sure let them call it what ever, just choose a new name, don't try to take our name, and then accuse us of having used it wrongly.
Will you blame me for being offended, when some one will come, take my religion's name and try and tell me, that what i believe is not correct ?
Secondly, if the "righteous" Muslims, belonging to the "true" sects are misguided by Ahmedis preachers, then at some point into their journey into Ahmeddiat, they will come across the existence of a Mehdi/Messiah status reserved for their founder and subsequent leaders. If a person believed to be a Muslim comes across this and still goes on with his conversion, then his basic beliefs were so weak that he should not have been called a Muslim before. Proclaiming that most Muslims are of weak faith and that is why it is necessary to protect them from Ahmedi preachers is a faulty argument for it relies on the conspiratorial mindset that accuses Ahmedis of being cunning and offering monetary incentive for conversion. If their preachers are cunning and able to convert easily and successfully, it can mean one of two things. (i) Mainstream sects need to learn new preaching methods for their own are a failure, and (2) that the mainstream sects are perhaps not true either for they fall "prey" to the teaching of the other "unrighteous"
the major force behind the movement which culminated in Mufti Mahmood's work, was that QADYANI should be recognized as unique, and different from MUSLIMs.
The driver for the movement was that a new sect is simply trying to use Islam's name for some thing which contradicts the basic principles of Islam.
It's kind of like brand name protection. Make your own product and name it differently. Don't market your product with my name.
If you can accuse the Taliban for high jacking Islam, why can't you apply the same principle here ?
Thirdly, the ability to convert non-Muslims is dependent on their ability to preach. If they are legally prohibited from preaching they cannot convert non-Muslims. Every faith should have equal right to preach. This argument is usually unacceptable to most on the basis that they deem their religion as the only true one and hence the supreme and consider that preaching others cannot be allowed for they are false religions. This is perfectly summarized in Zakir Naik's words:-
I totally agree with your assumption,Preach all you want, no problems with that.
however one must respect between preaching and cheating.
To the QADYANI -> call your self what ever new name X and your set of beliefs whatever , just don't call it what I call my religion.
To me, that is CHEATING and STEALING
Before you comment on my remarks I urge you to take a look at the # of "Peer" "Mureeds" already present. It is fairly simple and easy to deceive poor uneducated lot, who are by far kept away from information any way.
Now NIAZ
Here I see a post with the comments:
Quote
I will call it terrorism, and a crime.
.
Unprincipled savages go into two houses of worship, start spraying worshippers with bullets and kill 100 people who have committed no crime. You are graciously condescending in your majesty that you agree to call it terrorism and a crime? For heavens sake, what else should one call it?
and I called it terrorism, now must I cry a river ?
That is kind of like, Jews want every one to come cry for them, no one is allowed to question.
My objection is to people like this "writer" who have come out to write now.
*************
Please read Hon Sparkilngway’s post. Many authors and columnists have over the period of time condemned such action without reservation ever since this mayhem started. Only people who covertly sympathize with the Taliban who use excuses by giving example of Fox News, CNN etc to find an explanation for such out and out savagery. The tone of your post belies the bigotry that many people of Pakistan have towards minorities.
.
I am reading it all, and my beef is very simple.
All I want to know is , that the same writer who wrote that article;
Did he right the same way, when the majority population was being killed ?
If this is his first ever writing, then I have no problem.
If this is not his first writing, I would like to understand why couldn't he spend the same effort for the Majority Pakistani population, and what made him bite the bullet this time.
The writer can explain this , or any one ?
