کیا نام نہاد دیسی انگریز پاکستان کے آئین کو مانتے ہیں؟

[Fledgingwings]

Those liberals are usually treacherous corrupt hypocrites. They never have anything positive to contribute and are highly envious of anyone that does something good for Pakistan.

Absolutely right you are.and for the worst.....this all crap they speak against pakistan is what they get paid for,from their unspoken ha***mi dads.

 

[Yaseen1]

As a Muslim we should only follow Last Prophet Hazrat Muhammad [P.B.U.H] completely.Jinnah words have no value if they are against Islam.Jinnah is an ordinary man and he is not innocent and like ordinary man there is a chance that he may commit mistake.Only Prophet is innocent.Islam is above all things.

@Narendra Trump

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

The laws that declare Dr. Abdus Salam and other Ahmadis as Non Muslims are unjust laws. The father of the nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah said: “Ahmadis are Muslims, if they say they are Muslims and no one, not even the sovereign legislature, has the right to say otherwise." .... The words and vision of Jinnah should be preferred over all such unjust laws enacted by Opportunist Politicians (to appease Deen Farosh Mullahs), or by illegitimate dictators who have tried to use Islam as a political tool.


In words of Maajid Nawaz, a true liberal will always prioritize individuals over the group, will always prioritize heresy over orthodoxy, will always prioritize the dissenting voice over the status quo.


And those who want separation of state and church (i.e Secularism) in Pakistan do not necessarily oppose Islam ..... It's your own narrow interpretation of Islam that makes you believe so. Mufakkir e Pakistan Allama Muhammad Iqbal believed that Secularism was compatible with Islam. About separation of state and church he said : "... the structure of Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view"

A liberal speaks against unjust laws, he wants them amended/repealed. An Islamist, on the other hand, not only rejects constitution/laws, he is ready to kill anyone who disagrees with him. Do you really believe that there is no difference between the two ??

 

[M. Sarmad]

As a Muslim we should only follow Last Prophet Hazrat Muhammad [P.B.U.H] completely.Jinnah words have no value if they are against Islam.Jinnah is an ordinary man and he is not innocent and like ordinary man there is a chance that he may commit mistake.Only Prophet is innocent.Islam is above all things.

Jinnah's words are not against Islam, or the Holy Qur'an. And here we are discussing the amendment made in the Constitution of Pakistan in 1974 (that declared Ahmadis as Non Muslims) by a seasoned politician, to appease Mullahs. Pakistan Constitution has been drafted by ordinary men, and as you yourself have admitted, ordinary men make mistakes ..... So it's not "Jinnah vs Islam" as you are trying to portray here, it's "Jinnah vs Mullahs' interpretation of Islam", yes, the same Mullahs who had opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan movement tooth and nail, But later on, after the death of Jinnah, successfully hijacked the newly born state of Pakistan.

 

[Verve]

Jinnah's words are not against Islam, or the Holy Qur'an. And here we are discussing the amendment made in the Constitution of Pakistan in 1974 (that declared Ahmadis as Non Muslims) by a seasoned politician, to appease Mullahs. Pakistan Constitution has been drafted by ordinary men, and as you yourself have admitted, ordinary men make mistakes ..... So it's not "Jinnah vs Islam" as you are trying to portray here, it's "Jinnah vs Mullahs' interpretation of Islam", yes, the same Mullahs who had opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan movement tooth and nail, But later on, after the death of Jinnah, successfully hijacked the newly born state of Pakistan.

And Ahmadis are Muslims (who believe in Muhammad PBUH as the final prophet) according to your belief system?

 

[My-Analogous]

@Narendra Trump

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

The laws that declare Dr. Abdus Salam and other Ahmadis as Non Muslims are unjust laws. The father of the nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah said: “Ahmadis are Muslims, if they say they are Muslims and no one, not even the sovereign legislature, has the right to say otherwise." .... The words and vision of Jinnah should be preferred over all such unjust laws enacted by Opportunist Politicians (to appease Deen Farosh Mullahs), or by illegitimate dictators who have tried to use Islam as a political tool.


In words of Maajid Nawaz, a true liberal will always prioritize individuals over the group, will always prioritize heresy over orthodoxy, will always prioritize the dissenting voice over the status quo.


And those who want separation of state and church (i.e Secularism) in Pakistan do not necessarily oppose Islam ..... It's your own narrow interpretation of Islam that makes you believe so. Mufakkir e Pakistan Allama Muhammad Iqbal believed that Secularism was compatible with Islam. About separation of state and church he said : "... the structure of Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view"

A liberal speaks against unjust laws, he wants them amended/repealed. An Islamist, on the other hand, not only rejects constitution/laws, he is ready to kill anyone who disagrees with him. Do you really believe that there is no difference between the two ??

