Ahmadis in Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The state is doing right if it enforce them to declare themselves as non _Muslims...cuz they are non Muslims period unless they declare Mirza Ghulam Qadyani as Kafir or Murtid and declare themselves that they do not believe in his false teachings . Then they are welcome most happily to be Muslims.

Mirza Ghulam Qadyaani was Kafir (Murtid) and his followers are Kafirs ..no question about it ..Unless they do Taubah..and revert back to siraate-i-mustaqeem...accept Islam .

no he is not kafir. He is a true prophet. Ahmadis are muslims just as sunnis are or shias are. they believe in allah . thats all the quran says.

certainly a profitprophet. one of its kind too.

why do you abuse th eprophets of your own religion. as long as ahmedis believe in allah they are muslims. conversely they can also say that sunnis are not muslims because of the exact converse reason. so its a matter of interpretation.

believe in allah makes anyone Monotheist not moslim. and i dont believe in prophets neither i was disrespecting anyone.

This is not a theological debate.

What you think of the Ahmadi faith, whether they are Muslim or not, has no business here, since we don't encourage theological discussions.

The subject of the discussion is simple - whether the State of Pakistan, or any State, is justified in discriminating against and imposing restrictions upon another community. Arguments in favor and against this position have been posted, and there is so far no rational, logical or moral argument posted that justifies the State discrimination against Ahmadis.

The only thing proponents of this discrimination offer to justify their position is that 'it is their belief that Ahmadi's are non-Muslims'. What you believe or don't believe is your business - don't impose it on others by legalizing open discrimination and restrictions on a community with whose faith you disagree. That is reprehensible and Pakistani laws against Ahmadis are reprehensible.

Secondly, we take a very, very dim view of people insulting religions and religious figures. The Muslims on this board would be ranting and raving if someone called Mohammed a 'profitProphet', and we would not tolerate such flaming. We therefore expect that Muslims will maintain civility and standards of decency and not insult other faiths and the religious figures of other faiths, including Ahmadis. If you cannot show decency, civility and respect, then you have no business posting here and will be banned.

 

[Sinnerman108]

The subject of the discussion is simple - whether the State of Pakistan, or any State, is justified in discriminating against and imposing restrictions upon another community. Arguments in favor and against this position have been posted, and there is so far no rational, logical or moral argument posted that justifies the State discrimination against Ahmadis.

The only thing proponents of this discrimination offer to justify their position is that 'it is their belief that Ahmadi's are non-Muslims'

Well, let me draw an analogy here, and it may seem raw but in my opinion sums it up.

This is common practice through out the country .. but my fav is

Butt Karahi @ Lakshmi Lahore.

There is Butt Karahi, and then there are 5 more butt Karahi , same area, same Lakshmi but not the same butt sb the cook...

leaves the customer confused, and as time goes on diminishes identity.

Poor old butt sb, would be with this identity theft.

spare a thought how butt sb would feel looking at customers being cheated by people who steal the name and identity.

and as time passes it becomes a distinction without a difference.

All I am debating is the right to own and protect one's identity full 9 yards of it; and making sure my children and their children are as aware of this identity as my father was.

One may call it discrimination; or spiteful hate; just depends which frame of reference you choose to look at things from.

should new businesses be allowed to open up with same / similar names ?
should new business be allowed to confuse and steal people ?

you be the judge of that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, let me draw an analogy here, and it may seem raw but in my opinion sums it up.

This is common practice through out the country .. but my fav is

Butt Karahi @ Lakshmi Lahore.

There is Butt Karahi, and then there are 5 more butt Karahi , same area, same Lakshmi but not the same butt sb the cook...

leaves the customer confused, and as time goes on diminishes identity.

Poor old butt sb, would be with this identity theft.

spare a thought how butt sb would feel looking at customers being cheated by people who steal the name and identity.

and as time passes it becomes a distinction without a difference.

All I am debating is the right to own and protect one's identity full 9 yards of it; and making sure my children and their children are as aware of this identity as my father was.

