Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan contradicts the teachings of Islam

[SQ8]

Should not Muslims defend (in a non violent way) themselves from those that corrupt their religion: be it ISIS or Qaddianis? (Maybe with ISIS violence can be used?)

To stay "neutral" will mean that one of the basic FUNDAMENTALS will be corrupted.

This is not a matter of Mutashabihat but Muhkamaat.

Like there can be no interpretation of how many Gods are there, there can be no interpretation on the finality of Last Prophet (PBUH).

Now by defence I do not mean preventing them from practicing their religion or having places of worship but that it should be made clear that not accepting the finality of the Arab Prophet (PBUH) is not Islam and that any attempts at causing confusion is deception and corruption.

I think most muslims get lost in the idea of having to figure out a side. Not every dictum by people is bad nor is it all good. The only thing true is the Quran for which we are dead sure has not changed a bit. The rest needs constant revisiting to ensure greater and greater authenticity and reinterpetation along with changing social, technological and cultural scenarios.

Should muslims(of which are numerous in interpretation and so on) take it upon themselves to judge and clean others? By that we already have massive Sunni-Shia yada pada tada going on.
The question comes out to common theological understanding and knowing that the Quran is absolute. That is something that no one disagrees in terms of authenticity.

Beyond that, there is no dispute in various Fiqh.. we have no right to go ahead and label people from the Fiqh of Imam Jafar or Imam Hanbal and so on as Muslim or not muslim as it is their right to understand as they do.
Any disputes or disagreements are generally on vaguer terms which at the end are pretty much tolerated and existentially irrelevant. Whether there are 5 or 3 times for prayers is still being debated and there is no question of muslim or non-muslim in that debate. Both sides have valid arguments!
ANY sect has the right to say " We feel that this needs to be done this way". They have the right to quote the Quran and Sunnah to present an argument. If the argument is vague, we agree to disagree and can preach against it being correct but nothing beyond that.

Even this dispute, theologically... the issue is NOT whether those of the Qadiyani sect are muslims or not just by a differrent interpretation!
The issue is that by our beliefs that Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul Mutallib was the last/end/seal of the Prophet. It is a core part of the Quran and as a Muslim you cannot be selective about the Quran. ipso facto, if you have a disagreement on that bit, then we cannot accept your claim to be a Muslim until you can provide proof to back up your claim on the interpretation of the Quran.

In this case, there has been no effort made regarding this dispute and hence the issue has been tumbling out of proportions. Let me state again, the Qadiyani sect is NOT the only one and not the most numerous either perhaps. Just that other claims of Prophethood are kept out of public sight.

There was a student at Osmania University Hyderabad who claimed prohethood!, his teachers did not beat him, attack him and so on. They sat him down, asked for proofs and he was made to recind his claims on the basis of knowledge.

The question comes in on common agreed grounds and political nitpicking for turf wars. That is where Muslims do need to step in proactively as mentioned before.

Unless she is ignorant of Islamic knowledge, yes she is committing a sin. Here's your proof:

https://quran.com/3:28

https://quran.com/5:51

Neither your translations indicate a sin or ANYTHING of that sort otherwise in the first verse. All they do is warn against doing so. The second verse refers to allies in a conflict or dispute, this is a political party and she is representing her countrymen and not Muslims. Again, zero base for application here.

I did that on purpose .. We have discussed that in detail on other threads ... The threads which always get locked when our respected mods run out of arguments ..

Excuses, no thread got locked down because arguements ran out. Threads get locked down when disrespectful posts emerge OR baseless parrotting and tangential nonsense like that you are throwing out in such subjects emerge.

Let me even address that post by one sentence. T

hose are references to various books by scholars whereas mine is a Quranic verse; can you dispute with source or knowledge the verse of the Quran or the meaning or the interpretation?

Yes. Yes you undoubtedly would, even more than this women in Romania. Because Romania isn't as involved mine ar crimes against the Ummah as the USA.

You can treat the Kuffar well, and be friendly with them. But the moment you start trusting them over your fellow Muslims, or rely on them as key allies, you have committed a sin.

Yes, anyone can commit sins, but we have a right to judge someone's character and advise them if they are committing a sin to stop immediately.

That is where you can claim to be Allah.

 

[Hamza913]

What does that mean, exactly? If I, or one of my pious Muslim friends became President, they would be committing a sin by doing so? Is it a sin in your mind to associate yourself with non-Muslims?

Morality cannot simply be defined by being Muslim alone. Both Muslims and non-Muslims can commit sins. No one has the right to declare them a sinner before they actually commit one.

Yes. Yes you undoubtedly would, even more than this women in Romania. Because Romania isn't as involved mine ar crimes against the Ummah as the USA.

You can treat the Kuffar well, and be friendly with them. But the moment you start trusting them over your fellow Muslims, or rely on them as key allies, you have committed a sin.

