Of Medical Students, Passports and Religous Tolerance

Good article written in good faith highlighting the Ahmadiya issue. However, I do not to agree with the author's contentions. First of all he wrote that and I quote that he has to sign the following statements:

"“I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Quadiani to be an impostor nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahori or Quadiani group to be non-Muslims. Alas, in order to acquire a passport, I was required to swear that Quadiani’s are non-Muslims. I found myself in a quandary."

Following is the undertaking that one has to sign while applying for ID card:

"I Solemnly affirm that, I believe completely and unconditionally in the finality of the Prophethood of the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and that I am not a follower of any person who claims Prophethood on the
basis of any interpretation of this word, neither I believe such a claimant to be a reformer or a prophet,
nor I belong to Qadiani or Lahori group or call myself Ahmedi."

Now there is a hell of the difference in what the author of this article want readers to beleive, and what is actually the fact. What a distortion of truth, and what a lie to claim victimhood.

As I said on numerous occasions, ahmadis can't claim victimhood by playing double game. On one side, they claim victimhood and on other side when asked what they consider non ahmadi muslims, they just keep quite and avoid the question........

And yes. Those who want to find the source of what I quoted above, you can visit:

http://www.nadra.gov.pk/images/poc.pdf

This is the form from NADRA for Pakistan Orgin card. The declaration i referred to is No.29. Same declaration is used for passports.

#1 Posted by krbhatti,

LoL excellent refutation. What a liar!

Obviously the author is a Qadiani trying to move to Malaysia and didn't want to have non-Muslim written in his religion column on the passport, so had to sign the standard declaration for 'Muslim' to be written in it, and is sulking about it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Excellent article. Peoples' obsession with calling ahmadis or any other non-mainstream minorities non-muslim is religious extremisim run amok. If people say islam is their religion, that is their belief and simply put none of your business.

"I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses."-- Johannes Kepler

Someone who is 'shattered' has red-flagged me!

Re: # 6

really?

"I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses."-- Johannes Kepler

Tomatoes are 60 rupees a kilo, onions are not to be found, by this speed our Aloo Keema is going to taste like shit and we are worried about a dude (PUBH) who died some 1500 years ago. Where are our priorities? Be grateful that you only had to go thru the hassle of completing a form, a lot worse things are going on with religious minorities in Pakistan.

A VERY difficult issue that I wrote about in 2005
due to which I did not win any friends.....


BERKELEY CONFERENCE TACKLES PAKISTAN MINORITY ISSUE

The University of California at Berkeley’s Center for South Asia Studies held its “20th Annual South Asia Conference� at International House on February 11 and 12, 2005.
During this two-day affair which drew students, scholars and academics with an interest or expertise in the South Asian region, topics as diverse as “Space, Place and Gender in Indian Film and Literature� to “Gendered Violence: Notes from the Postcolonial Present�
generated a great deal of interest. And one of the sessions, “Who is Muslim? Religion and Politics in Pakistan Fifty Years after the Munir Report (1954)� covered an area which pertained to Pakistan specifically. And since a report on the full conference was not possible due to this writer’s inability to be there for two days, this one session will be focused on here.
Chaired by Tariq Rahman, Quaid-i-Azam Chair Pakistan Studies, UC Berkeley the panel which addressed this issue and a lot more was made up of Matt J. Nelson of the Political Science Department at Bates College, Najeeb Jan from the History Department at the University of Michigan and Robert Rozehnal, Dept of Religious Studies at Lehigh University. The Discussant was Erik Jensen, Co-Director of the Rule of Law Program at Stanford University Law School.
With such academic luminaries present and their more than adequate introduction by panel chair, Dr. Tariq Rahman, the main topic (for those that are not aware of it) pertained to religious practices and policies in Pakistan of which the “Ahmadi Question� that the Justice Munir Report in 1954 was the focus area. This along with subsequent declarations of Ahmadis as non-Muslims by the Government of Pakistan in 1974 and the 1980’s blasphemy laws instituted during the Zia Regime have impacted not only the Ahmadis but the social and political fabric of Pakistan.
Starting with the topic of “Making Muslims: Madrasas and the Meaning of Modern Education in Pakistan� Matt Nelson painted a realistic picture of religious thinking in which matters of State also came into play. The boundaries of Islam constituted in the context of Education and parental thoughts on religious education (in Baluchistan, Punjab and the NWFP provinces) were a part of his study. Nelson asked if these boundaries addressed the current sectarian differences in Pakistan and “Can Ahmadis be called outside this definition?� But beyond the questions he had a great deal to add that Pakistani policy makers today may find very useful. Nelson found in interviews he conducted that people in Pakistan give a very high priority to the religious education of their children, along with their other education. But as the Munir Report had mentioned neither the State or ordinary people are in a position to resolve religious differences, Nelson called to attention the “Elephant in the Living Room,� on differences in the sectarian religious practices within Islam that continue to impact Pakistan. He said that this elephant has to be discussed, but it is not. And as Pakistan heads towards “Moderation� today, Nelson called for an open discussion on this subject within Pakistani society and the teaching of religious and sectarian differences in schools at an early age so that the issue can be grappled with more effectively. In other words (and not necessarily on the Ahmadi issue) he recommended open discussion on religious differences as a path towards moderation in Pakistan instead of ignoring them and leaving others to dictate policy. He hinted that this path of open discussion, instead of the competing efforts by the Maulanas to define the Umma (the Muslim Family) could be more beneficial for the country (the Shia-Sunni and other differences being accepted without discussion and prone to emotion do lead to strife).
Najeeb Jan next went into some depth into the topic of “Of Momin’s and Kafirs: Legislative Exorcism and the Deoband Anti-Ahmadia Movement,� in which he also touched on the recent emphasis on Deobandi thought because of its reported links to the Taliban. “Boundaries negotiated by acts of violence,� were not the best way of resolving issues, he said. He added that one of the Deoband’s major achievements is considered to be the ouster of the Ahmadis from mainstream Islam. Jan spoke briefly about the 1974 to 1986 period in Pakistan during the Z.A. Bhutto and General Zia era and the rising influence of the Ulema in the country since then, of which the Anti-Ahmadi movement was a major step. He said that fundamentalists could not have appeared on the landscape except in this modern age where the new “Philosopher Kings� are the Ulema. A subjectivity Map of a formal Islamic/Muslim nomenclature in Pakistani society was also presented dealing with Deoband, Barelvi Tableeghi Jamaat, Ahle Hadith, Wahabi Jamaati (Maududi) and various Shia Groupings including the Bohri, Twelver Shia and the Ismaili along with the Sufi-Naqshbandi and Chishti orders. The Ahmadis were placed in an outside circle. The Pakistani political landscape including its Islamist political parties were touched upon. It is interesting to note that 90% of Pakistani voters do not vote for the religious platform. The history of Deoband and its influence from Shah Waliullah to the Deeni Madrasa’s today along with the 1953 anti-Ahmadi riots, the Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001 also came under discussion.
The last panel presentation was by Robert Rozehnal who spoke on “Narrating Tragedy: The Politics of Sufism in Pakistan.� Robert pointed out that Sufism is a highly debated subject as part of the reality of Pakistan as a modern Muslim state. But his main focus in this session was the tragedy that took place at Baba Farid’s annual Urs at Pakpattan in Punjab where a stampede killed over a 100 people in April 2001. The Chishti Sabiri Murids (disciples) tried in their own way to make sense of this tragedy while blame went all around, including fingers pointed at local police authorities. The Government blamed the disciples for the stampede, raised issues about whether this was real Islam and stated that police had just been overwhelmed by an unruly mob. Since one of the children that died was from the family that heads the shrine, a Karbala-like scenario was linked to this tragedy. And in these various viewpoints and interpretations of the sad event, Rozehnal was able to share with us a significant insight into the religious, social and political aspects of Pakistani society.
The job of a discussant is never easy. Erik Jensen expressed his own views on the three presentations and raised some questions of his own on the subject. Dr. Tariq Rahman had questions of his own and ended with some interesting thoughts. The question and answer session seemed painfully short for the length and breath of the issues highlighted here but since the “elephant in the living room� idea prevailed, nobody really directly approached the Ahmadi question. Most of the questions asked, remained academic in nature and did not get into details of beliefs.
Since the subject generates strong emotions from many readers, as a reporter, this was certainly a difficult assignment. But let me just close here with what Dr. Rahman said in his concluding remarks and add to them if I can. Dr. Rahman asked this question: “What kind of state should Pakistan be?� Should it be an Islamic (Ulema dominated) country or a (modern) Muslim country?
Let us just add to that. Since most Pakistani Muslims do not accept the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian as Muslims, should the state of Pakistan also officially endorse that view? And beyond the differences in religious beliefs, how should a modern Muslim state handle the social and cultural ramifications of excommunicating a group of people from a religion? Justice Munir in his report had tried to address that issue. But a question that has always been difficult to think about is not about religion but about a nation. We have talked about Government defining who is a Muslim. But how does it go about defining a Pakistani?

Ras H. Siddiqui

2-20-05

krbhatti #1:

Why would you look at some other NADRA form when the author is talking about passport renewal?? your assertion that "Same declaration is used for passports" is simply incorrect.

The author is right. See page 2.
http://www.pakistanconsulateny.org/PDF/form-a.pdf

Re: # 7 Shuttered Buns

Really? How about saying something original?

My criticism has always been very sharp; you're just pretending you're new on ChowQ; aren't you?

So how does an ahmedi person gets a passport? is he forced sign the declaration which goes against his beliefs?

No, mohar, he gets a passport saying he is an Ahmedi.
Your passport says nothing about religion, but some do.

Re: # 1 posted by krbhatti

Actually, the author is completely correct about the declaration for the passport. Calling the author a liar and then calling him an Ahmedi as if it were a term of abuse rather than a simple religious designation clearly shows how bigoted some of the comments here are. Not to mention disingenious: whereas the author mentions a passport application, the reponse points to the declaration required for an ID card! I'll refrain from calling the poster #1 a liar because the ID card declaration he provided is not the same as that required for a drivers license (!), and urge him to read the actual declaration quoted by the author that can be found at the bottom of the official passport application form at: http://www.pakmission.ca/admin1/Embassy/FillableForms/PASSPORT%20APPLICATION%20F ORM.pdf

Now, of course, the discussion can shift into the vein of pure bigotry and intolerance, stripped of the pretence that there was actually some rational factual refutation to be made.

Re: # 12 by moharr11

If you have a look at the passport form, the declaration is "For Muslims Only". The Pakistani government of course reserves the divine right to determine such issues of conscience and has accordingly declared Ahmedi's non-Muslims. Therefore, no Ahmedi's need sign the declaration. They can only read it and weep.

Re: # 8
"....and we are worried about a dude (PUBH) who died some 1500 years ago."

It is PBUH (peace be upon him) and not PUBH, and he was a Prophet not a dude!

The 'LakaR-hara' of New York is worried about the price of Aloo-Qeema: it is something WE eat, not him (he grew up on pure cucumber-diet). The shameless one brings THE Prophet (peace on him) down to the level of an oriental dish.

The axeman will turn into Qeema if his insulting ways remain unchanged. He needs to rid himself of this destructive attitude.

He should worry about the economy of his adopted Motherland; it will fall apart before his very eyes SOON.