Protest in New York!

Re Krashid (#110):

I am an Ahmadi-Muslim (a.k.a. Qadiani), and here are some of my thoughts regarding discrimination against Ahmadis in Pakistan and finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

We Ahmadis believe in all the articles of Muslim faith i.e. belief in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, the Day of Judgment, and The Decree of Allah. Besides articles of faith, Ahmadis believe in Saalat, Zakat, Hajj, and Roza. We also believe that Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the highest ranking, noblest of all the prophets, and that Quran, the last Word of Allah was indeed revealed to him (pbuh). We believe Quran to be the final Word of Allah, sent for guidance of the entire mankind.

Due to the blasphemy laws, we Ahmadis are not allowed to call out “azan”; we cannot call place of our worship a “mosque”; we cannot write kalima (Muslim declaration of faith that “there is none worthy of worship except Allah; Mohammad [pbuh] is the messenger of Allah”) in our mosques or literature; we cannot greet each other with “Assalam-o-alaikom”; we cannot write “bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim” (“In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful”) on wedding invitations etc.

When an Ahmadi performs any of the above-mentioned acts, according to the law in Pakistan he is “posing” as a Muslim, a crime punishable by imprisonment. Don’t you think this blasphemy law goes too far? In my heart I know I am a Muslim. The govt. has no business telling me how to greet people, how to pray in a mosque (i.e. if I am allowed to call it a “mosque”), what name to use for my faith. I believe in Quran, where God Almighty states (in Surah-e-Maiddah) that this day I have perfected the Law for you, and have given you the name Muslim. If I believe in all the articles of faith and Allah Almighty has chosen the name me a Muslim, what right does the govt. have telling me that I am not a Muslim? And all this is done in the name of Islam!

You are right in stating that Ahmadis, unlike main stream Muslims, do not believe in finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). However we do believe in finality of Quran and that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the noblest, holiest of all prophets. Alternately, we believe that God Almighty will continue to raise “non law-bearing prophets” for guidance of the believers. These prophets will be followers of the message of Quran and would hold Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the utmost regard, as the spiritual leader of all the prophets ever to come.

Speaking of consensus among majority of Muslim scholars about finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), let me point out that until recently there was also consensus among these scholars that the Promised Messiah and Mahdi will arrive before the end of 14th century (Islamic calendar). This “majority of scholars” is now silent on this issue. Litmus test of truth does not lie in numbers, but in the strength of its arguments.

History bear witness that every prophet has been vehemently opposed by the then-existing religious institutions. This is probably because God Almighty raises prophets for reformation of the people gone astray. The coming of a prophet therefore threatens the prevalent religious hierarchy, which explains why the “mullahs” are always in strong opposition of the newly arrived prophet.

To understand non-Ahmadi point of view, I would like to inquire how is Ahmadi faith regarding finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) at odds with the teachings of Quran? Also feel free to elaborate on the issue of Promised Messiah (and the Mahdi) now that the 14th century is finally over. Your input will be much appreciated.

If you feel this board is not the proper place for this discussion, please feel free to e-mail me at sattar2@worldnet.att.net. Actually input/e-mails from anyone will be very much appreciated.

Best regards,

Asad Sattar

`organized religions`
Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota created a stir when he reportedly said in an interview to Playboy, `organized religion is a crutch for weak people. I personally have not felt the need for it`.

It makes one ponder, aren`t WWF wrestling and `journalism` of the Playboy kind also ` crutches for weak people`?? Aren`t pop singers` and co`s persona also myths for `weak people`. How about the myth linking one`s very identity with the personal possession of an IC engine :-) or DeBeer`s myth about engagement rings and the indispensibility of diamonds thereof? Is the financial bottomline the sole justification of any myth?

Sorry for the digression.

Sadhana

hamidm: #109: ``however, everyone will agree that Graceland is the true Mecca because this is where He was born - `` For unto you is born this day in the city of Memphis a Presley, which is Elvis the King````

As Duncan McCloud, the Highlander, stated so convincingly, ``There can be only one.`` So, I am afraid you have your kings prioritized incorrectly.

The true king was not born in Memphis. Never lived there; never even visited the boring place. His legend tells us that he did earn his wings as the commander of a squadron of cabs in the city by the Bay. The man, the myth, the great turbaned one; Silicon Valley`s very own: Mr. Daler Mehndi.

The king is dead. Long live the king

P.S. wasn`t Elvis born in Mississippi.

hamidm #109, `` I sincerely believe that organized

religion is the mother of all evils ...``

I agree, but I also think that for some people, ``organized religion,`` is a way of life. It gives them a sense of direction. Some people, especially young folks, need group support to help them float over the murky waters instead of drowning. The only caveat is, that these members of ``organized`` religion have to send out good messages and sound values.

PS: sorry about so many typos in my last post..
Another intersting fact I just discovered is that, Shias (while under pressure from Deobandis to be decleared Kafirs) lodged a case in a Pakistani court asking the court to decide which Muslim sect did Mr. Jinnah belong to. The court decided that Mr. Jinnah was an Asna-e-Ashari shia... the veridict was overturned by a higher court saying that Mr. Jinnah was simply a Muslim.

If, however, the definition of a ``true Muslim`` on which no two ulema of Pakistani Muslims have ever agreed, is applied to Mr. Jinnah, I reckon he`d be decleared a Kafir by majority of ulema.. This was/is also the view of JI that Quaid-e-Azam was Kafri-e-Azam.

And if a Kafir is actually the founder of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, where does it land the two nation theory? Was the partition of India then a KAFIR conspiracy? :)

Urstruly,

Blasphemy laws (some background information.)

In 1953 militant Muslims, led by the Ahrars, a puritanical political group, who strong believed in purification of national life, demanded that people belonging to Ahmadiyah sect be declared non-Muslims . Khawaja Nazimuddin showed reluctance/inaction, and as a result, rioting and arson engulfed Lahore and other towns in Punjab. Hundreds of people lost their lives, and many more lost their businesses, and homes. Government of Pakistan established a judicial commission comprising of Mr. Justice Munir and Mr. Justice Kayani to inquire into the disturbances in Punjab, with a view to establishing an understanding between the Government and militant Muslims who were demanding that Islamic law be imposed immediately and Qadiaynis be declared non-Muslims/kafirs.

Here are some excerpts from this report, which was presented to Government of Pakistan on 10th of April 1954.

In the following paragraph, the judicial commission endeavored to establish definition of a true Muslim (since militant Muslims were arguing that Ahmadis according to their (ulema’s) definition are not Muslims).
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done, and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else. “
The judicial commission then moved on to investigate few other areas of shariah or Islamic laws which would have to be implemented if Islamic law was/is to become law of the land in Pakistan.
APOSTASY
Apostasy in an Islamic State is punishable with death, On this the ulema are practically unanimous (avoid the evidence of Maulana Abul Hasanat, Sayyad Mohammed Ahmed Qadri, President, Jami’t-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan, Punjab; Maulana Ahmed Ali, Sadar Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-islam, West Pakistan; Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, founder and ex-Amir-i-Jama’al-i-islami, Pakistan; Mufti Muhammad ldris, Jami’ Ashrafia, Lahore, and Member, Jami’t-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan; Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, President, Jami’at-i-Ahl-i-Hadith, Maghribi (western) Pakistan; Maulana Abdul Haleem Qasimi, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-islam, Punjab; and Mr. Ibrahim Ali Chishti). According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafarullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i-islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Gaznavi, if Maulana Abdul Hassanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmed Qadri or Mirza Raze Ahmed Khan Barelwy, or any one of the numerous ulema who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautiful tree in the fatwa, Ex. D. E. 14, were the heads of such Islamic State. And if Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi were the head of the State, he would exclude those who have pronounced Deobandis as kafirs from the pale of Islam and inflict on them the death penalty if they come within the definition of murtadd, namely, if they have changed and not inherited their religious laws.
The genuineness of the fatwa, Ex. D. E. 13, by the Deobandis which says that Asna-Ashari Shies are kafirs and murtadds, was questioned in the course of inquiry, but Maulana Muhammad Shafi made an inquiry on the subject from Deoband, and received from the records of that institution the copy of a fatwa signed by all the teachers of the Darul Uloom, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi himself, which is to the effect that those who do not believe in the sahabiyat of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and who are qazif of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa and have been guilty of tehrif of Qur’an are kafirs. Mr. Ibrahim Ali Chishti who has studied and knows his subject also supports this opinion. He thinks the Shies are kafirs because they believe that Hazrat Ali shared the prophet hood of our Holy Prophet. He refused to answer the question whether a person who, being a Sunni changes his view and agrees with the Shia view, should be guilty of irtidad so as to deserve the death penalty. According to the Shies the Sunis are Kafirs and Ahl-i-Quran, namely Persons who consider hadith to be unreliable and therefore not binding, are unanimously kafirs, and so are the independent thinkers. The net result of all this is that neither Shies nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and who change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim. If the constituents of each of the definitions given by the ulama are given effect to, and subjected to the rule of ``combination and permutation``: the form of charge in the Inquisition’s sentence on Galileo is adopted mutatis muandis as a model, the grounds on which a person maybe indicted for apostasy will be too numerous to count.
In an earlier part of this report we have referred to the proscription of ``Ash-shahab`` , a pamphlet written by Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani who later became Sheikh-ul-islam-i-Pakistan. In that pamphlet the Maulana had attempted to show from the Qur’an, the Sunna, the ijma’ and qayas that in Islam the punishment for apostasy (Irtidad) simplicity is death. After propounding the theological doctrine the Maulana had made in that document a statement of fact that in the time of the Caliph Siddiq-i-Akbar and the subsequent Caliphs vast areas of Arabia became repeatedly red with the blood of apostates. We are not called upon to express any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of this doctrine but knowing that the suggestion to the Punjab Government to proscribe this pamphlet had come from the Minister for the Interior we have attempted to inquire of ourselves the reasons for Government’s taking a step which ex hypothesis amounted to condemning a doctrine which the Maulana had professed to derive from the Qur’an and the sunna. The death penalty for Irtidad has implications of a far-reaching character and stamps Islam as a religion of fanatics, which punishes all independent thinking. The Qur’an again and again lays emphasis on reason and thought, advises toleration and preaches against compulsion in religious matters but the doctrine of Irtidad as enunciated in this pamphlet strikes at the very root of independent thinking when it propounds the view that anyone who, being born a Muslim or having embraced Islam, attempts to think on the subject of religion with a view, if he comes to that conclusion, to choose for himself any religion he likes, has the capital penalty in store for him, With this implication Islam becomes an embodiment of complete intellectual paralysis. And the statement in the pamphlet that vast areas of Arabia were repeatedly bespattered with human blood, it true, could only lend itself to this inference that even when Islam was at the height of its splendor and held absolute sway in Arabia there were in that country a large number of people who turned away from that religion and preferred to die than to remain in that system. it must have been some such reaction of this pamphlet on the mind of the Minister for the Interior, which prompted him to advise the Punjab Government to proscribe the pamphlet. Further the Minister who was himself well-versed in religious matters must have thought that the conclusion drawn by the author of the pamphlet which was principally based on the precedent mentioned in pares. 26,27 and 28 of the Old Testament and which is only partially referred to in the Qur’an in the 54th verse of the Second Sure, could not be applicable to apostasy from Islam and that therefore the author’s opinion was in fact incorrect, there being no express text In the Qur’an for the death penalty for apostasy. On the contrary each of the two ideas, one underlying the six brief verses of Surat-ul-Kafiroon and the other the La lkrah verse of the second Sure, her. merely to be understood to reject as erroneous the view propounded in the ``Ash-Shahab``. Each of the verses in Surat-ul-Kafiroon which contains thirty words and no verse of which exceeds six words, brings out a fundamental trait in man entrained in him since his creation while the La lkrah verse, the relevant portion of which contains only nine words, states the rule of responsibility of the mind with a precision that cannot be surpassed. Both of these texts which are an early part of the Revelation are, individually and collectively, the foundation of that principle which human society, after centuries of conflict, hatred and bloodshed, has adopted in defining one of the most important fundamental rights of man. But our doctors would never dissociate chauvinism from Islam. “
Based on the above, it seems to me that when Gen. Zia decided to implement Nazim-e-Mustafa in Pakistan, he selectively chose to ignore all such Islamic laws, which are controversial and may affect the majority of population in Pakistan. Even in case of minorities who wield considerable power in Pakistan, such as the shia sect, blasphemy laws are not applied with such vigor as they are applied when the minority involved is weak – such as Christian, or Ahmadis.

Section 298-A of blasphemy laws (provided by you) states:

”Use of derogatory remarks, etc..., in respect of holy personages. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles a sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), or any of the righteous caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Shias openly declare some of the sahaabas to be hypocrites who converted to Islam after the fall of Mecca. There are some big names included in the list of sahaabas who are directly or indirectly drawn in, by shias, in the category of hypocrites – Hazrat Ameer Moaviah is one such name. They also dispute the righteousness/spiritual position of first three Caliphs of Islam. They consider them political leaders of Islamic empire rather than successors of Prophet Mohammad (S) in the spiritual sense.
If Section 298-A is applied as vigorously in case of shias as section 295-C or 298-B are applied in case of Christians/Ahmadis, you are looking at imprisoning millions of shias in Pakistan. Why, under the blasphemy laws, not a single shia has ever been charged or indicted and put in jail? I tell you why…because they wield considerable political, and economic power in Pakistan. They are not a weak minority like Christians or Ahmadis. Also Iran, a predominantly shia country has a border with Pakistan, and is big player in regional politics or South Asia/Middle East. No such backing/support is available for poor Christians or Ahmadis.

Urstruly, if the ulemas can’t even agree on a simple definition of a “true Muslim” without declaring each other Kafirs, what moral, ethical, legal, or religious authority do ulemas or Government of Pakistan have to declare Ahmadis (or anybody else for that matter) as Kafirs? How can we have Islamic law in Pakistan without a civil war in which one group/sect has to emerge victorious and the rest would have to live as kafirs?

I may be wrong in my conclusion here, and please do correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that blasphemy laws are nothing more than a political stunt in the name of Nizam-e-Mustafa. Selective implementation of Islamic laws is discriminatory towards weaker minorities, and the purpose of implementing such laws is purely political. I therefore, conclude that blasphemy laws should be repealed.

Re ad (post No. 122) and Urstruly (post No. 126)

Read my post (No. 36) on the Blasphemy Law in England.

Re: Krashid #110

`I have only one problem with Qadiani, whether anybody likes it or not.

There is a consensus among the majority of Muslims that anybody not believing in the finality of prophet PBUH is not Muslim.

They should preach their religion as Qadiani and not Islam.`

Reply:

So in effect what you are saying is that a ``Qadiani/Ahmadi`` should come with a ``LABEL`` on his forehead to protect the innocent, ignorant illiterate, Muslims from contamination. May I suggest a YELLOW STAR be required on all Qadiani

clothing?

I`ve got a newsflash for you, the principle of Freedom of Religion is simple. Either you have it as a right, or you don`t. And there is no compulsion in religion. Just because the majority community does not approve the beliefs of a minority, does not mean they should be able to institutionalize discrimination on that basis. Now, only a fool would assert that the ``Label`` attached to being a Qadiani in Pakistan does not result in discrimination; legal, political & social.

Have you seen the movie Malcolm X? There are several groups of Afro-Americans in the U.S who claim to be ``Muslim``, in fact, i do not personally consider them Muslims (Malcolm X converted to real Islam and was killed by the supporters of Elijah Mohammed who viewed him as a threat), because they accept Elijah Mohammed or some guy from the late 19th century as a prophet as far as i know. But this is just my personal belief. As a group, they don`t fast, they don`t pray 5 times a day, and their leader is a black nationalist called `Minister` Louis Farrakhan, a very racist, and religiously bigoted individual. All sorts of people try to call themselves Muslim here. The Muslims in the U.S cannot stop them, and it has little effect on the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in N.America. If people ask me about those black nationalist groups, i give them my personal opinion that they are not Muslims, thats free speech, and no-one can stop me from my believing that or giving my persona opinion on that. That is all that is required. However, there is no institutional system of legal discriminaytion against them for calling themselves `Muslim`, and there is no mob violence either. But society has also not stopped functioning as a society governed by the rule of law, and tolerance for various religious beliefs, simply because they exist.

Yes, Pakistan will not become a tolerant country overnight, it takes time, afterall we are dealing with the issue of educating an ignorant population, to be able to accept the principle that citizenship is not based on religion, and Zia did enormous damage to Pakistan through his state policies. But removing the Legal Stigma of being a member of the minority religious community is the first required step to start the process. Today, a Christian may not be able to win an election Vs. a Mullah (who would naturally politicize the religious difference and make it an election issue) or even Imran Khan, but i tell you this, if their children are to be able to live/accepted as equals in Pakistan in the forseeable future, this is the way to do it. Gradually it is in the U.S where religious differences are becoming less and less important (See Quaid`s famous Speech about how he expected that in time these differences would cease to matter) in politics, and the first Pakistani-American to do so, has just won the New Hampshire State Republican Primary, and will be contesting the NH State Assembly G.elections on the Republican ticket on Nov 6th.

The issue of his being a Muslim has not been raised by anyone. If anyone tried to raise it, there would be a backlash against his opponent for raising it, its not a legitimate political issue, unlike Pakistan, where the law has made religious bigotry socially acceptable.

O.M

Villager, Omar Mirza etc.

Once there is more justice in the form of rights of all people, minorities will also get benefit.

As long as religion will continue to be used by Rulers in the great tradition of Muslim Empire, the problem will not be solved.

It is simple economics. Putting a sugar mill by a Muslim rather than Qadiani is unIslamic. But taking bribe, taking interest, and in some cases drinking and fornication is Islamic. In such a situation where state apparatus is oppressive for oppressed. Muslim elite in the great tradition of Koran ``Momin are soft on themselves and Hard on enemy`` So they are so soft on themselves to allow every illegality and are really hard on enemy. It turns out that all oppressed people of Pakistan are enemy and all part and parcel of Ruling elite are Momin.

And if there is any problem for them they call even God and Hizbullah (JI) to work for them like ``Charhawa``, ``Quran Khawani`` etc. Where Islam is already copyrighted.

Anyway 50 years have been enough to be fooled by Pakistan ki Nazariati Sarhadain. Now we want bread, education, housing, clothes and a better future for all. If these are unIslamic then experiment with your own version of Islam in a secluded place and leave us alone with our understanding.

Omar #124

.... as a resident Paki Hypocrite, I will gladly give up the vote, the right of equal representation and even the right to walk my dog down broadway if only, oh and if only, they would exempt me from Federal Tax, State Tax, FICA and Medicare Tax and School Tax and Sales Tax and.... and Estate Taxes when I finally leave this horrible world ......... I will pay a 18% Jiziya with a smile on my lips and a song in my heart ...... who cares if you don`t get to send some sleazy politician to cavort with Marion Barry and his stable of washington wenches as long as you can laugh all the way to the bank......... being a pragmatic hypocrite, i can tell the ACLU to take a hike back to Birmingham as long as Massa will let me keep the loot ...... you can always buy a seat in the front of the bus .........

.......... as for the poor Ahmedis, they are really getting screwed by the faithful ..... no tax break, no vote , pushed and shoved around and generally kicked around simply because they want to call thmeselves Muslims ...... it is an absurdity that this feeble mind is unable to fathom ........ what`s the big deal about calling yourself this or that ..... so what if Big Bird calls itself Ernie ? ....... they are both pathetic clowns ........... Madalyn O`Hair where art thou when the world needs another prophet ...... maybe she will star in the second coming !

that should be `three of the minority groups`, not four, sorry about the typo.

dear Urstruly,

as someone close to four of the minority groups in our country (mom and family roman catholic, khala and family hindu,father and family sunni muslim, husband and family shia muslim), i`d be interested in knowing exactly where you found that pragmatic percentage which feels the seperate electorate is the only way to ensure representation in legislature. i`m also impressed at the faith you have in our assemblies and parliments. under the seperate electorate system the actual powers that be (in an assembly) are only interested in those of their companions that can command a huge number of votes (or make an awful lot of noise, like the JUI). because minority members are elected `at large`, say 1 for every 300,000 people, they are generally not even familiar with the problems of those of their constituents that dont live in their area. so even the representation under the seperate electorate accomplishes nothing, except facilitating agitation and alienation amongst their constituents.
i`d love to meet those pragmatic people, maybe i can convince them to talk the various components of my family into not leaving the country. my family is breaking up, any ideas about how we can keep it together?
shandana

RE: Mullah Omar Mirza

If you promise not to shave my head (again) I seek your holiness` permission to say something.
In case you haven`t been in Pakistan for a while, you will be surpised to know that the demand for a separate electorate always comes from the minority circles. There are a majority of people, I would say pragmatic people, in those minorities who understand that the separate electorate is the only way to attain a presentation in legislature. Just try an Ahmadi to run for a seat against Maulana Nourani or Imran Khan in the same electorate-even a pea-brain can tell you what will happen.

Just try telling those minorities (who live in Pakistan)to wait for a joint electorate until Pakistan becomes United States; I guarantee a free haircut for you.

RE: AD

Britian has a Blasphemy Law that protects Christianity and Christ from Blasphemy.

Usually, blasphemy is equated to the right of freedom of speech-in that case a plathora of laws from different countries can be produced if you want.

Could Someone please tell me what the hell is an un-organized religion?

OMAR1974:

Right on! You gonna be a good lawyer!