Mob razes disputed property in Sialkot

[M. Sarmad]

﷽

Chapter 33, Verse 40:

[33.40 ] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things

Ahmadis do not reject this Quranic verse (or any other Quranic verse for that matter), They just have a different interpretation of the word "Khatama alnnabiyyeen" (Seal of the Prophets) ... The overwhelming majority of Muslims rejects Ahmaddiya interpretation though

 

[pak-marine]

Estimated value?



Sure man.

Agree to disagree mate nothing wrong with that , we have our own perspectives and opnions. And the topic will be derailed in question there is a minority worship place rn over and distroyed by their coutrymen .. i am sorry and ashamed that we have failed them again and again

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

Visit Sialkot and ask Khawaja Ijaz aka Shiekh Ijaz how many sunny, Shia mosque demolished or reduced their width in order to expand roads for Sialkot International Airport.

Havent had the chance to visit yet so my best bet is googling. Oh look , I found nothing of your suggestion.

Except this, also in Sialkot btw.
https://www.google.com.pk/amp/s/tri...e-bow-to-clerics-to-tear-down-minarets/?amp=1

If you're going to push your narrative atleast don't lie about it and come clean and just say that you don't care about the basic rights of Ahmedis.

 

[El Sidd]

Agree to disagree mate nothing wrong with that , we have our own perspectives and opnions. And the topic will be derailed in question there is a minority worship place rn over and distroyed by their coutrymen .. i am sorry and ashamed that we have failed them again and again

But Thats your instinctive Reaction due to popular highly opinionated narrative.

I cant force you. This works for you. I am cool with it

 

[pak-marine]

But Thats your instinctive Reaction due to popular highly opinionated narrative.

I cant force you. This works for you. I am cool with it

if it was popular narrative in the republic than this sham incident wouldnt have happened here

 

[El Sidd]

if it was popular narrative in the republic than this sham incident wouldnt have happened here

You live in a very idyllic World Sir.

For you minorities will always be perfect. They are free from all the ills Muslim Community faces. I have heard this story before. I know the routine

 

[Maarkhoor]

Havent had the chance to visit yet so my best bet is googling. Oh look , I found nothing of your suggestion.

Except this, also in Sialkot btw.
https://www.google.com.pk/amp/s/tribune.com.pk/story/607912/ahmadi-persecution-police-bow-to-clerics-to-tear-down-minarets/?amp=1

If you're going to push your narrative atleast don't lie about it and come clean and just say that you don't care about the basic rights of Ahmedis.

See Kid as I said to all be Pakistani first than bring your religious affiliations...have same advise for you..being a person in uniform Ok,... and Pakistan ka matlab kiya ....

 

[Metanoia]

Ahmadis do not reject this Quranic verse (or any other Quranic verse for that matter), They just have a different interpretation of the word "Khatama alnnabiyyeen" (Seal of the Prophets) ... The overwhelming majority of Muslims rejects Ahmaddiya interpretation though

That's correct.

Which brings us (Muslims) to a point where we'll have to at least decide on a reasonable "Zahiri", i.e. manifest, meaning and interpretation of the Holy Quran...because you and I both know that once a person dwells upon philosophy and esoteric meanings/interpretation; then sky is the limit and no ocean is ever deep enough.

Sometimes the Muslims make very simple matters extremely overly complicated and complex. Very similar to the espresso sipping hippies in their trendy and expensive outfits talking about nirvana and whatnot.

 

[Verve]

This was no place of worship.

City authorities had permission to demolish it and so it was. No one should be crying about it.

 

[M. Sarmad]

That's correct.

Which brings us (Muslims) to a point where we'll have to at least decide on a reasonable "Zahiri", i.e. manifest, meaning and interpretation of the Holy Quran...because you and I both know that once a person dwells upon philosophy and esoteric meanings/interpretation; then sky is the limit and no ocean is ever deep enough.

Sometimes the Muslims make very simple matters extremely overly complicated and complex. Very similar to the espresso sipping hippies in their trendy and expensive outfits talking about nirvana and whatnot.

Agreed, but even the founder of Ahmaddiya sect Mirza Ghulam Ahmed believed that Quran was unaltered word of Allah and stated that perversion in the text of the holy Quran was beyond the range of possibility. Ahmadis believe in exactly the same Quran as other Muslims. Just because they interpret one verse differently (and that verse has been interpreted by some medieval scholars in exactly the same way as Ahmadis do, meaning that this specific contentious interpretation hasn't been invented by Ahmadis) doesn't mean that they have nothing to do with Islam. At max you can call them a misguided/heretic sect of Muslims.

But that is besides the point. In a Republic, minorities have certain inalienable rights but when The State starts infringing on the (basic) right to self-identification/personal religious identity of the minority (based upon the will of the majority) it goes against the very essence of Republic .. We have to stop our descent down the slippery slope. If tomorrow the majority of Sunnis declare that Shia are Non Muslims, will the State declare them Non Muslim too ? ...

City authorities had permission to demolish it and so it was. No one should be crying about it.

Any credible source to back up your claim ? And even if the Court had ordered demolition (which it hadn't of course) why use Mullahs and religious fanatics instead of State Machinery ??

 

[TMA]

That's correct.

Which brings us (Muslims) to a point where we'll have to at least decide on a reasonable "Zahiri", i.e. manifest, meaning and interpretation of the Holy Quran...because you and I both know that once a person dwells upon philosophy and esoteric meanings/interpretation; then sky is the limit and no ocean is ever deep enough.

