Mob razes disputed property in Sialkot

[Rain]

with acts like these we forfeit the right to criticize Indian/US/Isreal for what they do with minority Muslims int their respective states. Bad day to the soft image of Pakistan.

 

[TMA]

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






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

But who decides on these rights?
What is a right? What is extreme? Who decides on law? What is tyranny?

You know in the democratic system that Pakistan inherited from the UK, if the NA decided that a week ought to have ten days then a week will have ten days...it might be stupid but legally it is possible. And it can work if the vast majority of the people support such a move (but they won't).

First of all your example is not valid. A better example is if Bharat refused to recognize Muslims as a separate religious community if they majority wanted this. Then yes this would be legally justified. What do you think Quaid e Aazam was worried about?!!

but in theory yes even forced conversions or exile could be potentially be legally justifiable although I think that this law would contradict some other Bharati laws so it would fail, even if the majority wanted this.

Besides I do not think Bharat would even consider such a motion as there no strong united internal support to force conversions or exile for Muslims unlike the virtual absolute support of the OVERWHELMING majority of Pakistan in not recognizing the Ahamdi as Muslims including the Shia.


Also Pakistan did not force the Ahmadis to recant nor force them to be expelled. Just refused to recognize them as Muslims but as a separate community like Hindus, Christians...there is a difference and a MASSIVE one. And if the majority of Pakistanis wanted such a law to force them to recant of force them into exile for merely belief, I would be against it! And this would not be possible legally as it would contradict other basic laws in Pakistan.....whereas the refusal to recognize Ahamdis by the State as Muslims is not.

Also do not forgot that Mirza Ghulaam did not consider Muslims who did not accept his claims as Muslims.

....Please go and read the report...men like the Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar were not religious nut jobs. They were Masters of Law...

Also you can listen to this discussion of this issue

"A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on .."

The idea of Pakistan was the brainchild of Jinnah. Jinnah has died but his idea is immortal.



No one worships Jinnah. What are you on about ?

I thought Allama Iqbal also had a part in the idea of a Muslim homeland....

 

[Jaanbaz]

Ahmadis who can afford should leave Pakistan. Once Pakistan is fully 100% pure Sunni then they can reach the Nirvana.

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

Then you shouldn't be labelling those Muslims as Seculars who disagree with your interpretation/understanding of Islam .. No ?

What's wrong with wanting equal rights for everyone ?

 

[El Sidd]

Ahmadis who can afford should leave Pakistan. Once Pakistan is fully 100% pure Sunni then they can reach the Nirvana.

Cute

 

[Jaanbaz]

Cute

Thanks.

 

[YeBeWarned]

how does not believing in Mirza Gulam Ahmad make me a Kaffir ? he was a guy who claim Prophet-hood which is rejected by ( as far as i know ) all Muslims , so on what exactly bases Ahmadi claim that others who don't take Mirza Gulam as Prophet as Kaffir ?

can anyone honestly answer me ?

 

[TMA]

You of course are entitled to your opinion. I agree with Jinnah Sahib

"Ahmadis are Muslims if they say they are Muslims & NO ONE, not even the sovereign legislature has the right to say otherwise." - Jinnah (May 5, 1944)

Where is the source for this quote? I have only been able to locate someones twitter for this.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Where is the source for this quote? I have only been able to locate someones twitter for this.

Tahrik Huriyyat Kashmir (History of Independence Movements in Kashmir), volume 2, 1936 - 1945, page 291)

https://www.dawn.com/news/1259568

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rare-pictures-of-quaid-e-azam.112256/page-18#post-1223546

 

[TMA]

Tahrik Huriyyat Kashmir (History of Independence Movements in Kashmir), volume 2, 1936 - 1945, page 291)

https://www.dawn.com/news/1259568

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rare-pictures-of-quaid-e-azam.112256/page-18#post-1223546

So where does it say "...not even the sovereign legislature has the right to say otherwise."?

