What's new

Ahmadis in Pakistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can argue and convince them to join your cause (although not here, nowhere on this forum - since the debate we are carrying on here is purely about the freedom of Pakistanis, not the rights and wrongs of the Ahmedi religion), but you cannot force them to say they are not Muslims.

You can call them wrong whenever they do so, but you cannot throw them in jail whenever they do call themselves Muslims.

This is how normalcy works. It's a sane system. No zor zabardasti.
 
Link:

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Smokers? Corner: Whiplash

Please follow the link above to read the complete article.

Excerpts:


A consensus across various academic and intellectual circles now states that violent entities such as the Pakistani Taliban and assorted sectarian organisations are the pitfalls of policies pursued by the state through its intelligence agencies to safeguard Pakistan’s ‘strategic’ and ideological interests.

---
---

The Jamat-i-Islami (JI) went on a rampage in 1953 in Lahore, hungrily overseeing the country’s first major anti-Ahmadi riots. Of course, by now the famous speech by Jinnah in which he underlined the idea of religious freedom in the new country was conveniently forgotten as the ruling elite grappled confusingly with the crises of its own creation. Eventually, it capitulated to the demands of the handful of vocal Islamist leaders by officially declaring the country an ‘Islamic Republic’. It was classic ostrich behaviour; the sort a number of Pakistani leaders continue to demonstrate whenever faced with the question of Pakistan and its relationship to political Islam.

Misunderstanding Islamist activism as mere emotionalism, the ruling elite gave the Islamists a bone to play with, without bothering to explain to the rest of the people exactly what an Islamic republic really meant in the Pakistani context — a country buzzing with a number of ethnicities, minority religions and distinct Muslim sects. A democratic order should have been a natural answer to the state’s crisis. But for Islamists, democracy meant the emergence of ethnic and religious plurality that would encourage secular politics and further undermine the notion of the new-found Islam-centric Pakistani nationhood.

Many years and follies later, and in the midst of unprecedented violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam, Pakistanis today stand more confused and flabbergasted than ever before. The seeds of ideological schizophrenia that the 1956 constitution sowed followed by the disastrous doings of the Gen Ziaul Haq dictatorship in the 1980s. These have now grown into a wicked tree that only bears delusions and denials as fruit.


---
---

A recent example is the way many puritan Islamic groups have reacted to the conservative Nawaz Sharif’s statement sympathising with the plight of the Ahmadis. Also, one of Pakistan’s outstanding, moderate Islamic scholars, Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, has had to fly out of the country into a self-imposed exile. According to an executive producer at a popular Urdu-language TV channel, Ghamdi was facing a number of threats from certain puritan and violent Islamic groups.

His sin? He stood out as a mainstream Sunni Muslim scholar who banked on reason and an interpretive take on the Quran, eschewing the myopic literalism of the puritan groups that espouse a violent, political view of Islam.
 
Are you suggesting that Qadianis hunt down their own apostates ?

Yes they do. social boycott, death threats.. there is whole list i can come up with.


@MilesTogo

your point being ....?


@ Asim Aquil

They never through out their themselve called them moslims..Ahmadi Moslim is how they introduce themselves.
 
Yes they do. social boycott, death threats.. there is whole list i can come up with.

So they do exactly what they blame Muslims. Death threat is going too far. But social boycott is not a big deal. If they convert then there are few Muslim organizations to help them.
 
So they do exactly what they blame Muslims. Death threat is going too far. But social boycott is not a big deal. If they convert then there are few Muslim organizations to help them.

are you insane. social boycott is a big deal and nobody should go through that, and as for them being converted they should if they find flaw in their own believe system. nobody can push them towards anything. btw the point of this debate is their constitutional status in Pakistan nothing else.
 
are you insane. social boycott is a big deal and nobody should go through that, and as for them being converted they should if they find flaw in their own believe system. nobody can push them towards anything. btw the point of this debate is their constitutional status in Pakistan nothing else.