One may call it discrimination; or spiteful hate; just depends which frame of reference you choose to look at things from.

should new businesses be allowed to open up with same / similar names ?
should new business be allowed to confuse and steal people ?

you be the judge of that.

Faith is not a business nor an individual (though some would argue it is a business for some) so one cannot argue 'damages from identity theft' when it comes to faith. Did you lose money at your 'business' because of Ahmadis calling themselves Muslim? Did someone destroy your credit because the Ahmadis call themselves Muslim?

Quite frankly the greatest TANGIBLE 'damage' to Muslims and Islam is in fact from other so called 'Muslims' from mainstream sects, who massacre innocents in suicide bombings, are intolerant of diversity of opinion and promote regressive policies such as preventing women from getting educated and destroying the historical arts and culture of societies. These 'Muslims' from 'mainstream Islam' are responsible for the completely destroyed impression of Islam and Muslims around the world. They are the reason why Muslims get viewed with suspicion, get profiled, pulled aside at airports and have to endure greater hardship compared to non-Muslims. Ahmadi's are certainly not responsible for any such 'tangible damage' to Islam or Muslims, in fact, in persecuting the Ahmadis we Muslims have continued the process of damaging the reputation of Islam and Muslims, by coming across as intolerant, disrespectful, bigots who are willing to persecute millions of people on the basis of what they believe, and in doing so we have also violated a central tenet of Islam in negating the Quran's command of 'freedom of religion'.

Secondly, even if your argument was valid, we have certain extremist schools of thought who argue that even the Shia and Agha Khanis are 'apostate'. So does that then make it legitimate for a State to declare them as 'non-Muslims' and impose restrictions on them?

 

[Sinnerman108]

Faith is not a business nor an individual (though some would argue it is a business for some) so one cannot argue 'damages from identity theft' when it comes to faith. Did you lose money at your 'business' because of Ahmadis calling themselves Muslim? Did someone destroy your credit because the Ahmadis call themselves Muslim?

Quite frankly the greatest TANGIBLE 'damage' to Muslims and Islam is in fact from other so called 'Muslims' from mainstream sects, who massacre innocents in suicide bombings, are intolerant of diversity of opinion and promote regressive policies such as preventing women from getting educated and destroying the historical arts and culture of societies. These 'Muslims' from 'mainstream Islam' are responsible for the completely destroyed impression of Islam and Muslims around the world. They are the reason why Muslims get viewed with suspicion, get profiled, pulled aside at airports and have to endure greater hardship compared to non-Muslims. Ahmadi's are certainly not responsible for any such 'tangible damage' to Islam or Muslims, in fact, in persecuting the Ahmadis we Muslims have continued the process of damaging the reputation of Islam and Muslims, by coming across as intolerant, disrespectful, bigots who are willing to persecute millions of people on the basis of what they believe, and in doing so we have also violated a central tenet of Islam in negating the Quran's command of 'freedom of religion'.

Secondly, even if your argument was valid, we have certain extremist schools of thought who argue that even the Shia and Agha Khanis are 'apostate'. So does that then make it legitimate for a State to declare them as 'non-Muslims' and impose restrictions on them?

i have to say, i failed to convey my point
it was not not such a good analogy after all.

 

[Kompromat]

Let's agree to disagree but I hope we learnt something from each other. Aasim stated something beautful on the above posted video:-

Freedom always work (not just blasphemy laws but generally not "constitutionally" defining other s as non-Muslims as well). You suppress somebody, he'll gain more followers as he'll narrate accounts of harassment as being symbols of his truthfulness.

Religious freedom to all. Say no to state religion.

I have an Agreement with asim on this matter and on some specific points i fully support his Freedom battle.

Ok lets forget the secularism for a second and lets think about this.

Does Islam allow the Full freedom of worship to other Minorities ? = Yes

Example ? = During the time of Prophet Muhammad SAW the minority religions were allowed full freedom of worship , that is why it is said in the Holy Quran " La Ikrah'a fi deen " (Deen main koi Jabar nhi).

