.
(b) They cannot call their cantor as mu'azzan
(c) They cannot call their houses of worship as Masjid.
(d) They cannot display Kalima, Shahadah or Mashallah or Takbeer on their buildings.
(e) They cannot put Bismallah in the foreword of any book authored by an Ahmadi.
(f) They cannot pray with their jamaah spilling over into the public view.
(g) They cannot say "Salaam" to each other in public.
(h) They cannot offer namaz with others in government buildings and must stand aside.
(i) They cannot do dawah, distribute literature or call people to their religion.

Other than that, we say, there are no restrictions and they can practice, profess and propagate their religion quite freely.

But this begs the question: what is left of their religion after all these legal disqualification?
All of these things are central tenets of their religion, regardless of whether we think it is Islam or Non-Islam.

Do you now see the real issue?

We violently demand that the whole world should "respect our feelings", "not hurt our religious sentiments", "not denigrate our beliefs" and "not interfere with our religious practices". But, we are not willing to extend the same to others, especially not the Ahmadis. How long will this double-standard continue? The whole world now thinks we are unreasonably delusional and so deeply brainwashed that we cannot understand basic rational arguments calling for the logic of empathic projections.

And as for the "Secular State", I don't think you have even begun to understand what a Secular State is. Please take some time to think these issues through.

 

[jbond197]

In India state does not have any role in religious issues and rightly so.

Exactly, Govts didn't created the religions so should have no roles in defining/modifying it.. Muslims or Hindus or Christians or others can define themselves as what ever they want.. They are free to do so with no interference from Govt.. Becoming a religion state is the last thing to desire for Indians..

Do you now see the real issue?

We demand that the whole world to "respect our feelings", "not hurt our religious sentiments", "not denigrate our beliefs" and "not interfere with our religious practices". But, we are not willing to extend the same to others, especially not the Ahmadis.How long will these double-standards continue? The whole world now thinks we are unreasonably delusional and so deeply brainwashed that we cannot understand basic rational arguments calling for the logic of empathic projections.

And as for the "Secular State", I don't think you have even begun to understand what a Secular State is. Please take some time to think these issue through.

Whoa! I am surprised in a good way reading your comments.. This is exactly the root cause of many a issues in Pakistan.. One care too much about his feelings but then goes on insult drive for other religions..

 

[Jade]

But Icewold, there is a HUGE problem with what you suggest. Forget about India, this is a HUGE problem in our own country. Here is the problem:

1) All Pakistanis agree that we should respect religious beliefs of others and not denigrate them as "bakwaas". We also agree that it should be illegal to hurt the religious sentiments of people.

2) The Ahmadis believe that they had was a Messiah in the 19th Century. Is this bakwaas? Most non-Ahmadi Ulema and us Muslims would say, "yes, it is bakwaas". Have we not offended the religious sentiments of the Ahmadis? Is this not illegal?

3) People say that they can believe in their "messiah" if they want, and there is no problem as long as they do not call themselves "Muslims". But, Icewolf, the basic aqueeda of the Ahmadis is that they are Muslims. If we legally ban them from calling themselves "muslims", have we not curtailed their freedom of religious belief? Are we not disrespecting their religious belief?

Many of us say that we have no problem with the Ahmadis, except that:

(a) They cannot make the Azaan call in public.
(b) They cannot call their cantor as mu'azzan
(c) They cannot call their houses of worship as Masjid.
(d) They cannot display Kalima, Shahadah or Mashallah or Takbeer on their buildings.
(e) They cannot put Bismallah in the foreword of any book authored by an Ahmadi.
(f) They cannot pray with their jamaah spilling over into the public view.
(g) They cannot say "Salaam" to each other in public.
(h) They cannot offer namaz with others in government buildings and must stand aside.
(i) They cannot do dawah, distribute literature or call people to their religion.

Other than that, we say, there are no restrictions and they can practice, profess and propagate their religion quite freely.

But this begs the question: what is left of their religion after all these legal disqualification?
All of these things are central tenets of their religion, regardless of whether we think it is Islam or Non-Islam.

Do you now see the real issue?