Social boycott may be a big deal in a small village but not in a town or city. There are fights among family members and some don't talk to half their family. I know people that haven't talked to their parents for more than decade. I know two brother in Lahore that live the same building but their families never talk to each other. They never invite each other to any functions, marriages, etc. That is also a form of social boycott and I was answering from this perspective. I remember once a family member showed up in a funeral but other family members kicked him out because they had a family dispute long time ago.
 
@Nahraf

Your comparison is quite absurd. its natural to be terrified of what will happen i.e. the fear of unknown. And it’s not only about their physical safety but the reactions from their loved ones and people they have known all their life. its more difficult when you lived in closed community like Jammat and know nothing else. anyways there can be a long debate on this issue itself but it’s not the place but if you are interested. We can carry it on PMs.
 
You are deceitfully wrong. we can debate on this but that will fall under theological discussion and we need to respect that.

Well ... but it is more a "political" issue. Whose rulings/fatwas shall prevail...??? ... is also a form of politics. Suppose any day Muslims accept ahmedies as also Muslims then...???

It will mean that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed will not be considered as any lier. If he is not considered a lier, then his claims are true. If his claims are true then he is the true Imam Mehdi as per Islamic teachings. If Imam Mehdi is present in the world and has been recognized as true Imam Mehdi then he will have to be appointed as the Principal of that university.....


So it is the logic. The real source of anxiety of ulema. They will lose their religious fatwa power. apni ghalti ko bhi tasleem kerna parre ga k why they initially denied the person who was actually the true promised person.

These are the reasons that now ulema are even ready to grant permission to ahmedies that they may make even a whole new religion. Whole new religion is acceptable to ulema... but their recognition as "Muslim" is not acceptable to them ... due to above mentioned "Political type" reasons.

And position of ulema ... that whole new religion is acceptable to them ... also throws light on their practical belief in "Khatam-e-Nabuwat".

In the correct sense .... actually whole new religion is against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat" ... And position of ahmedies ... that they still insist that they are Muslims ... is not against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat"
 
Well ... but it is more a "political" issue. Whose rulings/fatwas shall prevail...??? ... is also a form of politics. Suppose any day Muslims accept ahmedies as also Muslims then...???

It will mean that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed will not be considered as any lier. If he is not considered a lier, then his claims are true. If his claims are true then he is the true Imam Mehdi as per Islamic teachings. If Imam Mehdi is present in the world and has been recognized as true Imam Mehdi then he will have to be appointed as the Principal of that university.....


So it is the logic. The real source of anxiety of ulema. They will lose their religious fatwa power. apni ghalti ko bhi tasleem kerna parre ga k why they initially denied the person who was actually the true promised person.

These are the reasons that now ulema are even ready to grant permission to ahmedies that they may make even a whole new religion. Whole new religion is acceptable to ulema... but their recognition as "Muslim" is not acceptable to them ... due to above mentioned "Political type" reasons.

And position of ulema ... that whole new religion is acceptable to them ... also throws light on their practical belief in "Khatam-e-Nabuwat".

In the correct sense .... actually whole new religion is against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat" ... And position of ahmedies ... that they still insist that they are Muslims ... is not against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat"


careful boy!!! did this ahemdi guy call himself imam mehdi???

this religion was built by the british inorder to divide the muslims there usual divide & rule policy!

ulemas would love nothing more than a KHILAFAAT where they have the ear of the ruler!! and can pass crazy laws!!

examples include IRAN & SAUDI-ARABIA!! so this notion of your's that these mullahs are against khilafaat is completely wrong! they want khilafat so they get the "SHURAA" status & control the country!! so please don't tell me that ahmedis are discouraged because the uleams are SCARED of "ahemids" they are discouraged because of their faith!

i.e:

The belief in prophets of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is different from that of the Orthodox Islamic, Jewish, Zoroastrian or Christian belief of Prophets. There are two kinds of prophethood in Ahmadiyya Islam , law-bearing prophets, who bring a new law and dispensation such as Moses and Muhammad; and non-law-bearing who appear within a given dispensation such as Jeremiah, Jesus and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Adam is regarded as the first human with whom God spoke with and revealed to him His Divine Will and thus the first Prophet but is not regarded as the first human on earth by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, contrary to Orthodox Islamic, Jewish and Christian beliefs.[10] Asides from the belief in all Prophets in the Old Testament of the Bible, in Jesus, John the Baptist and in Muhammad, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community also regards Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius and Ghulam Ahmad as prophets. Ahmadis believe in Muhammad to be the final law-bearing prophet but teach the continuity of prophethood.[11]

:coffee::no:
 
careful boy!!! did this ahemdi guy call himself imam mehdi???