So what's make you non-muslims if in the constitution definition of Muslim defined? Why you guys don't meet that? After all Constitution is based on Islamic references, if those are not correct then go for challenge them or bring here to discussed.

 

[M. Sarmad]

And Ahmadis are Muslims (who believe in Muhammad PBUH as the final prophet) according to your belief system?

My belief system is very simple, bro. I believe that we should not be the ones deciding who is Muslim or who is not. That authority/judgement lies with Allah alone .... He doesn't need (nor has he asked us) our opinions/assistance in matters related to him ....

 

[I.R.A]

The laws that declare Dr. Abdus Salam and other Ahmadis as Non Muslims are unjust laws.

Seriously???? This is a dishonest statement that ignores all the facts and is against Quran. State of Pakistan has every right to decide this matter and they rightly decided in accordance with Quran.

It's not only the Constitution of Pakistan that took this decision for the first time, it had also been decided back in 1926 / 1935, the famous case of Bhawalpur.

Muslims of Pakistan should only be discussing and treating this as a case of identity theft, its nothing more nothing less. There is no need to get emotional, hateful and violent, they (Qadianis) are like any other minority and should be treated and respected as such. Our only debate with them is they not owning to their separate identity that's it.

A case study relevant to this is Bahá’u’lláh and his followers (bahai), we don't have problems with them because they don't call themselves Muslims.

And for me personally it is disheartening to see such educated people fall for the lies, Qadianis should look for the truth and think.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Seriously???? This is a dishonest statement that ignores all the facts and is against Quran. State of Pakistan has every right to decide this matter and they rightly decided in accordance with Quran.

This statement is NOT "dishonest", neither against the Holy Qur'an, nor does it ignore any facts.

Even if we accept your claim that the Government of Pakistan has every right to decide this matter and they have decided it in accordance with Qur'an (which of course is not true), The discriminatory laws against minorities in Pakistan (or anywhere else) are essentially unjust as Discrimination means the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people based on religion, sex, race etc.

It's not only the Constitution of Pakistan that took this decision for the first time, it had also been decided back in 1926 / 1935, the famous case of Bhawalpur.

Leaving aside the others, there are more than fifty Muslim countries in the world, please tell us how many of those countries have taken that decision (through their Constitutions/Apex Courts) .... Also please tell us what according to you makes Pakistan more Muslim than other Muslim countries ? Where does this sense of superiority, entitlement and self-importance come from ?

Never heard about 1926/35 Bhawalpur case, but if you really give that much importance to what courts had to say in this matter, please go through Munir Report (1954) and you may realize how "wrong" you have been.. :

https://www.scribd.com/doc/133185923/Justice-Muneer-Enquiry-Report-1954-Urdu

Muslims of Pakistan should only be discussing and treating this as a case of identity theft, its nothing more nothing less.

Majoritarian and populist infringement on the right to personal religious identity of those belonging to minority groups is a serious threat to any "Republic". We aren't Direct Democracy. Where does it stop? Every Muslim sect is considered Non Muslim by some other sect. As per a PEW survey, Only 50 % Sunnis in Pakistan accept Shias as fellow Muslims. Should Shias be banned from promoting their faith (like Malaysia) and declared Non Muslims too (in Pakistan) ? ... When a State starts determining the faith/personal religious identity of its citizens (based on Majority opinion), it essentially is a slippery slope.

 

[Musafir117]

Seriously???? This is a dishonest statement that ignores all the facts and is against Quran. State of Pakistan has every right to decide this matter and they rightly decided in accordance with Quran.

It's not only the Constitution of Pakistan that took this decision for the first time, it had also been decided back in 1926 / 1935, the famous case of Bhawalpur.

Muslims of Pakistan should only be discussing and treating this as a case of identity theft, its nothing more nothing less. There is no need to get emotional, hateful and violent, they (Qadianis) are like any other minority and should be treated and respected as such. Our only debate with them is they not owning to their separate identity that's it.

A case study relevant to this is Bahá’u’lláh and his followers (bahai), we don't have problems with them because they don't call themselves Muslims.

And for me personally it is disheartening to see such educated people fall for the lies, Qadianis should look for the truth and think.

After recite above Kalma and believing in Five Pillars of Islam a person is declare Muslim by Quran wo Ahadees. What else you want to add ( new Sharia ) according to you be a Muslim?

 

[I.R.A]

View attachment 385727
After recite above Kalma and believing in Five Pillars of Islam a person is declare Muslim by Quran wo Ahadees. What else you want to add ( new Sharia ) according to you be a Muslim?