Sometimes the Muslims make very simple matters extremely overly complicated and complex. Very similar to the espresso sipping hippies in their trendy and expensive outfits talking about nirvana and whatnot.

This is not an issue. There are two types of verses: ayat ul muhkamaat and ayat ul mutashabihaat. The former are the foundation for the Deen. The latter are not. In the former there is very little room for interpretation and in the latter there is great room for interpretation (of course if the interpretation goes against the ayat ul mukhamaat then it is a wrong interpretation).

For example if I interpret verse 9 of Surah 15 :
to say there are more than one God because of the use of the plural pronoun We, does that mean my interpretation is valid? Can I still call myself a Muslim? Should I be allowed to spread my interpretation to the masses many of whom are ignorant?

There is a consensus on the interpretation of ayat ul Muhkamaat which makes up the creedal system of Islam.
If you want watch Dr Umar Faruq Abdullah giving lessons on the Creedal system. He mentions of this stuff about the difference type of verses and where one can have interpretation and where not.
Bear with the audio as it sometimes cuts off, but it is worth the watch.

 

[TMA]

Agreed, but even the founder of Ahmaddiya sect Mirza Ghulam Ahmed believed that Quran was unaltered word of Allah and stated that perversion in the text of the holy Quran was beyond the range of possibility. Ahmadis believe in exactly the same Quran as other Muslims. Just because they interpret one verse differently (and that verse has been interpreted by some medieval scholars in exactly the same way as Ahmadis do, meaning that this specific contentious interpretation hasn't been invented by Ahmadis) doesn't mean that they have nothing to do with Islam. At max you can call them a misguided/heretic sect of Muslims.

But that is besides the point. In a Republic, minorities have certain inalienable rights but when The State starts infringing on the (basic) right to self-identification/personal religious identity of the minority (based upon the will of the majority) it goes against the very essence of Republic .. We have to stop our descent down the slippery slope. If tomorrow the majority of Sunnis declare that Shia are Non Muslims, will the State declare them Non Muslim too ? ...



Any credible source to back up your claim ? And even if the Court had ordered demolition (which it hadn't of course) why use Mullahs and religious fanatics instead of State Machinery ??

Tell me where do these inalienable rights come from? Who decides what is a right? What is the essence of a Republic and who decides this?

Why don't you read the report that was published by the State of Pakistan on the Qadiani issue of 1974? You don't have to read the three thousand pages, but read where the Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar cross examined Mirza Nasir Ahmed. It makes for very interesting reading...

When the State of Pakistan refused to recognize Ahmadis as Muslim it was not a theological decision, although theological debate did take place in the NA. It was for the purposes of Law. So Ahmadis are welcome to say what they want and believe what they want in their personal spaces (the ordinances under Zia that were added later on were in response to the inflammatory and anti state speeches of certain Ahmadi leaders, and these ordinances could be justifiably be repealed today). Also Mirza Ghulaam Ahmed considered those Muslims who did not accept his claims as kafirs. You should read about when Yahya Baktiar questioned Mirza Nasir Ahmed on this issue.

This decision by the NA was probably the most unanimous decision taken by the NA in its entire history. Virtually all segments of society agreed on this. Including Shia.
As to the question of not recognizing Shia as Muslim, this is legally possible if the NA has debate on this matter and if the majority of the NA passes such a motion. Although I do not think in practice it will happen, as the doctrinal difference between Sunni and Shia is not as different as say between Ahmadi and Sunni or Ahmadi and Shia and there is not a strong united consensus on this. However if such a motion did come to pass, again it would not be on theological grounds. So Shia would be allowed to say and believe what ever they want in their personal places. Just that they would have to declare themselves if going for state/official positions as certain positions would be off limits to them.

In a democracy the majority rules or so they say! And apparently Parliament is meant to represent the People!

 

[El Sidd]

If tomorrow the majority of Sunnis declare that Shia are Non Muslims, will the State declare them Non Muslim too ?

Religious discussions are not allowed on the forum.

 

[M. Sarmad]

As to the question of not recognizing Shia as Muslim, this is legally possible if the NA has debate on this matter and if the majority of the NA passes such a motion. Although I do not think in practice it will happen, as the doctrinal difference between Sunni and Shia is not as different as say between Ahmadi and Sunni or Ahmadi and Shia and there is not a strong united consensus on this. However if such a motion did come to pass, again it would not be on theological grounds. So Shia would be allowed to say and believe what ever they want in their personal places. Just that they would have to declare themselves if going for state/official positions as certain positions would be off limits to them.

In a democracy the majority rules or so they say! And apparently Parliament is meant to represent the People!

As stated earlier, We have to stop our descent down the slippery slope. You are advocating Tyranny of the Majority ...

For example, India is a Hindu majority country. If tomorrow the Hindu majority decides that all Indian Muslims should be forced to convert or alternatively expelled from India, by your logic, their demand will be fully justified as Hindus are in absolute majority in India

Be careful what you wish for

Religious discussions are not allowed on the forum.

Politicology of Religion is a discipline of Political Science. Political discussions aren't banned.

 

[El Sidd]

Politicology of Religion is a discipline of Political Science. Political discussions aren't banned.

What is the difference between the two?
Straightforward Deen vs Mazhab debate or something else?

and i will come back to your shia sunni thing once i have the go ahead from admin that i can talk on such issues.