Yes, anyone can commit sins, but we have a right to judge someone's character and advise them if they are committing a sin to stop immediately.

 

[Hyde]

I did that on purpose .. We have discussed that in detail on other threads ... The threads which always get locked when our respected mods run out of arguments ..

There is so much hue and cry every week on the same topic and we do allow such discussion each time as it generally talks about social issues of Pakistan.

The problem is, we have an argument everytime and someone like you would come to defend as well but the discussion will keep on rolling over the same argument until members will start flamebaiting.

The worst thing happened with Qadiyanism is that their religion didn't develop much before their Prophet died unlike Prophet Muhammad S.A.W who had conveyed the message in full and pretty much developed a nation, gave them a land where they could practice religion freely and one of such example is his last sermon where according to one record about 124,000 were present and there was a city of Makkah with 0 non Muslims within his lifetime.

So there are so many uncertainties and ambiguities in Qadiyanism... Initially people believed he was mehdi (not sure if there is only 1 true mehdi who has to come, the history has witnessed several mehdi in each century, most likely they were false Mehdi I guess)... I would not repeat the same allegations that would have been repeated in this thread but the bottom line is... one sect of Qadiyanis believes Prophet Muhammad S.A.W is the last Prophet, another believes he is not the last Prophet, one sect believes your fake prophet was a Prophet and another believes he was just a saint and so on so forth... so because the religion was not developed to mature... it gets irritated when Muslims starts argument as one Qadiyani would have contrary opinion to his fellow qadiyani and the discussion will land to nowhere

 

[mike2000 is back]

This hypocracy... Its all over my beloved country. The very idea that there is a fund for hajj but no fund for yatra of Hindus or other religious groups to visit their places of worship is in itself wrong. There is more than enough shoving religion into the mouth of the people in Pakistan but I don't know where these mullahs want to take Pakistan since despite oppressing Ahmedis for decades they are still not content with the situation. They want to impose even more religion, and that also their narrow minded version rather than seeking equality among all Pakistanis regardless of religion/sect/ethnicity.

They abandon no opportunity to advocate for a pure Islamic state when they themselves don't know what that means. They demonize the secular system and spend every strand of strength working for an narrow minded, and according to their own close minded interpretations, "Islamic Pakistan." Secularists are demonized though they can never answer the question when they will be satisfied if they are not satisfied with the current setup. There is no satisfying the mullah. He will never be content. If they say we couldn't impose Islam after 60 years with these kinds of rules they will never succeed in a thousand years and will keep blaming us secularists for their own faults.

Other than this a person has to testify that he is not an Ahmedi when applying to renew the passport. He has to abuse Ahmedis to get a passport. Narrow minded mullahs have full control of the nation but they won't be satisfied unless there is even worse, daily riots, terrorism and murder in the streets of Pakistan. Still they will say they need pure version of Islam in Pakistan.

This is a disease and it has taken hold in Pakistan.

Rare Dane voice here. Appreciate it. However, to be fair, Pakistan is an Islamic state as far as I know. I believe it's normal that the government pushes for Islam to be adopted by every single person in the country (Eventhough it's already at almost 97%). I think it's expected that the tiny minority will be expected to conform and follow the state religion of the country.

 

[Hamza913]

Haha that was funny

As far as I remember, there were Hindus/Non-Muslims living in this part of the world before they converted to Islam. So technically they have owned this land for thousands of years. So why not go back to Saudi Arabia and request Arabs to share their kindgom with you as you both are Muslim. I am happy to live with people who are son of the soil and have been living in harmony for centuries. We needed a Muslim nation to practice our religion freely but it doesn't mean we start supressing our minorities who didn't leave after partition for their sheer love of this land.

I would trust them any given day as our Muslim leaders have been disappointment so far.

If you disagree with what I have said, then go and ask any respectable scholar or read the Quran as well as the hadiths. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false.

They owned this land, yes. But we came and introduced them to Islam. As you said, many of them converted. We also did not go against fellow Muslims like no doubt this future PM of Romania shall be forced to do.

I am already happily living in a Muslim country, I don't feel the need for a transfer.

I am also perfectly fine with living among the Kuffar provided they do not start any conflict and agree to the states laws.

Did I say we have to oppress them? They have almost all the rights a Muslim would have, with the exception of holding key positions within a state and displaying major religious symbols throughout the country. These are the same rules you and I would have in many other non Muslim nations.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Excuses, no thread got locked down because arguements ran out. Threads get locked down when disrespectful posts emerge OR baseless parrotting and tangential nonsense like that you are throwing out in such subjects emerge.

Let me even address that post by one sentence. Those are references to various books by scholars whereas mine is a Quranic verse; can you dispute with source or knowledge the verse of the Quran or the meaning or the interpretation?

It happens all the time. Threads get locked ... Posters with dissenting views get banned ... You can't argue with someone holding views contrary to your own without bringing in your "moderation" powers ..