My friend you don't seem to have proper knowledge of this matter, try reading a bit on this then may be we can discuss properly? I don't want to post here the Kalima that Says "Jarriullah".

For starters I would be interested to know your views on why Zaffarullah didn't say funeral prayers of Jinnah or why not say funeral prayers of a non Mirzai son? Didn't Ghulam Ahmed Mirza forbid his followers from saying Funeral Prayers of non Mirzais? Didn't he forbid not to say prayers behind non Mirzai Muslims? Didn't he claim that he is Nabi?

In addition to this I would be interested to know when Muslims believe in Hazrat Moosa (Moses) and Hazrat Essa (Jesus) then why don't they call themselves Jews or Christians and why Muslims? Every Messenger that ALLAH sent came with a book, where is book of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed?

And lastly the whole debate revolves around (Khatam un Nabiyeen) what do you understand from this term?

And regarding Hadeeth Mirza Ghulam Ahmed said "Hadeeth aik aisa pitara hay jiss may say jo chaho nikal lo". I will leave hadeeth at that, this issue is only and only debatable in light of Quran.

 

[I.R.A]

This statement is NOT "dishonest", neither against the Holy Qur'an, nor does it ignore any facts.

Yes that statement was dishonest as it misguides the reader, by portraying one side of the story only. You quoted Jinnah but you didn't mention why Zaffarullah Khan refused to say Jinnah's funeral prayers. Why would you ignore Ghulam Ahmed Mirza's claim to be a Nabi? Dishonesty and sheer disregard of the facts. And why its against Quran? because this whole debate is only and only to be conducted in light of Quran. And I think you will agree that Quran clearly said 1400 years ago about Muhammad (Peace be upon him) that he is "Khatim un Nabiyeen". Now you can debate if this term means Seal or Stamp........ if it means seal then Mirzais are wrong in accepting Ghulam Ahmed as Nabi and hence Non Mulims, or if this term means Stamp then Ghulam Ahmed Mirza should have produced the stamp before his followers, where is that Stamp from Muhammad (Peace be upon him)? no stamp hence a liar and Quran hardly encourages following liars. I can further debate on how Ghulam Ahmed cannot be a Nabi depending on his mental condition, behavior and his contradictory statements but that's not required.

The only reason to cling to Muslim identity was political one, Hindus had 68% quota in jobs, Muslims 26% and rest of the minorities 2%, anyone with the brain can see where it would have placed Mirzais had Ghulam Ahmed claimed a separate identity. Otherwise Ghulam Ahmed had forbid his followers from almost everything with rest of Muslims who didn't believe him.

Even if we accept your claim that the Government of Pakistan has every right to decide this matter and they have decided it in accordance with Qur'an (which of course is not true), The discriminatory laws against minorities in Pakistan (or anywhere else) are essentially unjust as Discrimination means the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people based on religion, sex, race etc.

You need to decide first if Mirzais are a minority (which term generally in Pakistan means non Muslims) or Muslims. You are contradicting yourself.

And Quran gives the Muslim state (not Molvis and individuals but state) full authority to derive laws from Quran, this is what happened in life of Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and later in lives of Shabah (RA). And this constitutional provision is in full agreement with Quran. If you want to prove it otherwise then please enlighten us all how Quran confirms Ghulam Ahmed is Nabi?

If you are so sure I would love to read your views on how you prove Ghulam Ahmed Mirza to be true in light of Quran.

For starters please show to us his book as Quran clearly says no messenger had been sent without a book.

Leaving aside the others, there are more than fifty Muslim countries in the world, please tell us how many of those countries have taken that decision (through their Constitutions/Apex Courts) .... Also please tell us what according to you makes Pakistan more Muslim than other Muslim countries ? Where does this sense of superiority, entitlement and self-importance come from ?

I gave you Bahaullah's example he was Iranian. He after declaring himself Nabi separated his ways from rest of Muslims. A separate identity ................ My whole focus of the debate.

Ghulam Ahmed Mirza was product of this region and his majority followers are from Pakistan or india so I don't know how other countries can be relevant in today's times. Do you think we are living under a Khilafat?

Never heard about 1926/35 Bhawalpur case

Then please stop spreading misinformation. I clearly said in my previous quote that there is no need for us to be hateful, violent or disrespectful to any minority including Mirzais. They should all be respected equally. Our only debate with Mirzais should be not their faith but their identity. And please do read my response to the other poster.

Mirzais themselves are confused Lahori jammat says one thing and Qadianis say another. But both face difficult position when it comes to proving or defending Ghulam Ahmed's claims.