We can have our own understanding of this verse but what i think of it is that "There is no compulsion in Religion BUT the "Sirat e Mustaqeem" is out there (The Islam as Described in Sorah Fateh'a)"

According to this verse my understanding tells me that"We the Muslims Must not compel anyone to convert to Islam (as the Sirat e Mustaqeem is out there to be understood by the Individual's personal choice)"

We Must not Restrict anyone from worshiping whatever they want to or in their own specific ways."


Another Example: After the Crusades when Sultan sallahuddin ayobi took control of Jerusalem according to Christian writings he asked Muslims & Christians to share the "Same" building for worship.

On fridays Muslims will pray & on sunday Christians will do their worship and everything went smoothly

Now here is a twist:

Islam allows Full freedom to other Minorities? = Yes

Do all Muslims allow Full Freedom to other Minorities ? = NO

So you tell me who is to blame , Religion or the followers of the Religion?

It is often said that "If you want to Learn about Islam do not Look at Muslims"-because we do a lot of stuff that we should not have been doing.

My understanding tells me - i could be wrong in that too though - i believe that having a "state Religion" in a "Western Style Democracy" will not work as we have seen many Examples.

But i think that when Islam fully protects the minority rights then a full fledged Islamic system Must have positives results dont you think so ?

Plz dont bring Iran or KSA as a role model in your mind when you think of an Islamic state as they are Authoritarian states with a religious flavor to keep people's sentiments on their sides and noting more.

My Question to you is: Aren't we Capable of Drawing a "Pure" Islamic system which has never been Created before ??


We have top of the Line scholars for Religious perspective , we have Economists for establishing a new Economic and Banking system - we have Secular Critics like yourself to tell what Secular and democratic values shall be added including Minorities & women Issue etc.

All in all - i just want your analysis on this matter - That when Islam being a system Protects minorities - women-humanitarian and all other rights including Animals and Environment and much more.

Would an Islamic system work perfectly - if so then on what basis shall we create such a system which has never been created before & what would it take us to come up with such a system which includes Islamic , Democratic , Secular values in itself ?

Regards:

 

[Dr.Evil]

My Question to you is: Aren't we Capable of Drawing a "Pure" Islamic system which has never been Created before ??

Simple answer NO

As you have said earlier in the post

Do all Muslims allow Full Freedom to other Minorities ? = NO

Because Muslims have the frame the laws and they will always make mistakes, and give an interpretation in a way non compatable with Quran.

 

[Comet]

Plz dont bring Iran or KSA as a role model in your mind when you think of an Islamic state as they are Authoritarian states with a religious flavor to keep people's sentiments on their sides and noting more.

My Question to you is: Aren't we Capable of Drawing a "Pure" Islamic system which has never been Created before ??

Iran and KSA? Do you think we Pakistanis need to learn from KSA and Iran? Our Forefathers and Leaders were designing and outlining the Modern Islamic States while these two were (and still are) sucking "choosni's". We were ahead of them and we still are.

A modern Islamic State is Pakistan's destiny. It was created for this purpose and will continue towards its destination. You, me, and all others are just here for the time and will eventually be gone but what will remain in the pages of history is Pakistan.

 

[billi]

This is not a theological debate.

What you think of the Ahmadi faith, whether they are Muslim or not, has no business here, since we don't encourage theological discussions.

The subject of the discussion is simple - whether the State of Pakistan, or any State, is justified in discriminating against and imposing restrictions upon another community. Arguments in favor and against this position have been posted, and there is so far no rational, logical or moral argument posted that justifies the State discrimination against Ahmadis.

The only thing proponents of this discrimination offer to justify their position is that 'it is their belief that Ahmadi's are non-Muslims'. What you believe or don't believe is your business - don't impose it on others by legalizing open discrimination and restrictions on a community with whose faith you disagree. That is reprehensible and Pakistani laws against Ahmadis are reprehensible.

