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

[M. Sarmad]

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.

Okay, but why single out Mirza Ghulam Ahmed ? Prominent leaders/founders of other Muslim sects in India have also made similar instructions to their followers.

And this doesn't justify the constitutional discrimination Pakistani Ahmadis face today, does it ?

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?

Of course you don't have to keep shut, you can express your opinion in any way you like, you can argue with them, you are free to avoid them (or their religious/social gatherings) if you want.

Identity theft ? What makes you believe that only you (and those who think like you) are entitled to Muslim identity?

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.

I am only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand (or what impression you get)

I only quoted what has been mentioned in the Holy Quran (88:22)

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).

You my friend are the one taking an affirmative position. You have claimed that Ahmadis are Kafir as per Qur'an. So the burden of proof lies with you, not me ...

 

[I.R.A]

I am only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand (or what impression you get)

I only quoted what has been mentioned in the Holy Quran (88:22)

As regards to if concept of state is mentioned in Quran or whether Muslims are allowed to rule or not you may also refer verse 24:55. And obviously no one can control what I do inside boundaries of my home or what I think deep inside my heart. However, what I do in public is something else.

You my friend are the one taking an affirmative position. You have claimed that Ahmadis are Kafir as per Qur'an. So the burden of proof lies with you, not me ...

I haven't issued a kuffer fatwa in my personal capacity. I believe the constitution of Pakistan has done the right thing (that doesn't contradict Quran), I based my argument on whatever Mirza Ghulam Ahmed had claimed and limited my discussion to their separate identity and not their faith. You on the other hand argue that constitution is flawed as regards to identifying them separately ................ the basic underlying principle still remains missing in your argument whether any person who believes in a Prophet after Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is a Muslim per Quran or should he be identified separately?

Okay, but why single out Mirza Ghulam Ahmed ? Prominent leaders/founders of other Muslim sects in India have also made similar instructions to their followers.

Have they started believing in a prophet after Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him)? Their sectarian thoughts and ideologies are against the Quran and I (in my personal capacity) think they are committing Shirk. And if you ask me ......... honestly they follow 90% hear say which no one in world can claim that it was exactly the same thing Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said and done.

And this doesn't justify the constitutional discrimination Pakistani Ahmadis face today, does it ?

The argument and distinction remains wait for the day when one of them also starts believing in an additional prophet. However, the constitution should be amended to insert provisions to discard any material based on hear say that divides Muslims and spreads Takfir.

Identity theft ? What makes you believe that only you (and those who think like you) are entitled to Muslim identity?

Okay the difference between me (including those who think and believe like me) and followers of Ghulam Ahmed is we (me and company) believe that no more Wahi (or Ilham or Kashf) is going to happen after Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him), whatever Wahi is it is present in form of Quran with us .......... and its immutable, and its protection is guaranteed directly by ALLAH himself. And followers of Ghulam Ahmed believe him to prophet who got Wahi. One of us has to be wrong and for the time being Constitution of Pakistan calls them wrong, and the day when they get their government they can call me whatever they want.