All I can find is " Mr. Jinnah replied: 'Who am I to declare a person as non-Muslim who calls himself a Muslim?' "

Can you help me find it?
Also the Dawn article does not mention that quote you quoted.

how does not believing in Mirza Gulam Ahmad make me a Kaffir ? he was a guy who claim Prophet-hood which is rejected by ( as far as i know ) all Muslims , so on what exactly bases Ahmadi claim that others who don't take Mirza Gulam as Prophet as Kaffir ?

can anyone honestly answer me ?

From Mirza Ghulaam Ahmed's theological perspective it does/did.

Watch this for more info.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Can you help me find it?
Also the Dawn article does not mention that quote you quoted.

'

In the early 1940s, when Jinnah was trying to form a broad-based collation to bolster the fortunes of the All India Muslim League (AIML), he was asked by some of his potential non-AIML allies to declare the Ahmadis as non-Muslim.

In May 1944, during a press conference in Kashmir, Jinnah said to the gathered pressmen, “who am I to call a person non-Muslim who calls himself a Muslim …”

https://www.dawn.com/news/1259568

“I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with particular reference to the Qadianis (Ahmadis). My reply is that, as far as the constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole. What right have I to declare a person non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim.” – Muhammad Ali Jinnah, 23rd May, 1944, Srinagar



Tahrik Huriyyat Kashmir (History of Independence Movements in Kashmir), volume 2, 1936 – 1945, page 291)

 

[TMA]

'

https://www.dawn.com/news/1259568

Yes I see that, but where does it say "...not even the sovereign legislature has the right to say otherwise."?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Yes I see that, but where does it say "...not even the sovereign legislature has the right to say otherwise."?

Jinnah said that on different occasions .. On May 5th, and May 23rd 1944:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/96818/a-case-for-a-persecuted-people/

http://pakteahouse.net/2011/12/15/are-ahmadis-non-muslims/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...sion-for-pakistan_us_59fd06d7e4b05e3e1f0a0130

 

[TMA]

Jinnah said that on different occasions .. On May 5th, and May 23rd 1944:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/96818/a-case-for-a-persecuted-people/

http://pakteahouse.net/2011/12/15/are-ahmadis-non-muslims/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...sion-for-pakistan_us_59fd06d7e4b05e3e1f0a0130

These newspapers don't have first hand sources in them. Can you find the first hand sources?
Like you did with the Tehrik Hurriyat Kashmir....

Jinnah said that on different occasions .. On May 5th, and May 23rd 1944:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/96818/a-case-for-a-persecuted-people/

http://pakteahouse.net/2011/12/15/are-ahmadis-non-muslims/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...sion-for-pakistan_us_59fd06d7e4b05e3e1f0a0130

I have emailed Zeeba Hashmi for her sources as well.

Jinnah said that on different occasions .. On May 5th, and May 23rd 1944:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/96818/a-case-for-a-persecuted-people/

http://pakteahouse.net/2011/12/15/are-ahmadis-non-muslims/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...sion-for-pakistan_us_59fd06d7e4b05e3e1f0a0130

the reason I ask is, like you have said on previous occasions about people trying to justify their positions with what Quaid e Azaam said or did or not said or not did. Like for example the issue about the Muhammad Asad and Dept of Islamic reconstruction. One party says this thing and another says something different....

 

[M. Sarmad]

.. Like for example the issue about the Muhammad Asad and Dept of Islamic reconstruction. One party says this thing and another says something different....

There is absolutely no reference to a Department of Islamic Reconstruction in any of the official documents of the Government of Pakistan. The burden of Proof lies with the Party (of pathological liars like Orya and Safdar) making the claim that not only such a Department existed, Jinnah himself had appointed Muhammad Asad as its Chairman. So far they have failed to produce even a shred of evidence from primary source documents proving their case. .. So hard for you to understand such a simple thing ??