Yes ... yes he did.

this religion was built by the british inorder to divide the muslims there usual divide & rule policy!

May be ... just like British made Muslim League to divide and rule.

But ... also keep in mind that "Divide and Rule" is only a blame on British. Practically what they did in 1947 was "Divide and Quit".


ulemas would love nothing more than a KHILAFAAT where they have the ear of the ruler!! and can pass crazy laws!!

If they love Khilafat ... Really...??? then there is Khalifa-e-Waqt in Ahmediyyat ... they should accept him their Khalifa.


examples include IRAN & SAUDI-ARABIA!! so this notion of your's that these mullahs are against khilafaat is completely wrong! they want khilafat so they get the "SHURAA" status & control the country!! so please don't tell me that ahmedis are discouraged because the uleams are SCARED of "ahemids" they are discouraged because of their faith!

i.e:

The belief in prophets of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is different from that of the Orthodox Islamic, Jewish, Zoroastrian or Christian belief of Prophets. There are two kinds of prophethood in Ahmadiyya Islam , law-bearing prophets, who bring a new law and dispensation such as Moses and Muhammad; and non-law-bearing who appear within a given dispensation such as Jeremiah, Jesus and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Adam is regarded as the first human with whom God spoke with and revealed to him His Divine Will and thus the first Prophet but is not regarded as the first human on earth by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, contrary to Orthodox Islamic, Jewish and Christian beliefs.[10] Asides from the belief in all Prophets in the Old Testament of the Bible, in Jesus, John the Baptist and in Muhammad, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community also regards Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius and Ghulam Ahmad as prophets. Ahmadis believe in Muhammad to be the final law-bearing prophet but teach the continuity of prophethood.[11]

:coffee::no:

Law bearing and non-law bearing ... this concept is NOT specific to Ahmedies. Neither there is any thing new in it. You tell me whether Hazrat Ismael, Hazrat Ishaq, Hazrat Yunas, Hazrat Suleman etc. etc. where they the same "Law Bearing" prophets like Hazrat Musa, Hazrat Daood, Hazrat Isa, etc. etc...???

This differentiation already exists in Islam.

And there is really something in all this ... to which ulema are really scared...!!!
 
I repeat my words in following:

These are the reasons that now ulema are even ready to grant permission to ahmedies that they may make even a whole new religion. Whole new religion is acceptable to ulema... but their recognition as "Muslim" is not acceptable to them ... due to above mentioned "Political type" reasons.

And position of ulema ... that whole new religion is acceptable to them ... also throws light on their practical belief in "Khatam-e-Nabuwat".

In the correct sense .... actually whole new religion is against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat" ... And position of ahmedies ... that they still insist that they are Muslims ... is not against the concept of "Khatam-e-Nabuwat"
 
Lahore attacks no conspiracy​

The merciless, cold-blooded massacre of members of the Ahmadi community while in prayers in sacred places of worship was a horrible act that shames every thinking and patriotic Pakistani. Let me also call the victims of this ghastly act and every member of the Ahmadi community my brothers and sisters. Also bonds that bring us together as a political community are stronger than narrow religious affinities or divides. That is why we must share their grief and pain and make them as our own as well.

The big and troubling question is why a particular religious group should make another religious group a target of its violence? The answer is simple, and we don’t have to spin conspiracy theories or twist words. Repulsive as it might be, it is hate, intolerance, and false belief in the rightness of violent methods to make a political statement. And unfortunately, the group of militants that carried out the massacre seem to have religious beliefs that motivated and encouraged it to commit violence.

It is not the first time that the Ahmadis have been victims of terrorism; they have been attacked and killed many times before. And their targeting goes back to the early years of independence, the infamous Lahore riots of 1953 in which hundreds of Ahmadis lost their lives, savings and properties. A religious political party and quite a few other groups were the instigators of those dreadful nights and days in the central city of Punjab.