You posted a verse from the Holy Quran that is not rejected by any Muslim (including Ahmadis) .. What is your point ??

 

[Hyde]

Unless she is ignorant of Islamic knowledge, yes she is committing a sin. Here's your proof:

https://quran.com/3:28

https://quran.com/5:51

Regarding the second verse you shared... I believe that was during the war... as I remember one of the lecture where the context was mentioned. Its important to read the verse under the context otherwise you may get the wrong meaning out of it.

 

[terry5]

qadianis state

imran khan
nawaz sharif
javed miandad
muhammed ali mike tyson etc etc
benazir bhutto
m a jinnah etc etc

all the bengali indian sri lankan afghan muslims

african
european
arab
china to japan to singapore
indonesia malaysia
carribean americas muslims as .............kaafir


krishna tell them

hindus love them

haha krishna tell them and they kill jesus and bury him in kashmir

krishna tell them hahaha

they the qadianis say it 99% of pakistan are kaafir krishna tell them

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I believe it's normal that the government pushes for Islam to be adopted by every single person in the country

Factually incorrect. Please provide referance for this?

 

[Hamza913]

Neither your translations indicate a sin or ANYTHING of that sort otherwise in the first verse. All they do is warn against doing so. The second verse refers to allies in a conflict or dispute, this is a political party and she is representing her countrymen and not Muslims. Again, zero base for application here.

That is where you can claim to be Allah.

3:28 says those who take disbelievers as allies rather than believers have nothing to do with Allah. Pretty sure that's a sin.

5:51 says don't take the disbelievers as allies in general, and says that those who disobey this rule becomes one of them and is no longer guided by Allah. Another sin.

So yes, it perfectly says it's a sin to make allies with the disbelievers (please note an ally is closer than a friend, so having Kaffir friends is permissible).

As for my latter post, perhaps judge was the wrong term. A better term would be make my own decision. There. Fixed it.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Yes. Yes you undoubtedly would, even more than this women in Romania. Because Romania isn't as involved mine ar crimes against the Ummah as the USA.

Current US (or Romanian) policies can always be changed. Secondly, many Muslim countries are involved in crimes against Muslims too. Is it a sin simply to become the leader of them, regardless of what actions they choose to take while in office? I think every head of state in any country, including Muslim ones, could be considered sinners by this standard.

You can treat the Kuffar well, and be friendly with them. But the moment you start trusting them over your fellow Muslims, or rely on them as key allies, you have committed a sin.

I consider Muslims to be my fellow allies. Not every single one though. Quite a few have caused me harm. Should I treat the ones that have as my allies too simply because they happen to be Muslim, even if they continually cause me harm? Do you?

I'm afraid that you are twisting the meaning of the verses you cited a bit (though are not trying to do so). They warn Muslims of something. There is no mention that it is a sin to do so. And they don't mean that you cannot be allies with non-Muslims.


Here is a verse from Surah Al-Mumtahanah:

"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers."

https://quran.com/60/8-9

 

[YeBeWarned]

I think it's expected that the tiny minority will be expected to conform and follow the state religion of the country.

For this very part i disagree , cause there are 2 Christian families Living in my neighborhood from last 15+ years and no one has ever had a issue with them .. you can be Christian , Catholic , Hindu ... General People will accept you , love you and respect as far as you are not offending them openly .. even if someone offend the people i will still wont preach killing them is the answer .. Violence hardly bring any Positive result .

 

[Hamza913]

Regarding the second verse you shared... I believe that was during the war... as I remember one of the lecture where the context was mentioned. Its important to read the verse under the context otherwise you may get the wrong meaning out of it.

Even if that's the case, there are Hadith and scholars to support my claim that the Kuffar should not become your key allies. Having friendship with them is fine, but do not start relying on them.

 

[Hyde]

Did I say we have to oppress them? They have almost all the rights a Muslim would have, with the exception of holding key positions within a state and displaying major religious symbols throughout the country. These are the same rules you and I would have in many other non Muslim nations.

When you use terms like almost and bar them from holding key positions, you have already discriminated so much and treating them as subclass. I just want to remind you a historical records and you are free to disagree

When Hazrat Umar R.A went to Jerusalem, he refrained from praying inside Church as he feared Muslim may convert this Church into Mosque if he prayed inside the Church.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Even if that's the case, there are Hadith and scholars to support my claim that the Kuffar should not become your key allies. Having friendship with them is fine, but do not start relying on them.

Only when you are powerful enough to defend yourself .. Remember Sulah-e-Hudaibya ? there was a reason behind it , one can say Allah Commands it , but Allah is best Planner and he knows that Muslims need Breathing time , if the peace was not made the Muslims would be in some deep trouble .. because they dont have Resources and man power to fight a longer war which Meccans can easily and intentionally do ..