Mian Atif, PTI and Oriya Maqbol Jaan..

[Maarkhoor]

How about stop rioting? and stop calling the 5% kafirs? and stop killing them? and stop stopping them for helping Pak?

Why they not stop calling themselves Muslims?

When a Qadiani / Ahmadi says he is Muslim inwardly he is saying that you all people are Kafir.
Stop using Muslim names and practice your cult religion we don't care.

 

[CIS-TRANS]

I believe in Khatm-e-Naboowat. I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on others - I consider Pakistan's anti-Ahmadi laws to be un-Islamic.

Its amazing just how you are trying to be hero here while no one has asked to force our religion on any of other, if someone is qadyani or non muslim then accept it and the issue is resolved. There is no anti-ahmedi law present in our constitution so enough with all of your propaganda.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And by forcing me to believe that they are muslims is not violating my rights because?

No one is forcing you to believe they are Muslims, but currently you (and the constitution) are forcing them to accept your beliefs that they are not-Muslims.
The constitution & law should be blank on this issue - it should not say that they are Muslims & it should not state that they are not Muslims.

 

[Maarkhoor]

When you talk to arabs about this law in Pakistan, some of them clearly say its wrong and no one has right to say anyone else is not muslim when that persobs says I am muslim.

Near All Muslim countries declared Qadianis non Muslims.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lols not forcing them by inviting them to take part in debate in parliament and upon question either you think a person Muslim who don't believe Mirza as prophet and Qadiani Khalifa replied in that case for us that person is not Muslim and then Bhutto stood up and said in that case we have to decide either 1% are consider Muslim or 95% others.

It is none of Parliaments business. You want to debate theology with them, then do it in a private setting, in a debate forum or something.

As an Islamic republic, Pakistan has the right to have laws to clearly identify who is Muslim and who isn't. The positive and negative impacts of such laws, the motivations behind them have been discussed to death.

A democracy does have the right to pass laws as it sees fit, but this law, of the State taking upon itself Allah's responsibility of judging someone's faith (by declaring Ahmadis non-Muslim) is a blasphemous and anti-Islam law.

Its amazing just how you are trying to be hero here while no one has asked to force our religion on any of other, if someone is qadyani or non muslim then accept it and the issue is resolved. There is no anti-ahmedi law present in our constitution so enough with all of your propaganda.

Declaring Ahmadi's non-Muslim is absolutely an Anti-Ahmadi, un-Islamic law - it clearly serves to force the religious beliefs of mainstream Muslims onto Ahmadis.

 

[El Sidd]

No one is forcing you to believe they are Muslims, but currently you (and the constitution) are forcing them to accept your beliefs that they are not-Muslims.
The constitution & law should be blank on this issue - it should not say that they are Muslims & it should not state that they are not Muslims.

Lawmaking is done to ensure rights of the people.

The lawmaking regarding ahmadis is for their own protection.

You take that protection away. You create a bigger problem for them.

A minority View can never be imposed on majority in Any system.

I understand that for many islam is just fast, prayers and hajj. But there are many many more who see it as a system of governance and socio politico order.

If you take these provisions out of constitution. You will be dealing with what the beast wants. Declared terrorists to be hunted down and sold in markets as gladiators.

 

[pzfz]

Why they not stop calling themselves Muslims?

When a Qadiani / Ahmadi says he is Muslim inwardly he is saying that you all people are Kafir.
Stop using Muslim names and practice your cult religion we don't care.

You can't legislate what's in their brain and in their heart. How about you stop calling them kafir which leads to THEM being killed and oppressed? Sunni Pak muslims are not the ones being killed and oppressed because an ahmadi thinks that ahmadis are also muslims. They have every right to use Muslim names since they believe themselves to be Muslims. They're not asking you to verify or approve their "muslimness". Conservative muslims are not devoid of hypocrisy.

 

[El Sidd]

I will not be giving Zakaat to the state of Pakistan if professors of false prophet are financial advisors.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lawmaking is done to ensure rights of the people.

The lawmaking regarding ahmadis is for their own protection.

You take that protection away. You create a bigger problem for them.

A minority View can never be imposed on majority in Any system.

I understand that for many islam is just fast, prayers and hajj. But there are many many more who see it as a system of governance and socio politico order.

If you take these provisions out of constitution. You will be dealing with what the beast wants. Declared terrorists to be hunted down and sold in markets as gladiators.

Forcing them to not practice their faith as they see fit is not 'protection'. The State can protect them by arresting & prosecuting all those who use violence against the State or against individuals.

There is no minority view being imposed upon the majority under my suggestion - my suggestion is that the constitution should say nothing about who is or is not a Muslim. Leave it to the individual to practice their faith as they see fit & let Allah be the judge in the hereafter. This is the Islamic way to deal with things.

I will not be giving Zakaat to the state of Pakistan if professors of false prophet are financial advisors.

What law prevents Ahmadis from being members of the EAC?

 

[Maarkhoor]

@AgNoStiC MuSliM @pzfz
As per Islam and constitution of Pakistan Qadianis are non Muslim cult followers.

Do whatever you want but people like you can't change Islam and our constitution.

 

[pzfz]

You take that protection away. You create a bigger problem for them.

A minority View can never be imposed on majority in Any system.

Pak was doing just fine before the edicts of trying to define religious identity. Since we're all worried about rioting, how about banning sunnis they're the ones usually rioting in Pak? Views are not to legislated. This is like white America having something in writing that whites are superiors to blacks and that blacks are savages. That too would be the minority not imposing their views onto the majority.

 

[El Sidd]

Forcing them to not practice their faith as they see fit is not 'protection'. The State can protect them by arresting & prosecuting all those who use violence against the State or against individuals.

There is no minority view being imposed upon the majority under my suggestion - my suggestion is that the constitution should say nothing about who is or is not a Muslim. Leave it to the individual to practice their faith as they see fit & let Allah be the judge in the hereafter. This is the Islamic way to deal with things.

They practice their religion in entirety. Its illegal for them to impersonate muslim rituals.

They have their own economy. Own Version of Zakaat and Khums. Much like Pakistani Scientologists.

 

[pzfz]

It is none of Parliaments business. You want to debate theology with them, then do it in a private setting, in a debate forum or something.

Why is this concept so hard for people ot understand?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will not be giving Zakaat to the state of Pakistan if professors of false prophet are financial advisors.

And next you won't bank with an institution that employs Ahmadis, or shop at a store that employs Ahmadis, or buy a car from a company that employs Ahmadis, or let an Ahmadi clean the streets, or your house.

So if this ends up being the majority position, what exactly are Ahmadis supposed to do? Like Fawad Chaudhry said, do you intolerant, prejudiced, insecure, hatemongering people want to throw millions of Ahmadis into the Arabian sea?

 

[El Sidd]

Pak was doing just fine before the edicts of trying to define religious identity. Since we're all worried about rioting, how about banning sunnis they're the ones usually rioting in Pak. Views are not to legislated. This is like white America having something in writing that whites are superiors to blacks and that blacks are savages. That too would be the minority not imposing their views onto the majority.

A newly formed Country in 1947. Under dictatorship mostly till fall of Dhaka and that ahmadi phenonmenon was hardly known to the public.

Democracy ensured the will of the muslimeems