Secondly, we take a very, very dim view of people insulting religions and religious figures. The Muslims on this board would be ranting and raving if someone called Mohammed a 'profitProphet', and we would not tolerate such flaming. We therefore expect that Muslims will maintain civility and standards of decency and not insult other faiths and the religious figures of other faiths, including Ahmadis. If you cannot show decency, civility and respect, then you have no business posting here and will be banned.

In my humble opinion, the state discriminates indirectly on all non-muslims. Therefore when ahmedis are declared so, they are also dicriminated against. Can an Ahmadi be Paks PM? NO. that is discrimination. I agree that insulting others is not on. thanks for that.

 

[khuramonline]

Does Islam allow the Full freedom of worship to other Minorities ? = Yes

To eliminate all discrimination ... you need to give minorities the right to become PM and President also. You need to tell them that it is your country also!

 

[billi]

To eliminate all discrimination ... you need to give minorities the right to become PM and President also. You need to tell them that it is your country also!

You know if they do this, it will be good press for Pak. And in practice do you ever think a non-Sunni will ever become Paks PM or prez??? Never.

 

[Sinnerman108]

^^^
from inception and by constitution, this is Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Thus doesn't make sense to be rule by a non Muslim.
As mentioned above in a proper true Islamic society all minorities should be
allowed to exercise and practice their belief
AS long as they classify themselves as minorities.

There are two parts to this debate which are related but disjoint in principle.

a. the rights / freedom entitled to a religious minority.
b. the special case of Ahmedi minority.

I do feel that IF the ahmedi people declare them selves as minority and declare that they practice a minority religion; then problem solved.


The bone of contention is this community doesn't want to be classified as "unique".

 

[Sinnerman108]

You know if they do this, it will be good press for Pak. And in practice do you ever think a non-Sunni will ever become Paks PM or prez??? Never.

billi, it would be best if we keep the debate to where it is
and not open further frontiers.

I see that the thread was started by an indian,

it is always interesting when ever i talk to Indians; westerners
they wouldn't know jack about Islam,
but ask them differences between Islamic countries and they will tell you all.

I am off course blaming ourselves for that is the only image / knowledge we have let out;
none the less it also needs to be said that no one has exploited this friction better.

 

[billi]

billi, it would be best if we keep the debate to where it is
and not open further frontiers.

I see that the thread was started by an indian,

it is always interesting when ever i talk to Indians; westerners
they wouldn't know jack about Islam,
but ask them differences between Islamic countries and they will tell you all.

I am off course blaming ourselves for that is the only image / knowledge we have let out;
none the less it also needs to be said that no one has exploited this friction better.

Please do not disrespect Indians. Islam is under focus because of the activites of certain people from the muslim world.

 

[billi]

^^^
from inception and by constitution, this is Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Thus doesn't make sense to be rule by a non Muslim.
As mentioned above in a proper true Islamic society all minorities should be
allowed to exercise and practice their belief
AS long as they classify themselves as minorities.

There are two parts to this debate which are related but disjoint in principle.

a. the rights / freedom entitled to a religious minority.
b. the special case of Ahmedi minority.

I do feel that IF the ahmedi people declare them selves as minority and declare that they practice a minority religion; then problem solved.

The bone of contention is this community doesn't want to be classified as "unique".

Wah, why should they declare themselves other. Maybe SUnnis should declare themselves non-muslims because Sunnis are at a variance with Ahmadis.

Also, why cant we have an islamic republic with a non-muslim PM. If you say they cannot rule, then why do you let the minorities stand for office in lesser posts. this is just ridiculous.
the state of pakistan has only classified ahmadis to be non-muslims and this is discrimonatory.

 

[Kompromat]

Simple answer NO

As you have said earlier in the post



Because Muslims have the frame the laws and they will always make mistakes, and give an interpretation in a way non compatable with Quran.

Thanks for reply though it was needed from you-i expect Sparklingway to reply my post-he is a Muslim & a Pakistani which qualifies him to answer this specific question but you don't.

You are talking about something about which you dont even carry the very basic knowledge.