 

[Musafir117]

My friend you don't seem to have proper knowledge of this matter, try reading a bit on this then may be we can discuss properly? I don't want to post here the Kalima that Says "Jarriullah".

For starters I would be interested to know your views on why Zaffarullah didn't say funeral prayers of Jinnah or why not say funeral prayers of a non Mirzai son? Didn't Ghulam Ahmed Mirza forbid his followers from saying Funeral Prayers of non Mirzais? Didn't he forbid not to say prayers behind non Mirzai Muslims? Didn't he claim that he is Nabi?

In addition to this I would be interested to know when Muslims believe in Hazrat Moosa (Moses) and Hazrat Essa (Jesus) then why don't they call themselves Jews or Christians and why Muslims? Every Messenger that ALLAH sent came with a book, where is book of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed?

And lastly the whole debate revolves around (Khatam un Nabiyeen) what do you understand from this term?

And regarding Hadeeth Mirza Ghulam Ahmed said "Hadeeth aik aisa pitara hay jiss may say jo chaho nikal lo". I will leave hadeeth at that, this issue is only and only debatable in light of Quran.

As usual like other you twisted the thread to spread into various subjects.
Why not you stick you start first? Prove me by Holy Quran how you and me are authorized to declare someone non Muslim After individual reciting the Kalma and obeying basic five pillars of Islam. @waz @Oscar I know these type of debates not allowed but let it be for once and could you moved into Senior Section to avoid trolling. Please

 

[I.R.A]

As usual like other you twisted the thread to spread into various subjects.

???????? The sole debate is identity and identity theft by followers of Ghulam Ahmed Mirza.

Why not you stick you start first? Prove me by Holy Quran how you and me are authorized to declare someone non Muslim After individual reciting the Kalma and obeying basic five pillars of Islam.

Buddy if you believe anyone who claims to be a Nabi After Quran clearly mentions Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) to be the last Nabi and Paighambar, then its none of my concerns, your faith your choice, my choice is simple and clear I believe Ghulam Ahmed suffered from a mental condition and gradually made false claims and misguided his followers into believing him to be Masih Maood or Nabi.

But what concerns me is your blatant attempts at stealing my identity, when being a Muslim I believe in Moosa and Essa (Peace be upon both of them) and still don't even think calling myself Jew or Christian similarly anyone believing in any false Nabi after Muhammad (Peace be upon him) doesn't and cannot call himself Muslim. Identify yourself separately own the claims Ghulam Ahmed made and say it in public. I will respect you and your faith as a real Muslim should do in case of minorities. Do you understand my point ya roman Urdu may likho?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Yes that statement was dishonest as it misguides the reader, by portraying one side of the story only. You quoted Jinnah but you didn't mention why Zaffarullah Khan refused to say Jinnah's funeral prayers....

And what has Zafarullah Khan not attending Jinnah's funeral got to do with the unjust laws in Pakistan that discriminate against all Ahmadis ?? But in case you are interested in knowing that why didn't Zafarullah Khan attend Jinnah's funeral, :



Sir Zafarullah Khan went to attend Jinnah's funeral. In his own words :

“So! My intention in being there was to offer the congregational prayers along with everyone else---- if I had not intended and fervently desired to pray for my leader, would it not have been more logical and make sense for me have stayed home--- and not having come to the funeral?

He did not attend the funeral , not because he wanted some Ahmedi to lead it (which was very unlikely anyways) , but because it was being led by a person who considered ahmedis to be kafir , In words of Zafarullah Khan :

“I was told that the cleric (mullah) who was to lead the prayer was none other than a person named Shabir Usmani who had used vile and abusive language against the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement.”

Now tell me that will any one offer prayers behind a person who abuses his prophet / Messiah ??



This man (Shabbir Usmani) had declared that Shia were Kafir too , ironically he led the public funeral prayers of Jinnah ; A Shia whose coffin was transported from the Governor’s House to the burial location constantly accompanied by a black Alam (flag) on which was inscribed “Ya Hazrat-e-Abbas” !!!

“The [Sindh High] court pro-ceedings bear evidence of the last rites observed by Miss Jinnah immediately after her brother’s death. Witness Syed Anisul Hasnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the ghusl (last bath) of Jinnah on the instructions of Miss Jin-nah. He led his namaz-e janaza (funeral prayer) in a room of the Governor General’s House at which such Shia luminaries as Yusuf Haroon, Hashim Raza and Aftab Hatim Alavi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan, a Sunni, waited outside the room. !!

Now would you say the same about Liaquat Ali ??