The Ahmadi-bashing from the religious right continued unabated in the later decades as well as the religious parties and groups questioning the loyalties of the Ahmadi community to Pakistan. Starting with the demand of removing Sir Zafarullah Khan from his position as the foreign minister of Pakistan, the religious groups have wanted each and every known Ahmadi thrown out of responsible government jobs.

I would seriously doubt the mental balance and sense of justice of anybody casting any doubts about the patriotism of Sir Zafarullah Khan. No Pakistani after him has ever presented so eloquently and so stridently the Pakistani case for Kashmir before the UN Security Council as did this great man of vision and integrity. Well, if our religious or ideological prejudice covers our thoughts, then no amount of evidence would be enough or necessary to convince us about our Ahmadi benefactors like Sir Khan.

I personally witnessed humiliation, harassment and house burning of Ahmadis when the popular government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto politicised the issue and, in an expedient way, pushed the resolution in the national parliament to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. Through those weeks and months of movement against the Ahmadis, seeking parliamentary declaration against them, there was fear, helplessness and so much pain within this community.

It was the first of its kind of resolutions in modern times, and written into the constitution, to determine religious authenticity of a particular religious group. And it was done with unanimity, no party, faction or member daring to stand out and say, it was a deviation from the vision of our founders that saw the country as a political community comprising different faiths, beliefs and religions, and on the basis of citizenship.

As if that was not enough, General Zia further humiliated, marginalised and persecuted the Ahmadis to placate the religious right and firm up his credentials as the ‘saviour’ of Islam, Muslims and Pakistan. Unfortunately, very few Pakistani Muslims stood up and spoke against religious persecution at that time because the Ahmadis were others, and ‘not us’.

With this history in mind, we can have a better idea about the religious groups labelling the Lahore carnage as a ‘conspiracy’. Violence against a section of our own population or minorities will hurt all Muslims and Pakistan and would keep us down, never allowing us to rise as a nation.
 
The Dawn Blog Blog Archive Reaction: the response to the Ahmedi massacre

Reaction: the response to the Ahmedi massacre

by Sadef on 06 14th, 2010 |


“We are all under threat. They will kill us. They will kill us,” claimed Rubina Saigol, repeating the conversation with members of the Ahmedi community a few months ago. Saigol, an independent social researcher, said that the community members wanted to show her some case files on Ahmedis and talk about the threats publicly.

“I feel guilty and terrible that I didn’t write – partly because of fear.”

But before Saigol could gather up any courage to take any action – the threats had become a reality.

On May 28, militants attacked two Ahmedi houses of worship in Lahore, which resulted in the tragic death of more than 80 people and left more than a 100 injured. Within days, other militants attacked Lahore’s Jinnah Hospital where the injured were still recovering from the first attack.

The Ahmedi massacre has left everyone in shock and the Ahmedi community crippled with grief.

The Ahmedis have struggled for rights within India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Indonesia for many years.

Although the majority of the Pakistani population is Sunni – there is a growing percentage of people who are seriously questioning the Sharia laws and the constitution. The trend can be followed on local blogs and even the op-ed pages of local newspapers – the rhetoric challenges Sharia laws against the basic rights of a citizen.

Pakistan’s Sharia laws are based mainly on the Hanafi school of thought.

According to Sharia Law, an Ahmedi cannot be accepted as a Muslim or as part of an Islamic sect because one of the basic fundamentals of Islam is to accept Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last prophet in Islam – in Quranic verses he is referred to as the “Final Seal” (al-azhab:40).

In several interviews with religious scholars, from Sunni and Shia schools of thought in Cairo and Q’um in Iran agreed that Ahmedis were not a Muslim sect. They went as far as calling them, “heretics” and “infidels.” As well as, if a non-Muslim shows and preaches under a Muslim façade, then he or she must be charged, proven guilty, and punished in court according to Sharia law, a crime which is punishable by death (wajib-ul-qatl).