We violently demand that the whole world should "respect our feelings", "not hurt our religious sentiments", "not denigrate our beliefs" and "not interfere with our religious practices". But, we are not willing to extend the same to others, especially not the Ahmadis. How long will this double-standard continue? The whole world now thinks we are unreasonably delusional and so deeply brainwashed that we cannot understand basic rational arguments calling for the logic of empathic projections.

And as for the "Secular State", I don't think you have even begun to understand what a Secular State is. Please take some time to think these issues through.

Greatly put...

 

[Icewolf]

Hi, Riyadh Haque.

Pakistan puts Ahmaddiyas as a minority religion, like Sikhs, Christians and Hindus. Do you expect a Christian to read namaaz with you? These are not discriminating laws, according to Islamic law, whoever doesnt think Mohammed pbuh is is last prophet simply not a Muslim. His namaaz, roza is not qobool... On top of that they changed first qalma and change the interpretation of Quran??

 

[Jackdaws]

Hi, Riyadh Haque.

Pakistan puts Ahmaddiyas as a minority religion, like Sikhs, Christians and Hindus. Do you expect a Christian to read namaaz with you? These are not discriminating laws, according to Islamic law, whoever doesnt think Mohammed pbuh is is last prophet simply not a Muslim. His namaaz, roza is not qobool... On top of that they changed first qalma and change the interpretation of Quran??

Sikhs, Christians and Hindus don't want to call themselves Muslims. Ahmadiyas maintain they are Muslims. You can't force your views down their throats.

 

[Icewolf]

@Jackdaws

Okay... I'll say Muhammad is last messenger and there is only one God, and then I'll say I'm Hindu to you... How will you feel?

 

[Jackdaws]

@Jackdaws

Okay... I'll say Muhammad is last messenger and there is only one God, and then I'll say I'm Hindu to you... How will you feel?

I would be fine with it - but then that is me. If you said it to some RSS and other right-wing Hindu groups, they would be offended. But that is where it should end. The Government has no business in declaring you a non-Hindu based on your personal beliefs. If some Hindus wish to maintain that you are non-Hindu; they too are entitled to their beliefs. The STATE of INDIA has no business in distinguishing between its citizens based on their beliefs.

 

[Icewolf]

@Jackdaws

Whatever... This will just cause violence between Ahmedis and Indian Muslims... But whatever...

 

[Jackdaws]

Come to think of it - no state should have its hand in discriminating against its own citizens. We all know that there is discrimination at the societal level in India - I have seen it. People discriminate against each other on the basis of religion, caste, linguistic identity, sexual orientation on a daily basis in Indian society. If any Indian says there is no discrimination in India - he is either lying or is completely ignorant. But what should the State of India do? Should it try and curtail such a value system or should it promote it? I firmly believe such views should be curtailed by the Government of India. The rights of the minorities can't be subject to the whims and fancies of the majority.

 

[khanz4996]

they are not muslims dosent matter if we declare it or not.

 

[SamantK]

they are not muslims dosent matter if we declare it or not.

Fine, if it does not matter then why this big hoopla around what you believe in...

To the ones who says that it should be declared, they can declare all they want personally.. India as a state has no religion and should not favour any one too..

 

[metro]

Well Its true, as per the definition of being a Muslim, Ahmedis cant be Muslims.
I hope they give some other name to their belief, that might at least end bloodshed.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

@Jackdaws

Whatever... This will just cause violence between Ahmedis and Indian Muslims... But whatever...

Icewolf,

You are saying that unless India officially & legally declares Ahmadis as "non-Muslims" there will be violence between Indian Ahmadis and Indian Muslims.

Firstly, I do not know of a single incident anywhere in the world in which there has been violence "between" Ahmadi and Muslims. The violence is always perpetrated by "Muslims" against Ahmadis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8TJTG4yUSQ

Also see Al Jazeera Reporting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrDpJ1y8rgQ

Even after all these attacks on them for their differing beliefs, the Ahmadis have never even retaliated once, as their faith specifically asks them to forgo vengence and to exalt non-violence. If you don't believe me, try to find a single incident, anywhere in the world, in which the Ahmadis have committed a violent act. You won't find it. All the violence comes from "True Muslims" and is always directed against the Ahmadi. None of it comes from the Ahmadi. What does this tell you about the nature of their Ahmadi faith? Is non-violence good thing? Or is it a sign of weakness?

Secondly, as to your idea that not declaring Ahmadis as legally non-Muslims will lead to violence against Ahmadis in India:

(1) The HQ of Indian Ahmadis is in Qadian in India's East-Punjab State. The whole area is demographically Sikh-dominated. The Sikhs and Ahmadis have excellent relations because the Ahmadis preach non-violence and tolerance of other faiths. In fact, many of the speakers at the Ahmadi Salana Jalsa in Qadian are Sikh Spiritual Leaders. The chance of any Lahore or Rabwah style violence happening in Qadian is very, very small.

So the situation in Indian Qadian is very different from that in Pakistan's Lahore & Rabwah.

(2) Having seen the 1953 anti-ahmadi massacre in Lahore and the constant attacks against Ahmadis in Pakistan, the Mullahs argued (just as you are arguing) that our Government should officially declare the Ahmadis as "non-muslims" and that this would end the violence.

Our Government agreed, and the Ahmadis were declared officially, legally & constitutionally non-muslim. So has the violence against Ahmadis ended in Pakistan? What do you think? If it has not ended, why do you think it still continues even after our Constitution itself declared them non-muslim? And why do you think this anti-ahmadi violence (which has not happened so far in India) will now start in India unless their Government immediately copies our Government and declares Ahmadis as Officially non-Muslim? Have you given this matter sufficient thought? If declaring them "non-muslim" has not stopped the violence against them in Pakistan, why should it be done anywhere else? Is there any evidence to justify your opinion?

NBC Interview on Ahmadiyya Mosque Attack in Lahore, Pakistan - YouTube

 

[gamma]

Icewolf,

You are saying that unless India officially & legally declares Ahmadis as "non-Muslims" there will be violence between Indian Ahmadis and Indian Muslims.

Firstly, I do not know of a single incident anywhere in the world in which there has been violence "between" Ahmadi and Muslims. The violence is always perpetrated by "Muslims" against Ahmadis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8TJTG4yUSQ

Also see Al Jazeera Reporting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8TJTG4yUSQ

Even after all these attacks on them for their differing beliefs, the Ahmadis have never even retaliated once, as their faith specifically asks them to forgo vengence and to exalt non-violence. If you don't believe me, try to find a single incident, anywhere in the world, in which the Ahmadis have committed a violent act. You won't find it. All the violence comes from "True Muslims" and is always directed against the Ahmadi. None of it comes from the Ahmadi. What does this tell you about the nature of their Ahmadi faith? Is non-violence good thing? Or is it a sign of weakness?

Secondly, as to your idea that not declaring Ahmadis as legally non-Muslims will lead to violence against Ahmadis in India:

(1) The HQ of Indian Ahmadis is in Qadian in India's East-Punjab State. The whole area is demographically Sikh-dominated. The Sikhs and Ahmadis have excellent relations because the Ahmadis preach non-violence and tolerance of other faiths. In fact, many of the speakers at the Ahmadi Salana Jalsa in Qadian are Sikh Spiritual Leaders. The chance of any Lahore or Rabwah style violence happening in Qadian is very, very small.

So the situation in Indian Qadian is very different from that in Pakistan's Lahore & Rabwah.

(2) Having seen the 1953 anti-ahmadi massacre in Lahore and the constant attacks against Ahmadis in Pakistan, the Mullahs argued (just as you are arguing) that our Government should officially declare the Ahmadis as "non-muslims" and that this would end the violence.

Our Government agreed, and the Ahmadis were declared officially, legally & constitutionally non-muslim. So has the violence against Ahmadis ended in Pakistan? What do you think? If it has not ended, why do you think it still continues even after our Constitution itself declared them non-muslim? And why do you think this anti-ahmadi violence (which has not happened so far in India) will now start in India unless their Government immediately copies our Government and declares Ahmadis as Officially non-Muslim? Have you given this matter sufficient thought? If declaring them "non-muslim" has not stopped the violence against them in Pakistan, why should it be done anywhere else? Is there any evidence to justify your opinion?

NBC Interview on Ahmadiyya Mosque Attack in Lahore, Pakistan - YouTube

We actually don't comprehend this declaring someone as NOT something. We don't. we aren't interested in understanding it either.