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/forgotten-heroes-sir-zafrullah-khan-rh.299610/page-5#post-5257901

You need to decide first if Mirzais are a minority (which term generally in Pakistan means non Muslims) or Muslims. You are contradicting yourself.

No, I am not contradicting myself. I, for one, agree with Jinnah that no one (including the state) has a right to declare someone Non Muslim who considers himself to be a Muslim. I just pointed out the flaw in your logic. You support institutionalized discrimination against Ahmadis (via constitution) but refuse to accept that such discrimination is unjust

And why its against Quran? because this whole debate is only and only to be conducted in light of Quran. And I think you will agree that Quran clearly said 1400 years ago about Muhammad (Peace be upon him) that he is "Khatim un Nabiyeen". Now you can debate if this term means Seal or Stamp........

I do not agree with Ahmadiyya interpretation of this verse of the Holy Qur'an, nor do I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a Messenger or Messiah, my only point is that I have no right to declare someone a Kafir when he says that he is a Muslim. Having said that, let me tell you there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Holy Qur'an that can be quoted here to prove the "Kufr" of Ahmadiyya.

And Quran gives the Muslim state (not Molvis and individuals but state) full authority to derive laws from Quran, this is what happened in life of Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and later in lives of Shabah (RA). And this constitutional provision is in full agreement with Quran. If you want to prove it otherwise then please enlighten us all how Quran confirms Ghulam Ahmed is Nabi?

There is no concept of a state/country (local or global) in the Holy Quran and the concept of "State", as we understand it today, just like modern secularism, is a (recent) western concept

As per the Holy Quran, even Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not given the authority to act as warden over people (in religious matters). How can anyone else (including elected assembly) claim such an authority ??

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/separation-of-mosque-and-state.466720/page-4#post-9010104

 

[I.R.A]

And what has Zafarullah Khan not attending Jinnah's funeral got to do with the unjust laws in Pakistan that discriminate against all Ahmadis ??

Ghulam Ahmed Mirza himself had separated his followers from rest of the Muslims who didn't believe in his claims.

He had instructed his followers not to pray funeral prayers of the Muslims who didn't believe in him, not to get Mirzai girls married to such people, not to say prayers behind such people. He even went to extent of calling Muslims infidels. It is well documented that they wished for a government of their own to teach Muslims a lesson and force them into believing Ghulam Ahmed Mirza.

If you cannot understand what that means then my friend this whole debate is useless because I will keep posting something and you will keep posting counter arguments.

Now tell me that will any one offer prayers behind a person who abuses his prophet / Messiah ??

So a person believes in a false prophet and still claims that he is a Muslim and you want me to keep shut and bear with it. Should I screw the logic or what ................. identity theft I believe is a punishable crime?

Regarding abuses and disrespect well, have you ever read what that false prophet himself had to say? You will forget abuse and disrespect.

Having said that, let me tell you there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Holy Qur'an that can be quoted here to prove the "Kufr" of Ahmadiyya.

Okay then prove them (Mirzais) right in light of Quran ............... you want them to be called Muslims then why not prove it to readers here how they remain Muslim after believing a prophet when Quran clearly says there will never be a Messenger from ALLAH after Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

And just for sake of argument even if we believe that Ghulam Ahmed never claimed to be a prophet (which he did) even then he divided Muslims, created a new sect (call it jammat or whatever) and you should know what Quran has to say on creating sects ................ it tantamount to Shirk.

There is no concept of a state/country (local or global) in the Holy Quran and the concept of "State", as we understand it today, just like modern secularism, is a (recent) western concept

If the word state is not mentioned it doesn't mean Quran prohibits Muslims from ruling the world and implementing its order.

The reason that Companions of Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ruled plus minus 2.2 million square miles of region.................... And you are trying telling me people who were actually following Quran didn't know what Quran has to say? And if that was the case which you want readers to believe then there was no need for Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) to move to Madina? Or what was need to have a separate country for Muslims in subcontinent? If you don't like the word state then replace it with any other suitable word. I won't object but please don't make readers believe that Muslims have nothing to do with ruling a piece of land or having a country of their own.

Even Mirzais knew this very well and that's why they have their own place Rabwah in Pakistan.

As per the Holy Quran, even Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not given the authority to act as warden over people (in religious matters). How can anyone else (including elected assembly) claim such an authority ??

Is it an attempt at equating people committing sins / wrong with people believing a prophet after Messenger Muhammad? Because I think these two are very different things.

This statement of your's somehow gives an impression as if you want readers to believe that Muslims and a Muslim State have nothing to do with law making, policing, safety of people, social order, society etc and somehow they are not allowed to take this task? This is as ridiculous as something that advises Muslims to head for mountains with a herd of sheep in difficult times.