But one of the scholars in Cairo, who requested to stay anonymous, was quick to add that if a non-believer is a citizen of an Islamic state then he or she becomes the zami (responsibility) of the state. Therefore, it is the state’s responsibility to protect them more than the Muslim citizen, out of fear for violence against them.

“They should be treated with the utmost respect, because we, as Muslims, need to set an example for them,” he said. “As a Muslim, your responsibility is to follow the basics of Islam and lead a good life – violence of any type against anyone is not an example of leading a good life.”

This one scholar, who remains anonymous out of fear for the repercussions he could face, is not alone.

As soon as the attack hit the news, blogs went up everywhere in an uproar; some immediately condemned the brutal attack, others wrote malicious comments about Ahmedis claiming them to be wajib-ul-qatl (deserving of death), and some tried to explain the causes of the attack through religious, political and social analyses.

On the blog pkpolitics there were many harsh comments and the owners of the blog removed those comments and posted a warning to respondents on abusive language.

One of the more kinder comments on pkpolitics was, “Brother, The Qadyani religion should not be even be called ‘Ahemdi religion’, for you know that the Last Prophet Muhammad is exclusively mentioned by the name ‘Ahmed’ both in the Holy Quran and in the Bible (sic).”

Another respondent scolded back, “I cant believe my eyes, Instead of completely condemning the attack and humiliating the attackers, some are debating on the words used and about Qadyani sect or religion whatever…. no wonder Pakistan is heading towards its doom day by day… shame on us (sic).”

Tazeen Javed, winner of Best Humor Blog category for Pakistan’s first Annual Blog Awards, blogs at A Reluctant Mind wrote, a social aspect of the attack holding everyone accountable, event the public, for the attack in “We all have blood on our hands.”

The Waking Life blog posted, “Is it all worth?” questioning Muslims who asked for tolerance in other parts of the world, wrote, “Time to put things in perspective…Facebook may have partaken in blasphemy but there’s plenty of it going on in our cities and society. How about cleaning our own house first? (sic)”

The popular and controversial blog, Café Pyala, which sometimes uses profanity, condemned the attack in the political analysis “Original Sin:” “Truly, if ever there was short-sightedness among Pakistan’s establishment (and there are plenty of examples of it) this was it…The nurturing of extremist thought during Zia ul Haq’s (mis)rule and its repercussions in the shape of today’s barbaric attacks (and earlier targeting of Shias, Hindus and Christians) are a logical continuation of the original sin. (sic)”

Most editorials and columnists for print media did not have to directly respond to profanity like some online media blogs, however they condemned the attack, pointing out the government’s blatant disregard for protecting minorities, and feeding a culture of bigotry.

The Dawn editorial “Culture of Intolerance” wrote, “Religious minorities in Pakistan have not only been shunted to the margins of society but also face outright persecution on a regular basis…the state, meanwhile, remains largely unmoved by the plight of minorities — and that isn’t surprising either for it is a party to this persecution.”

Columnists did not try to hide the humiliation the government as well as the public should feel over the attacks.

Columnist Kamran Shafi, who writes for Dawn, wrote in A sad place, indeed that he recalled a time when there was no religious distinction, just Pakistani citizens. He stated, “The Ahmedis might be considered non-Muslim by the state; surely they are still Pakistani?”

Shafi added that an important member of the Ahmedi community told him that the compensation that was offered to the victims of the attack would be kindly refused and asked to be transferred over to the people of Hunza-Gojal for the relief work.

These voices of different generations and backgrounds of growing tolerance are currently at a grass-roots level, but they can still be heard, even in some political circles.

On the day of the attack, Punjab’s Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif held a press conference addressing the attack and the efforts of the police. Even though his offices had received reports on a threat to the Ahmedis several days prior to the attack.

While soon after the attacks, Interior Minister Rehman Malik was the only government official who personally went to visit the Ahmedi community to give condolences

Shahbaz Sharif has yet to visit the Ahmedi community since the attacks.

Although most recently, PML-N party leader Nawaz Sharif did condemn the attacks and named Ahmedis as “brothers” and “sisters.” Only for him to be threatened by religious leaders with an anti-Sharif campaign in the region.

If the public’s reaction has mobilised the government to react at all then it leads to the most important question: What is the next step?

Imam Shamsi Ali might have the answer.

“It is very difficult to accept the nature of the world we live in – part of this world is the freedom of expression. I oppose the idea (Ahmedi movement) but I cannot impose my ideas on anyone. I have no right to impose my ideas on anyone,” said Imam Ali.

Ali, who lived and studied Islamic Studies in Islamabad for seven years, is the leader for the 96th street mosque and runs the Islamic Cultural Center in New York.

“We need engagement. If we oppose those claims then we must have intellectual discourse. If we engage with Hindus, Christians, Jews, or Buddhists, then why cannot we talk to them?”

Ali, ultimately, feels that restricting the freedoms of a people is not the way of Islam, rather allowing people their freedom and showing tolerance is way for people to find the path to Islam.
 
Turning outrage into courage

The brazen attack on innocent Ahmadis in Lahore late last month is not just another terrible terrorist atrocity.* It is more significant because there is speculation that the attack by extremist exclusivist forces targeted Ahmadis in order to bolster their own diminishing popularity among the population at large. The argument is that we have among us people who harbour such bizarre views of righteousness that to them eliminating those who may have slightly different beliefs is justifiable and praiseworthy. The fact that such disturbing thought exists within us as a community is not false. There were after all banners on Lahore’s Mall Road, in the lead up to this heinous attack, vilifying Ahmadis and other religions. We have also witnessed religious programmes on television that have advocated the killing of Ahmadis. But whether this thought process exists within a small minority or is in fact the way a large number of Pakistanis think is the key question.

Bigotry and hate exist in every society.* What is important is how the state deals with it.* In 1953, when anti-Ahmadi rioting first broke out in Pakistan, Khwaja Nazimuddin resisted the pressure to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim. But in 1974, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto succumbed. The fact that Prime Minister Nazimuddin, perhaps at the expense of his office (he was asked to step down soon afterwards), stood for what was right leads me to conclude that things started to go seriously wrong for Pakistan about 35 years ago. On the other hand, if one uses the example of what the blacks had to suffer in America, the history is opposite to ours. As late as the 60s, blacks in the US could not enter many restaurants, had to sit at the back of buses, and so on. But in 1964, America passed momentous legislation in the form of the Civil Rights Act, and though things did not change overnight, racial segregation was legally ended. It was the greatest achievement of the Kennedy government.* Slowly, society responded by overcoming age-old prejudices and today America has a black president.* This does not mean that all is well, for blacks still have lower average incomes than whites, but things have progressed in the right direction and are much better.

In the aftermath of the Lahore attack, I have heard condemnation from many quarters and outrage from some. The good news is that some who previously agreed with the legal discrimination against Ahmadis in Pakistan have now changed their minds.* I find this particularly heartening.* I must also praise our women parliamentarians from the PPP, MQM and ANP respectively, at whose behest, our National Assembly called the attack a “barbaric massacre”.* The army too should be praised for burying with full military honours Major-General (R) Nasir Ahmed Chaudhry, who was brutally killed in the attack.* And Mian Nawaz Sharif also deserves praise for describing Ahmadis as his “brethren” and an “asset for Pakistan”.* Nearly every English newspaper has carried stories and opinions not only condemning the massacre but also highlighting the noteworthy contribution of the peaceful Ahmadi community to the Pakistan Movement, a fact that was rarely mentioned in previous years. In fact, I have read a couple of excellent pieces on this subject in the Urdu press as well, notably by Hamid Akhtar and Zaheda Hina.

But by no means is this enough. We must turn the present outrage into courage and take measures to reverse those steps that led us astray and away from the vision of our founding fathers.* All our stakeholders, including the politicians, the army, the judiciary, and most importantly, the media need to come together and decide once and for all not to extend patronage to those forces that are bent upon creating divisions, to undo those black laws that give legal sanction to discrimination, to enact our very own Equal Protection Clause so all Pakistanis feel equally Pakistani, and to disallow hate speech.* The last point is especially important for the media to consider as it has the most direct impact on opinion formation.* Only then can we reclaim Jinnah’s Pakistan where “religion is not the business of the state” but best left between man and his Creator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom