I Never Really Cared For The Ahmadis…

By Fasi Zaka (Courtesy Express Tribune)

I have never really been vocal about rights for Ahmadis, even privately, but my compassion trigger is easily pulled if there are atrocities against Pakistani Hindus and Christians. Part of this can be ascribed to my belief in the prejudice that the Ahmadis are a relatively well-off community, making the Christians and Hindus of Pakistan uniquely guilty of a double crime, first for not being Muslims and second for being poor. These two communities seem especially vulnerable.

I have changed my mind. And it’s not because of the attack in Lahore that killed so many Ahmadis. The whole country, Muslim and non-Muslim, is under attack by the Taliban.

What really helped me see the inhuman treatment of the Ahmadis in Pakistan is the absence of condemnation for it. Nawaz Sharif in his condolence message said Ahmadis were our brothers; it’s been enough to get the Pakistani religious world on his case. While sympathy is not outlawed for Ahmadis, it may as well be.

Those of us with a passport have declared that “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be an impostor prophet and an infidel and also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori, Qadiani or Mirzai groups, to be non-Muslims.” Most of us do not believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a prophet, but do we have to rub it in? Imagine if the UK put in that sort of column for a prophet of another faith.

We have declared not just that we don’t believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but added the connotation that he was an imposter. People who follow imposters must be crooks, right? Let’s stop the pretence that they are equal, or human.

But no, we are a peaceful people, right? Of course we are. I read a very poignant anecdote in columnist Mosharraf Zaidi’s article recently; he described how an old friend would never say salaam to him in return. His friend is an Ahmadi, he can go to jail for that. I cringe when I see Pakistanis stumbling over one another to felicitate a white westerner who chooses to say salaam when greeting us in our country. Why not put him in jail too? He could be an atheist, whereas at least the Ahmadis believe in the oneness of God.

But, you see it’s not about that. Ahmadis are a secretive people up to no good. They won’t even tell you they are Ahmadis. But who wouldn’t be secretive if they could go to jail for saying they are Muslim, or responding in kind to a salutation of salaam. Or for that matter having a Quran in their home, the same kind you and I have.

Sunnis don’t believe in the imam of the Shias. What about Barelvis and Bohris? Its time their special treatment ended. If anything we have been too moderate. We need to cut diplomatic relations with Indonesia because they refuse to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim as it may open a Pandora’s Box of declaring other groups the same. Why is the amir of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Munawar Hassan, silent on this? He could address this diplomatic issue, after all he did want to cut off diplomatic relations with many countries over the Facebook fiasco.

Pakistani Ahmadis aren’t allowed to go for Hajj, but Ahmadis from other countries are. Maybe we should cut off relations with Saudi Arabia too. Also, since we Muslims believe in equality, I would suggest all non-Muslim countries make it mandatory that we wear special collars to identify us as Muslim when we visit. Or is that going too far since we haven’t, obviously, in the case of the Ahmadis?

The truth is the bulk of this country doesn’t like Ahmadis. They are Pakistan’s Palestinians. Their humane treatment and acceptance
will decide whether we are a people who can move forward in the future, or if we will become a fragmented warlord state divided on sectarian lines.

And yes, Ahmadis are worse off in Pakistan than Christians and Hindus. We want to forcibly convert Christians and Hindus. But Ahmadis shouldn’t exist. Period.

Published in the Express Tribune, June 15th, 2010.

117 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

117 responses to “I Never Really Cared For The Ahmadis…

  1. m ali3

    A GREAT COLUMN!

    THIS COLUMN APPLIES TO ALL THOSE WHO DECLARED RECITERS OF KALIMA-SHAHADA AS KAFFIR, OR PROHIBITED THEIR FOLLOWERS TO OFFER FUNERAL PRAYERS OF THOSE MUSLIMS WHO HOLD BELIEF THAT HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD SAWS WAS THE LAST MESSANGER OF ALLAH SWT.

  2. yasserlatifhamdani

    Predicament of Lahori jamaat is particularly cruel m ali because it may be that you guys instigated the whole thing against qadiani jamaat and ended up losing your own Muslim status.

  3. skyview

    Finalism leads unavoidably to totalitarianism and fascism.

    Holding someone or something as uncriticizable or final leads to totalitarianism and fascism.

    Pakistan is proving this.

  4. m ali3

    Dear YLH:
    Brother, you need to read Lahori-Ahmadi blog
    ‘Mujib-ur-Rahman’s statement on MTA about janaza prayers’
    To know the truth yourself.
    In my next post i will post URL to blog.
    I think fairness expects from you THE BOLD AND HONEST LAWYER (i mean it) to let the accused answer. So, please let through the link to ‘Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement-UK’ blog.
    Thanks.

  5. Bin Ismail

    Let’s get these things straight, for once and forever:

    1. The word “kufr” means denial. It is the antonym of “eeman”, which means “faith”. It is not the antonym of “Islam” which means ‘submission’. Ahmadis do not and have never declared that they take non-Ahmadi kalima-reciters to be “non-Muslim”. They argue that since non-Ahmadis themselves admit that they deny Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian as the Promised Mahdi, therefore it should be rational to assert that non-Ahmadis are the “kafirs of the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian”. In asserting this, Ahmadis essentially limit the “state of kufr” or “denial” of the non-Ahmadis to the “confines of the claim of Ahmad of Qadian”. In contrast, when non-Ahmadis describe the “state of kufr” or denial of the Ahmadis, they contend that Ahmadis are kafirs in a total sense – in other words “kafirs of all the articles of faith”.

    In short, Ahmadis consider anyone who calls himself a Muslim, a Muslim. And if this Muslim, incidentally happens to deny the claim of Ahmad of Qadian, Ahmadis continue to view him as a Muslim, a Muslim who is a “kafir of the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian”.

    2. Congregational prayer is not a social activity, it’s a spiritual one. It makes absolutely no sense to engage in a congregational service of worship led by someone who openly declares you an infidel.

    Zafrulla Khan did not join in the congregational janaza prayers of Jinnah, because the gentleman leading these prayers had openly issued a fatwa that Zafrulla Khan was a non-Muslim and wajib-ul qatl [worthy of being put to death]. The issue at hand was not that it was Jinnah’s janaza. The issue at hand was that the janaza prayers of Jinnah were being led by Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, who had openly declared Zafrulla Khan a non-Muslim and wajib-ul qatl.

    3. Ahmadis beleive that Muhammad Rasoolullah was indeed the “last” prophet, and in precisely the same sense as the Holy Prophet called himself the “last prophet”.

  6. OMLK

    ylh

    The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement instigated nothing against the Qadiani Ahmadis. If you know of any specific instigation please let us know. In fact, that the Lahori Ahmadis also got delcared as Non-Muslims just shows that the issue was more political than theological and that the Mullahs are also afraid of the moderate interpratation of Islam (which cuts the power of clergy and empasizes the personal spiritual upliftment of each Muslim) put forward by the Ahmadis (both factions).

    Yes, the Lahore Ahmadiyya did split away from the Qadiani Ahmadis because some very close companions of HMGA thought that the message of HMGA was being corrupted by raising him to Prophethood and calling non-Ahmadis Kafirs. The Lahore Ahmadiyya thinks that calling other Muslims Kafirs, if they hold a differant interpretation of Islam, is a despicable practice, and both the Mullahs and the Qadiani Ahmadis are guilty of this.

    I do think that implying that the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement instigated 1974 is proposterous. You need to retract this statement or show you have information which supports this contention. I know you used the words “may be”, but as a persecuted community with 2nd class citizen rights who are routinely accused of conspiring against Islam and Pakistan, we can do without this new accusation, even if it is only being hinted at.

  7. Farah

    Pakistanis keep their religious sensibilities a bit too seriously. The world is passing us by, while we fight over to whom to say salam.

  8. OMLK

    The admin has allowed the post by Bin Ismail which discusses theological points about kufr and the Qadiani Ahmadi position, and in my view contains some mis-statements. Does this mean such points can be discussed on this forum?

  9. bciv

    @bin ismail

    you are quite right. sir zafrulla khan did not hide what he did and he was absolutely justified, as a religious muslim himself, in refusing to say any kind of prayers behind a man who not only considered him to be a non-muslim but was the kind who create such trouble that leads to anarchy (as we are now witnessing).

    It got me thinking about the fact that no muslim member of the CA had opposed the OR, not 6 months after Jinnah’s funeral. This included leftists like Mian Iftikharuddin and a very able jurist like Sir Zafrulla, amongst others. Indeed, Sir Zafrulla knew better than many others what havoc the mullah can wreak if given the slightest opportunity. yet he was the OR’s strongest advocate. he went as far as to say that imagining politics and religion exist in different spheres is a ‘folly’. this, within 18 months of the inaugural speech to the CA.

    yet, not a single non-muslim member was convinced. indeed, many insisted that the OR could not have been even moved had jinnah been alive. perhaps, they knew and understood him better than the muslim members and sincerely held on to the clear agenda of his inaugural and defining speech to those whose job it was to give the country its constitution.

  10. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mian Iftikharuddin had voted against Objectives Resolution.

  11. bciv

    @YLH

    i thought that had been the case, but wasn’t sure. i was following kunwar idrees’ recent editorial in Dawn: “In the debate on the Objectives Resolution, no Muslim member saw any such conflict — not even Mian Iftikharuddin who was an avowed socialist. He thought the resolution “offered to the world an alternative system of a society based on social justice”.”

    i should have checked whether he voted in favour or not. sorry

  12. yasserlatifhamdani

    His reasoning was not the same as Hindu legislators. But he voted against it.

  13. navanavonmilita

    Salam Aleykum,

    I am a Hindu. That itself says that I should not express my opinions on this issue. It seems, Pakistani Muslims have taken upon themselves to be the sole defenders of Islam. Hope you are wrong.

    I was born in a small town called Nashik. It was a one horse town, when I was growing. Religion was that one horse.

    However, the history of that small town was bequeathed with true or concocted legends. Hindu god, Rama, a mythological character in Ramayana, spent fourteen rears on the north side of river Godawari at a place called Panchvati.

    In recent history, Muslims ruled Nashik and changed its name to “Gulshnabad.” Many Mughal princes not only visited Nashik but loved it.

    Due to this Muslim rule, many areas were Muslim dominated. There were Shias, we called them Bohras, Sunnis, Ahmedis, we called them Khojas.

    Our Brahmin lane abutted with Muslim neghborhood, variously called Mominpura, Kazipura, Bagbanpura, Koshtipura, Weavers Lane, Khatikpura, Meat Vendor Lane so on and so forth.

    We got around very well with all these Muslim communities and had mutual respect for each other’s way of life and unique religious rituals and festivals.

    Right near our house, around the corner, was a famous Durgah of Muslim fakir. It was a tiny affair at that time. They used to have an annual fair, Urs, to celebrate his birth.

    It was a grand affair for me. We all kids in the neighborhood would enjoy all kinds of magical shows, joy rides, fancy snacks, toys and musical renderings, spiritual songs sung acapella by visiting devotees.

    I have heard melodious tunes by famous “Qawali” singers imported from Bombay. If I am not mistaken, from north Indian towns as well. Many Lakhnavis, Moradabadis, Dehalavis, Barelvis and Bhopalis came to entertain.

    Later in my life, I came in close contact with all sorts of Muslims, as described above. Made friends with them, playd with them, studied and worked with them as well. They are all wonderful people.

    I was closely associated with one very brilliant Khoja/Ahmedi. Mohamed Ali. He was only ten years older than me. He was a pioneer, in a sense.

    He developed a Muslim ghetto in Sewri/Shivdi in Bombay. Established a machine tool shop and scrap yard. Offered good paying jobs to hundreds of poor Muslims of the slum, irrespective of their sectarian affiliations.

    He was very proud of Islam and made a holy pilgrimage to mecca. Unfortunately, Mohamedali, died at the age of thirty-five. A great blow to the community he helped and to me personally.

    He was my Guru. His guru, Aga Khan, subsequently, becomes my Guru.

    You see the point I am making? Quit hating other sects of Islam and live happily with each other, you Pakistani idiots.

    …and I am Sid Harth

  14. Syed

    @BCIV

    “he went as far as to say that imagining politics and religion exist in different spheres is a ‘folly’”.

    I can think of two reasons for assigning in the Objective Resolution of 1949 a specific role for Islam:

    1. The purpose of religion is to influence human behaviour to achieve a moral and ethical grounding. Politics is one area of human activity which is in dire need of ethics and values. I think Sir Zafrulla’s purpose was simply to enable Islamic values such as honesty and fairness to be inculcated in the realm of Pakistani politics rather than to wed it to specfic strains of theology.

    2. No one (including Sir Zafrulla or Liaqat Ali Khan) could have imagined that hate and bigotry would be promoted in the name of religion to such an extent in Pakistan. In 1949 the linkage between Objective Resolution and the modern day religious extremism could not have been conceived. Certainly, these gentlemen could not have imagined that opponents of Pakistan like the Ahrar (or present day Khatum-i-Nabuwat group), Jamaat-i-Islami or Jamiat-i-Ulema-Islam would come to occupy the helm of affairs in Pakistan and represent Islam for legal purposes.
    I would imagine that their goal was simply in line with what Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan did a century earlier in establishing a Muslim university – not for a sectarian purpose but for the general uplift of Muslims of India.

  15. bciv

    @Syed

    1. although one could point out the danger of calling things ‘Islamic’ values when they are universal, and indeed this danger and the message it gave was pointed out within the CA[#], but i see what you are trying to say.

    2. i was surprised to see sir zafrulla khan’s naivete in this. not only because he was an excellent jurist but because he had seen the worst of mullahdom as a recipient. after all, the mullah leading jinnah’s janaza was not just the maulvi of the local masjid. he had already demanded that all important positions in pakistan be reserved for muslims (and he did not consider sir zafrulla to be a muslim, and hence the later agitation for his removal from office). indeed, the drafters of the OR seemed to have picked passages up almost directly from maudoodi’s speech at lahore’s law college (feb 1948?). this whole business of sovereignty/vice-regency is quintessential maudoodi.

    a university is not a state. a state is too powerful an entity to be handled with anything less than extreme care and responsibility, by those wielding any power to lead or direct it. all muslim members, LAK included, failed in this duty. Mian iftikharudin was the only exception, as YLH corrected me.

    # (from a cowasjee article from last month): The most ominous words spoken that March day when the resolution was passed by the constituent assembly were spoken by Hindu citizen of Pakistan, Sri Chattopadhyay, who represented 25 per cent of the then East Pakistan population.

    “I do not consider myself as a member of the minority community. I consider myself as one of seven crores of Pakistanis. Let me retain that privilege.”

    “I sadly remind myself of the great words of the Quaid-i-Azam that in state affairs the Hindu will cease to be a Hindu; the Muslim shall cease to be a Muslim. But alas, so soon after his demise what you do is that you virtually declare a state religion.”

    “You could not get over the old world way of thinking. What I hear in this resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan — the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the prime minister of Pakistan, the honourable Mr Liaquat Ali Khan but of the ulemas of the land.”

    “This resolution in its present form epitomises that spirit of reaction. That spirit will not remain confined to the precincts of this house. It will send its waves to the countryside as well. I have been passing sleepless nights pondering what shall I now tell my people whom I have so long been advising to stick to the land of their birth.”

    “And on the top of this all, by this resolution you condemn them to a perpetual state of inferiority. A thick curtain is drawn against all rays of hope, all prospects of an honourable life. After this what advice shall I tender? What heart can I have to persuade the people to maintain a stout heart?”

    The waves indeed swept through the country, the first manifestations of intolerance, bigotry and their accompanying violence coming in 1953 with the anti-Ahmadi riots in Punjab. The rot grew and was given full impetus in 1977 when socialist democrat Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (who throughout his life showed few signs of fanatic zealotry) miserably surrendered to the mullah fraternity in the hope that he could cling on to a fast disappearing power seat. From then on, with the advent of Gen Ziaul Haq and his particular brand of religion, the descent has been swift.

  16. yasserlatifhamdani

    Bciv…

    Zafrulla’s speech in defence of Objectives Resolution is one of the great ironies of history….

    His vision of Islam however was totally different … I read his book “Human Rights in Islam” and it is clear to me that the vision of Islam he had is one that can never be shared by any Mullah.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  17. Ally

    the only way we are going to solve religious issues is if we remove religion from politics… and become secular… that is the ONLY solution for Pak now!!!

  18. m ali3

    @Bin Ismail:

    LET’S CUT TO THE CASE

    “In short, Ahmadis consider anyone who calls himself a Muslim, a Muslim. And if this Muslim, incidentally happens to deny the claim of Ahmad of Qadian, Ahmadis continue to view him as a Muslim, a Muslim who is a “kafir of the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian””.

    IF this is true then why you people consider Lahori-Ahmadis as ‘MURTAD’ (heretic)???

    “Ahmadis beleive that Muhammad Rasoolullah was indeed the “last” prophet, and in precisely the same sense as the Holy Prophet called himself the “last prophet””.

    Are you intentionally making changes in beliefs and practices of Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Qadiani Jamaat practices???

    Reference to Qadiani beliefs and practices. They are at least until this moment available on Qadianis official main website:
    Anwar-I Khilafat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
    Page 93 of original edition and page 150-151 of online edition.

    A’inah-I Sadaqat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
    Page 86 of original edition, and page 151 of online edition.

    Musalman Wohi Hay Jo Saab Mamoron Ko Many by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
    Page 3 and 4 of pdf format online edition.

    Kalma-Tul-Fasal by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (younger brother of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad)
    Just read the first few pages.

    It is very interesting to witness prediction of Maulana Muhammad Ali Ameer of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement coming true. He said repeatedly from 1914 on wards, when Ahmadia Movement of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (HMGAQ) split: Circumstances will force Qadianis to change their beliefs and come to correct beliefs about HMGAQ as held by Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, regarding status of HMGAQ and General Muslims.

    I am glad to see Qadianis have started pondering on changing their beliefs. The first step they are taking is to “convince” Muslims that we don’t consider you non-Muslims (Kaffir). Although Qadianis are LYING, and they are falling short of accepting it.
    Still I’m glad they are taking some little steps. In coming years current Qadianis like Bin Islamil and their next generation will be more bold and honest in accepting MISTAKES of Qadiani elders i.e. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Mirza Bashir Ahmad, Mirza Nasir Ahmad,
    Mirza Tahir Ahmad etc.

  19. Menin Rodrigues

    Goans in Pakistan, the small community which made a big difference

    GOANS in Karachi before and after Independence of Pakistan — and their impact on lifestyle has run deep and long.If there was rhythm, colour and distinction associated to lifestyle in the Pakistan of 1950s, 60s and 70s, it came in part from the magnanimous contribution of the miniscule Goan
    community of Karachi. It made a real difference, setting precedents for today’s gurus in music, sports and fashion.
    These enterprising people from the tiny region of Goa, along the west coast of South Asia and of pre-partition India, have been living and working in Karachi, then a prospering fishing village, since the mid-19th century.
    Goans continue to live in Karachi today, about 5,000 odd, but are relatively quiescent. Up to Independence and a decade or two later, this hard-working community played an influential
    role in the city’s growing prominence as a major seaport, business hub and a stylish cosmopolitan metropolis — a sister-city to Bombay and a match to London’s grandeur! The many landmarks, now forlorn and almost forgotten, are testimony of the city’s eminence.
    PREAMBLE: The magnificent sandstone-building of the Karachi Goan Association (1886) requisitioned for two years as a Senior Officers Club during World War II and which also played host to the Duke of Windsor then Prince of Wales and the First Governor of the Province of Sind; the legendary portals of St. Patrick’s High School (1862) and St. Joseph’s Convent (1861) and the elite mansions, palatial houses, clubs, pubs, discotheques, gourmets,bakeries, theatres, ‘koors’ and gymkhanas in upscale Saddar; were the epicenters of all music,cultural and sporting activities of Goan-life.
    From the historic hockey defeat inflicted on Bhopal Wanderers (comprising of several players from India’s gold-medal team of the 1936 Berlin Olympics) by the mostly-Goan school-boys team of St. Patrick, to the securing of Pakistan’s railway
    lines in 1947 by Frank D’Souza (Member, Indian Railways Board) on the request of the Quaid-e-Azam; and from Archbishop Joseph Cordeiro becoming Pakistan’s first Roman-Catholic Cardinal to the staging of Karachi’s first
    Gilbert and O’Sullivan musical operas in the 1950s; are just a few milestones etched with Goan livery and legacy that will remain part of Pakistan’s and Karachi’s untold history.
    When on May 31, 1935 at 1.30 a.m., the great Quetta earthquake killed 75,000 people with one big jolt; a Goan Manuel Mendes working on the Sukkur Barrage Scheme was given charge of clearing the city of debris and corpses with teams of over 400 sappers and miners. He did it with dedication, determination and distinction.
    The delicious ceremonious cake made on the occasion of Karachi’s first civic reception on August 25, 1947 in honor of Quaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah, Governor-General of
    Pakistan Dominion, was prepared and baked at the famed P.F. Pereira & Sons, Bakers & Confectioners (Estb: 1922). The other top Goan bakers of that time included the Misquita
    (famous for its hot-cross buns, still in operation as its brand name survives) and Lawrence bakery, respectively.
    When Pakistan came into being in 1947, the prominence of Goans was evident from the fact that one of Karachi’s first elected Mayors was Manuel Misquita; it was a time when the city’s judiciary (C.M. Lobo and brothers Edward and Herman Raymond as Judges of the High Court), the armed forces (see below), municipality, police (see below), customs (Cincinnatus D’Abreo as Collector Customs), telegraphs, hospitals, educational institutions, the port trust, railways
    and the world of music, sports and fashion, were without an iota of doubt, ruled by this highly educated, talented and law-abiding community. In 1952, Noel Misquita became the first Pakistani student at the Harvard Business School.
    The Garden East in Karachi today was ‘officially’ the old ‘Cincinnatus Town’ but unfortunately not registered at the municipality. The roads and streets of this amazingly green locality with
    stately mansions with airy verandas and sprawling
    gardens are still known by the names of Goans who built it e.g. Britto Road, D’Cruz Road, Pedro D’Souza Road, D’Abreo Street, Edward Street. etcetera. GRE today is a concrete jungle of apartment blocks.
    Men who served the Pakistan armed forces with honour and distinction were Colonel Eric Cardoza, Lt. Col. David DeSouza, Major Joseph Lobo, Major Kenneth Cardoza, Cdr. Stanislaus DeSouza, Cdr. Arthur Cardoza, Lt. Cdr. Phillip Menezes, Air Commodore Charles Zuzart, Air Commodore Arthur Zuzart and Flt. Lt. Reginald Nazareth. Flt. Lt Rudy D’Souza was in-charge of the combined Armed Forces Band.
    The Police force included Walter Rodrigues, Tony Rodrigues, Cyril de Souza (SP and formerly Principal of the Police Training School, Shadadpur), Eric Mendonca (SP), Cyril Almeida (Karachi’s famous SP Traffic), Anthony Franco, Ronald de Souza, Martin D’Souza, William Monteiro and Eddie Martyres (who at the request of the Pakistan government, wrote ‘The History of the Hurs’).
    There are no Goans in Pakistan’s armed forces or the Police anymore.
    MUSIC: It is 1947, Pakistan is born and we don’t
    have a national anthem! But by 1953 — imagine a country without an anthem for six years! — there
    is sufficient information, evidence and conviction among the Goan community that the musical score of the national anthem of Pakistan, officially
    attributed to the well-known Ahmad Chagla, is
    seemingly the work of the classical/Gregorian music genius Tolentine Fonseca, a master Karachi music composer of very high distinction. The national anthem of Pakistan is one the finest in the world and soothing to the ear when its musical score is read and played correctly by a complete military band repertoire.
    Goans and music go hand-in-hand, it comes naturally to them. In the early years, having a piano in the house (bought from Pakistan’s only known piano store, Hayd’s on Elphi, owned by a Goan), playing in the legendary brass band of St. Patrick’s School where reading music was essential to playing an instrument; and being part of bands that thrived in numerous night-clubs and discotheques, made Goans the most-wanted musicians in those days.
    The 1940s and 1950s were the golden period of Goan contribution to classical, jazz and blues music in Pakistan. The musicals and operettas produced by these geniuses were of a very high standard. These included the Gilbert and O’Sullivan Musicals; the Mikado (music by J. Vincent Lobo and directed by Teresa/Trixie D’Abreo); Gondoliers (music by Charlie Lobo), and Trial by Jury, Pirates of Penzance (music
    by Prof. Terrence D’Souza), Iolanthe and the HMS Pinafore. All of these famed Savoy operas were held at the KGA Hall, which also boasted of having one of Karachi’s largest all-wooden floors for ball-room dancing.
    On the other hand, the St. Patrick’s Dramatics Society (SPDS) under the direction of the late Fr. Tony Lobo, produced such wonderful plays as A Man for All Seasons, Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians, The Mousetrap, The Happiest Days of our
    Lives, Dry Rot, House on the Lake and Cinderella — a tradition which carries on to this day at St. Pat’s but more suggestive of its glorious past at the Karachi Grammar School (Primary), thanks to headmistress Norma Fernandes (now retired), who acted in some of the SPDS plays in the 1950s.
    Later in the mid-70s, Pakistan also had the unique
    distinction of having produced the world’s most recognized musical ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ in Karachi with Bobby Fredrick in the lead role, Victoria de Souza as Mary Magdalene and the brilliant Arthur Turner as Judas. Macbeth,
    a satire, was another blockbuster stage production in 1976 directed by Walter D’Souza and with Clare Braganza in the lead role of Lady Macbeth.
    Among the most outstanding music teachers in 1950s and 1960s were Prof. F.X. Fernandes (it is believed that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan sent his sons for music lessons here), Max
    Sequeira, Rozario Fernandes, Patricia Duarte (her family built the majestic Duarte Mansion in Saddar) and Prof. Terrance D’Souza (who’s father Prof Leo D’Souza was the principal of D.J. Science College).
    These maestros taught music, both in theory and
    practice, and were renowned for their mastery and
    talent. Among the trained voices of that era were sopranos Carol & Winnie Lobo (also referred as the Nightingales of Karachi); the indomitable Phyllis Rodrigues; altos Madge Sequeira, Eugene D’Souza, Theresa Raymond, Hilda Freitas, Esther Menezes; and the basses Vincent Lobo, John Sequeira and NevilleD’Sa. Today, Austin Freitas, the baritone par excellence, is an accomplished vocalist.
    The best jazz and blues band of the late 1940s and 1950s was the ‘Janu Vaz Band’ with a full range of saxophone, trombone, trumpet, clarinet, double-bass and the percussion’s.
    The crave for club bands started early in the 1950s with the virtuosity of master-musicians such as saxophonists Alex Rodrigues and Don Gonsalves; several trumpeters, double-bassist David William and drummers Basil and Rudy D’Souza. The Felix Carvalho Trio (father and sons Chris and Tony) were musicians of exceptional talent, all readers and players of classical and jazz pieces.
    The trend encouraged the formation of the ‘Rocket’ in the late 1950s with Mark Fernandes, trumpet; Rudy Wilson, guitar; Sabby Vaz, accordion and Malcolm D’Souza, drums; and in early 1960s by the ‘Drifters’ with Peter Paul Fernandes, Manuel Fernandes, Ronnie Rangel (Popat Lal) and Edward Mendes playing at the Taj Hotel Cabaret.
    One of the first Pakistani popular musicians to have made a mark and pioneered the trend that has set in today was NormanD’Souza. His band, the ‘Talismen’ (comprising Norman,brothers Norbert and Hilary Furtado, Martin Fernandes and
    Julius Saldanha) was the first Pakistani band to have won an international contract to play in world-class discotheques in Singapore and Malaysia in 1974, where even the world heavyweight champion Joe Frasier once came to listen and dance to the sensational music of the Talismen. Norman was also the first Pakistani pop musician to have been interviewed ‘live’ on the famous Zia Mohiuddin Show on TV in the 1970s.
    Goan musicians who have played a significant role in providing backup music to the resounding success of crooners Alamgir and Mohammad Ali Sheikhi have been the saxophonists Alex Rodrigues, Don Gonsalves and Hilary Furtado and of course drummer Richie D’Souza.

    In latter years, the 1990s when Junoon made it big,marketing itself as a three-piece rock band (Salman Ahmed, Ali Azmat and Brian O’Donnell) it was the back-up drumming of the nimble Malcolm Goveas which contributed to the band’s huge success, locally and internationally.

    Another well-known Goan today is Roland de Souza, of NGO-Shehri fame, an electrical engineer who justifiably advocates the plentiful wrongs in Karachi’s urban planning and other civic issues. Incidentally, Roland is a skillful pianist and guitarist of high caliber, now devoting his
    talent to the St. Lawrence’s Church senior choir.
    Goan women were not far behind in pioneering trends in music in the 60s and 70s, with the Xavier
    Sisters becoming the first Pakistani all-women band to perform to live audiences, including stints on Radio Pakistan. Then there were Cesca Domingo, the vocalist and the versatile Hilda Pereira, considered among the first woman guitarists of thecountry.
    Goan musicians who dominated the popular music scene from the 1950s to the 1980s/90s can be classified in four decades.
    In the first decade from 1950 to 1960, the prominent band groups were the Carvalho Trio, Janu Vaz Band, Soares Brothers and Rockets; in the second decade from 1960 to 1970 there were Drifters, Keynotes, Moon-Glows and In-Crowd; in the third decade from 1970 to 1980 there were Talismen, Blackjacks, Dad’s Gratitude, X-periments, Communications, Underground-4, Axe-Attack and Vision and 1990 onwards, which
    produced individual talents such as Keith Venantius (Barbarians), Candy Pereira (Milestones), Louis (Gumby) Pinto and others. The latter (Gumby) is a celebrity drummer in
    Pakistan today.
    SPORTS: The five hockey players whose names will standout as legends in their own right in
    pre-partition India were Goan boys from Karachi.
    Lawrie Fernandes, Pat Mendes, Julius Tellis,
    Marceline D’Costa and P.P. Fernandes (Olympian) who on their day, were far superior to the famed Dyan Chand.
    These spectacular hockey wizards masterminded St. Patrick’s School team winning several major hockey tournaments played in India, including the Beyton Cup, The Cabral Shield, Yousuf Ali Tournament, Aga Khan Cup and other trophies.
    A number of Goans have represented Pakistan and contributed to sports with unique distinction since 1947. The well-known personality of O.B. Nazareth was dominant; he drafted the constitution of the Hockey Federation; was the first Secretary of PHF and the Co-Manager of the country’s hockey
    team to the London Olympics in 1948.

    Milton D’Mello was also in the London squad. Another brilliant Goan forward was Jack Britto who donned the green shirt at the Helsinki Olympics of 1952.
    In cricket, Mathais Wallis and Antao D’Souza played test cricket for Pakistan and brought many laurels for the country. Wallis was recognized as having the “safest pair of hands” by none other than the great Sir Garfield Sobers and considered to be the best slip fielder Pakistan ever produced.
    Wallis played 21 test matches for Pakistan and some his historic performances include his match-winning innings of 64 & 45 runs against the mighty West Indies in the Dacca (Dhaka,
    Bangladesh) Test of 1959. He also gave valuable support to Hanif Mohammad’s marathon (world record) innings of 337 runs at Port of Spain in 1958; and scored a century when Hanif played his world-record first-class innings of 499 runs at
    the KPI ground in Karachi in the 60s. He also served as a national cricket selector and was the captain of the National Bank of Pakistan team.
    Michael Rodrigues, now an orthopedic surgeon in the US was a five-time national table tennis champion of Pakistan in the early 1960s, while in badminton, the lanky Mennen Soares played for Pakistan in the Thomas Cup World Championships in late 1950s.
    Later in 1987, the tactical Lenny Dias represented Pakistan at the Asian Billiard Championship in Bombay, and in 1988, teenager Earl Cordeiro won the first Pakistan National Junior Snooker Championship. High Jumper Michael Gomes, sprinter Paul Francis, hockey players Terrence Andrade, Evarist D’Souza and Victor D’Lima all played for the Karachi teams in the national championships. A mention must be made of John
    Permal’s supremacy as Pakistan’s champion sprinter for ten long years (1964 to 1974) — though like others mentioned in this piece he was not a Goan.
    In the domain of track & field athletics in the 60s and 70s, Goan girls were very swift and went on to win the titles of “fastest women in Pakistan” (West and East wings) several times in a row, these included, Sophie Fernandes, Delores
    Almeida, Rosie D’Lima and Sylvia D’Mello; and in latter years Cheryl Lucas. In badminton, the fleet-footed Coral Barboza was crowned the national champion in 1974, and in table tennis Yvonne Fernandes played several national tournaments.
    FASHION: The gentry who are now in the age group of 50s, 60s and 70s will probably recall names like Jack Braganza, Colin D’Souza and Dominic Fernandes as tailors and outfitters of exceptional quality.Jack in particular was tremendously popular and his large, trendy and welcoming store on the intersection of Sommerset Street in Saddar was forever busy with the gliterati and who’s who’s of Karachi, all clamoring to get into suits made byJack’s cut.
    As far as fashion statements were concerned tall, sleek and beautiful Goan damsels, notably Marilyn Pereira (whose father was the Trade Commissioner for Portugal in Pakistan) sported
    everything from the mini, midi and maxi skirts of the 70s, including various combinations of jeans and tops. They were also the first set of local models that did Pakistan’s first black-n-white TV commercials.
    When it came to formal wear, glamorous gowns were a hit at the numerous Balls held at the KGA, the Beach Luxury, the Loco, Metropole, Boat Club and at the residences of the ambassadors and later consuls-general. Ballroom dancing, including the Waltzes, Fox Trot, Tango, Rock & Roll, Cha-Cha-Cha, the Twist and later the Hustle, were a fad and every Goan boy and girl did it with grace and in style!
    I am told most of Karachi’s historical moments werecaptured through the lens of that famous and prominent Karachi photographer, the late I.
    Sequeira who would probably have a treasure trove
    of pictures. It would be appreciated if anyone in possession of some old pictures would like to share it with me for archiving them as part of Pakistan/Karachi’s history.

    CONCLUSION: The Goan community of Karachi gave Pakistan its first taste of world-class contemporary music, classical, jazz, the blues and pop; it gave the country some of its most eminent personalities, renowned sporting heroes and national champions, and lastly dictated a lifestyle that transcended into the culmination of what we see today — the reincarnation of Karachi of yester years.

    It is unprecedented in world history how a small community of people could wield so much influence in a country of their adoption, before and after its independence. If it was the philanthropy of the Parsis which gave Karachi its glorious landmarks, it was the Goans’ cultural way of life and abundance of talent that won a ‘special’ place for them in the history of the country — which regrettably, is all but forgotten.
    Note: This piece was originally scripted for the prominent Karachi newspaper The Dawn. I would like to thank all people with whom I made contact with to derive the information stated above, in the hope that it is accurate and factual.

    The purpose of this article is to record historical facts and archive contributions made by Goans in Pakistan for the benefit of future Catholic generations here and in all parts of the world. If you would like to share information or clarify on some information noted, you are welcome to write to me at men…@gmail.com

    About the Author: Menin Rodrigues is a businessman in Pakistan, he is a Member of the Pastoral Council of the Archdiocese of Karachi, Member of the Board of Governors of St. Patrick’s and St. Joseph’s Colleges, and in his spare time researches, collates and writes about the past, present and future of Catholics/ Goans in Pakistan.

  20. Bin Ismail

    @ OMLK (June 16, 2010 at 5:15 pm)

    What you perceive as mis-statements on my part, may well be misconceptions on your part.

    @ bciv (June 16, 2010 at 5:53 pm)

    1. “…..Indeed, Sir Zafrulla knew better than many others what havoc the mullah can wreak if given the slightest opportunity. yet he was the OR’s strongest advocate…..”

    Sir Zafrulla Khan was less keen to advocate the Objectives Resolution and more bent upon defending Islam against the allegation that it marginalizes non-Muslims. This allegation against the religion of Islam was by no means a new one. At that point in time, it was rejuvenated in the form of an apprehension that Islam does not uphold the rights of non-Muslims. The crux of Zafrulla Khan’s argument was that Islam defends the rights of non-Muslims. Hence any constitution based truly on the principles of Islam would only protect the rights of non-Muslims. The defense he put up was not for the Resolution per se, but for Islam.

    2. “…..perhaps, they knew and understood him better than the muslim members and sincerely held on to the clear agenda of his inaugural and defining speech to those whose job it was to give the country its constitution…..”

    The words of Sri Chattopadhyay do indeed reflect a deep insight into Jinnah’s agenda. Zafrulla Khan had no less an insight, but was committed also to allaying any apprehensions people might have had regarding Islam.

    @navanavonmilitia (June 16, 2010 at 7:52 pm)

    Wa alaikum assalam. The fact that your late friend Mohamed Ali’s guru was Agha Khan, suggests that he was an Ismaili, not an Ahmadi. Your basic point about religious tolerance and mutual respect is in any case undeniably correct.

  21. swapnavasavdutta

    If Pakistan was going to be secular, where did the
    question of Islam defending the rights of non-Muslims come from?

  22. bciv

    @Bin Ismail

    Hence any constitution based truly on the principles of Islam would only protect the rights of non-Muslims

    … and therefore would make sure there is no mention of the word islam in the constitution (or its preamble).

  23. swapnavasavdutta

    And who would determine/decide/certify “truly
    on the principles of Islam” ?
    Whose Islam?

  24. swapnavasavdutta

    And why just principles of Islam? Why not,
    for example, Bible, Geeta, Guru Granth Sahib?
    Pakistan was not meant exclusively for Mulsims!

  25. bciv

    @swapna

    the inspiration for equality and secularism could indeed have come from any religion or other source, including science and reason.. and any combination or all of these sources. the issue is indeed claiming one source’s monopoly, exclusivity or superiority over others, or failing to prevent that impression being given – intentionally or unintentionally. that is why, a constitution cannot and must not mention a specific religion or person. it defeats the whole concept of a constitution being above all discrimination or appearance of discrimination.

    science/reason would of course be an exception since it forms no part of any one’s identity and is acceptable to (almost) all as objectively neutral. not that there could be any conceivable reason for discussing justification and legal theory within a law/constitution itself.

  26. bciv

    … there could be a case for positive discrimination, in case of a historic and continuing disadvantage against a specific people (or gender), but one would hope that such a measure would be temporary while every effort is made to redress the imbalance.

  27. swapnavasavdutta

    bciv, indeed, aptly put.

  28. swapnavasavdutta

    bciv, correct, and that is why Indian constitution
    had reservations for ten years (which I think
    is short to redress the injustices of milleniums,
    but nonetheless reservations were meant for a
    short period).

  29. Bin Ismail

    @ m ali3 (June 16, 2010 at 10:19 pm)

    “…..I am glad to see Qadianis have started pondering on changing their beliefs…..”

    Wake up please.

    Inspite of the fact that your persistently slanderous posts and inexhaustibly imaginative comments, leave little room for any meaningful discussion with you, I would still, out of shear courtesy, like to respond to your novel thoughts.

    1. Ahmadis – whom you like to call Qadianis because of your inability to appreciate the simple fact that all Ahmadis do not hail from the town of Qadian, and that all inhabitants of Qadian are not Ahmadis – have not budged an inch from their original stand.

    2. Ahmadis believe that anyone who calls himself a Muslim, is a Muslim, the truth of whose claim can be judged only by Maalik-e yaum-id deen or the Lord of the Day of Judgement – Allah.

    3. Ahmadis contend that the word “kufr” meaning “denial” or “disbelief” is not the antonym of the word “eeman” meaning “faith” or “belief”. Therefore if someone admittedly denies Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, it would not be incorrect to confine his “disbelief” to the “claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian”. He would, however, obviously remain a Muslim, as long he claims to be one.

    4. One’s state of Islam [submission] can be of many grades. The Islam of a wali [saint] would obviously not be of the same level as that of an average person. If Ahmadis consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian as the Mahdi, they should obviously be expected to believe that he has not been sent for nothing, and that accepting him is necessary for the elevation and enhancement of one’s state of “Islam”. All saints of the past, too, were accepted for this single gain.

    5. It may disappoint you, but antagonistic “circumstances” have only contributed to the strengthening of the faith of Ahmadis.

    6. As Ahmadis advance in their convictions and conduct, you my friend, will in all likelihood develop your skills in “quoting out of context” to further heights.

  30. Bin Ismail

    @ bciv (June 17, 2010 at 12:27 am)

    “….. and therefore would make sure there is no mention of the word islam in the constitution (or its preamble)…..”

    What people of the stature of Zafrulla Khan could apparently not preempt, was that the bitterest of Jinnah’s foes, the mullahs, would actually one day succeed in invading and hijacking the Muslim League. This is a lesson that Pakistan has had to learn the hard way.

    In the constitution, the word “Islam”, however blessed it may be, is bound to serve as back-door to the opportunistic and politically ambitious clergy.

  31. navanavonmilita

    salam aleykum,

    I never had so much fun in my life. Each of your contributors/commentators have, truly, tried to address the point in question, tolerance to sects of Islam and/or other major/minor faiths/followings in terms of religious beliefs.

    I, especially, salute Karachi’s Menin Rodrigues for his excellent and to the point short history of Goan community of Pakistan. They are Roman Catholics and they remained in Pakistan even after the partition.

    This should illustrate the fact that love for one’s country of birth or immigration does not mean one has to abide by country’s majority’s religious convictions.

    Many Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Parsis also decided to call Pakistan their country. Religion has no place in country’s good or bad governance. All religions, pretty much believe in goodness of heart.

    Muslims never accounted for humanity and universal brotherhood. Unless ofcourse they refer to their own faith.

    Social interaction, at all levels of society, at all stages of classes, is the oxygen, the essential ingredient of survival.

    I understand jealousy but not sheer hatred among Pakistan’s society. I hope and pray that discussions, such as this one, would continue in future and make adjustments needed to uphold the country’s sovereignty intact.

    ‘watan salamat rakho, bhaiyon.’ Inshallah.

    …and I am Sid Harth

  32. bciv

    @navanavonmilita

    Muslims never accounted for humanity and universal brotherhood. Unless ofcourse they refer to their own faith.

    now does that include your ‘guru’?😉

  33. Alethia

    I have for about 40 years been a friend of Pakistan and have defended the country in conversations and blogs numerous times saying it has been treated unfairly and unequally.

    But I must tell you that I am rendered dumbfounded and helpless to defend the treatment meted out to Ahmadis by many Pakistanis both online and in conversations.

    The shabby treatment of this group in Pakistan is absolutely indefensible and shameful. I can think of hardly any other issue which puts a stain on Pakistan’s reputation more than this one.

    As an American Christian who has both a respect and knowledge about Islam, I have gone from pillar to post in defending Muslims against the degradation on that “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”

    But this scandalous and inhumane treatment of millions of patriotic Pakistanis who are Ahmadis is beyond my comprehension.

    I still have faith in the good hearts that exist in Pakistan and I know many good hearts exist there.

    Stand up and support your fellow Pakistanis, please…

  34. ashu

    Hi Menin,

    Is it possible that you are generalising the Roman Catholic community from the western coast and refering to them as Goans? The sames surnames are common amongst east indian, manglorean & Malyalee Roman Catholics.

    Regards.

  35. Syed

    @Alethia

    Thank you for the concern. I agree that Pakistani Muslims need to shed their bias against Ahmadis – no fault of Islam though.

    Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslim at least. Their peaceful and dignified reaction in line with their understanding of Islam to the atrocity on May 28th further reinforces the peaceful nature of this religion.

    The disrepute to the faith and Pakistan is brought by the perpetrators and those who are the apologists.

  36. m ali3

    @Bin Ismail:

    YOU ARE DOGGING MY QUESTIONS.
    Once again:
    1-Why Qadiani-Ahmadis consider Lahori-Ahmadis as MURTARD (heretic) i.e. worse than a Kaffir (non-Muslim)???? Don’t they hold Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib in extreme esteem???
    2-Why Qadianis do NOT offer jananzah prayer of even an INFANT, who has NO idea of religion and of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib??? Are you denying that this prohibition to Qadianis was ordered by their Qadiani khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad???

    Now coming to your comments:
    “…..I am glad to see Qadianis have started pondering on changing their beliefs…..”
    So do you mean you qadianis STILL hold beliefs of Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza mahmud ahmad??? Have you read any of his book that I referred in my previous post???
    Read: Anwar-I Khilafat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
    Page 93 of original edition and page 150-151 of online edition.
    A’inah-I Sadaqat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
    Page 86 of original edition, and page 151 of online edition.

    I use word Qadianis, because there are TWO factions of Ahmadis i.e. Qadiani and Lahori. And name ‘Qadiani’ is well understood and accepted short name for Qadiani-Ahmadis. Just they way, I do NOT mind if someone calls me Yankee (my country of adoption is USA).

    You LIE when you say Qadiani-Ahmadis believe that anyone who calls himself a Muslim is a Muslim. See my above question number 1. Thanks.
    Read: Kalma-Tul-Fasal by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (younger brother of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad)
    Just read the first few pages.

    Again you LIE when you say you accept anyone as Muslim even when he does NOT hold belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib was a prophet.
    Read: Musalman Wohi Hay Jo Saab Mamoron Ko Many by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad
    Page 3 and 4 of pdf format online edition.

    Bin Ismail, you are entitled to remain in denial. But the fact is that Qadianis have started questioning, especially after recent massacre, beliefs and practices of their Qadiani Khalifas. This is the reason, people like Mujib-ur-Rehman have started working on damage control and internal dissension, on instructions of Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad.
    Bin Ismail, what you are saying today, I very much doubt you will be able to say two years from now! I wish we can get in touch again in 2 years from now and look back and decide who between us was right.

  37. m ali3

    @Syed:
    “I agree that Pakistani Muslims need to shed their bias against Ahmadis[ of Qadiani Group] – no fault of Islam though.”

    Syed, i think it will ONLY HAPPEN if it goes BOTH ways. You should start working on your side i.e. Ahmadis of Qadiani group.
    Cheers!

  38. Majumdar

    Yasser Pai,

    Zafrulla’s speech in defence of Objectives Resolution is one of the great ironies of history….

    Can you reproduce MZK’s speech in favour of OR? Why was it an irony?

    Regards

  39. OMLK

    @Bin Ismail

    “What you perceive as mis-statements on my part, may well be misconceptions on your part.”

    This could be the case, sure. But my conception of what the Qadiani Ahmadis think about non-Ahmadi Muslims is based on the what your Caliphs have written in their books. I have tried to understand them in context, and have come to the conclusion that their position is totaly at odds with yours over the “kufr” of Muslims who do not accept HMGA as a Prophet. I am inclined to rely more on the published beliefs of the Qadiani Ahmadi leaders than on your thinking on this forum as far as forming my opinionis concerned. And my opinion is that the Qadiani Ahmadis consider non-Ahmadis Mulims to be outside the fold of Islam. This much is evident from the material written and published by the Qadiani Ahmadi elders. I am using the word “Qadiani” simply to differentate from the Ahmadi’s (“Lahori” Ahmadis) who left Qadian for Lahore over the Prophethood and Takfeer issues.

  40. OMLK

    It is diffcult to guess the inner workings of any person’s mind, but I suspect that Sir Zafrullah’s views on OR may be have been based on the fact that for Ahmadis Islam is a sort of life force that enables man in every position to serve God. In the case of national leaders, serving God is basically serving people. And the service of people is taken to new hieghts when man totally overpowers his selfish or animal self; which is just another name for submitting to Allah which in turn is the objective of man as decribed by Islam and explained by HGMA. Perhaps then if leaders accept Allah as their sovereign and submit to him, they will be in the ideal state of mind to serve their nation. So it may have been this philosophical underpinning of the OR that could have compelled Sir Zafrullah to support it. I don’t really know of course, but am just speculating based on the fact he was an Ahmadi and Ahmadi’s do subscribe to a certain philosophy of Islam.

  41. ali hamdani

    @mALI. I would agree with MALI. Rightly so. It is sad that so many years of independence have passed but yet we do not respect the rights of minorities. Islam teaches us tolerance and affection and yet we do not follow that.

  42. Farukh Sarwar

    The only objection that moderate Pakistanis have about Ahmedis is the way they preach their sect; but I guess a lot of other sects also preach their teachings, but we don’t start following them. So it’s a plea to all the moderate Pakistanis to end the siege of Ahmedis and let them take a sigh of relief.

  43. yasserlatifhamdani

    Pray tell how do they preach their teachings… and do tell us how they differ from say Tablighi Jamaat and other Islamic jamaats in the way they preach their teachings?

  44. bciv

    the constitution of pakistan guarantees the right to propagate his/her religion to every citizen of pakistan. it’s another thing that what the constitution gives with one hand it takes away with the other, in case of ahmedi citizens of pakistan. (well, the constitution actually takes away their right to freely profess their religion, as they choose. it’s 298b/c of the ppc that takes away their right to propagate their religion as well.)

  45. Salim

    It is a very nice article. I like to congratulate as well as pray that God grant you courage to keep on speaking the truth. We, Pakistani are known to not accept the reality, specially of this nature, if shown and always find lame excuses. Justice is the beauty of Islam and unfortunately Pakistan does not possess it. Shame on to those still have no courage to condemn these cowardly acts of terrorists, backed by the so called custodian of Islam.

  46. Menin Rodrigues

    ashu
    June 17, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Hi ashu,

    My journal is bout people from Goa which is now India, all people originate from various other groups. Yes probably some do come from the Indian, Manglorean & Malyalee Roman Catholics.
    I am writing this journal for future generations to document the contributions that once made a country proud to be diverse and the diversity made a great nation, now I feel we have lost this feeling.

  47. @Menin Rodrigues

    While you are at it, it’s Arthur Sullivan, not Arthur O’Sullivan.

    The musicals and operettas produced by these geniuses were of a very high standard. These included the Gilbert and O’Sullivan Musicals; the Mikado (music by J. Vincent Lobo and directed by Teresa/Trixie D’Abreo); Gondoliers (music by Charlie Lobo), and Trial by Jury, Pirates of Penzance (music by Prof. Terrence D’Souza), Iolanthe and the HMS Pinafore.

    When you write that the music for The Mikado was by J. Vincent Lobo, for The Gondoliers by Charlie Lobo and for Trial by Jury and Pirates of Penzance by Prof. Terrence D’Souza, presumably you mean that orchestras couldn’t be organised and that these gentlemen provided the musical accompaniment for the singing on a Piano. Could you clarify this?

    I just want to be sure, for a community that produced hockey players better than Dhyan Chand is quite capable, I suppose, of producing one-man orchestras who could play all the instruments, all together at the same time. Lucky for everyone else Karachi didn’t field a team in the Olympics.

  48. Bin Ismail

    @ OMLK (June 17, 2010 at 11:38 am)

    “…..I am inclined to rely more on the published beliefs of the Qadiani Ahmadi leaders than on your thinking on this forum as far as forming my opinionis concerned. And my opinion is that the Qadiani Ahmadis consider non-Ahmadis Mulims to be outside the fold of Islam…..”

    This is very just of you to take into account, authentic and published views, but absolute justice would demand that you take into account “all” published references of written as well as spoken views. If a certain author has used a certain term, say twenty times, but has defined it only once, it would only be fair to first consider the definition and then proceed with a study of those twenty references.

    I have only summarized things for you, beginning with the definition of the term “kufr” or “kafir”. When non-Ahmadi ulama use the term “kufr”, in relation to Ahmadis, they profess that Ahmadis are kafirs of all articles of faith – Allah, the angels, the Books, the messengers and the day of judgement. In stark contrast to this fatwa, Ahmadis contend that if a kalima-reciter denies the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the kalima-reciter continues to be a Muslim because he has not willfully renounced his belief in the unity of Allah and the messengership of Muhammad. However, since he denies Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he can rightfully be declared a denier of Mirza Sahib.

    While you may indeed have read some references, it appears there are many that you have not read.

  49. m ali3

    @Bin Ismail:

    “In stark contrast to this fatwa, Ahmadis contend that if a kalima-reciter denies the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the kalima-reciter continues to be a Muslim because he has not willfully renounced his belief in the unity of Allah and the messengership of Muhammad. However, since he denies Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he can rightfully be declared a denier of Mirza Sahib.”

    If this was the truth as you say then please tell us why Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad whom you consider “Musleh mahud” stopped people like you from praying behind Lahori-Ahmadis (i’m sure you will agree they have utmost respect for Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib) or even to offer funeral prayer of breast milk fed infant/neonate (when in that age no baby has any idea of God, let alone HMGA)???

    “While you may indeed have read some references, it appears there are many that you have not read.”

    Can you please tell us where your Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza mahmud Ahmad has asked his followers to pray behind Muslims, and Lahori-Ahmadis and to offer funeral prayers of Muslims and Lahori-Ahmadis???
    Please oblige us. Thanks.

  50. Farm Boy!

    lighten up guys & check out the following fatwa by fetishistic old men with religious power.

    http://www.timesnewsline.com/news/Saudi-Clerics-Call-For-Adult-Breast-Feeding-1275746201/

  51. @m ali3 u sound lahori party budd i can ask same question to u why u dont say prayer behind us or offer janaza with us rule is simple if u dont offer janaza and pray with us then we not oblige to as well simple budd
    second post u said mirza mahmood shahib left qadian at parttion to lahore by the way lahore was mojority with hindu and sikh too so if u have threat u can have in lahore too i still say qadian darul aman in 1947 alot of muslim like ur fore fathers they moved to qadian at partion so stop bigtory with distortion if u have logic then talk budd
    last if in 1914 mirza mahmood become 2nd caliph where his party now and where is lahori party so who progress and who left in denial budd remeber system works not deserter like lahori group so have logic come up .

  52. @m lai 3 budd why u yr molvi mahmood ali & company did bait with caliph 1 ? deserter have no place budd like u so ur non muslim budd tell me where is lahori group in garden town lahore and where is mirza mahoods all around the world budd that is progress
    main kabi musa kabi isa kabi haroon
    nasleen hainmeri bayshumar
    but only happen with hand of mirza mahmood ahmed not mohammad ali &company lahori party .

  53. Bin Ismail

    @ m ali3

    Your circumambulatory questioning methods are unique indeed. You will ask “what comes after A?”. The reply will be “B”. Then you will ask “what comes after B? The reply will be “C”. And then you will ask “but what comes after A?”. The reply will again be “B”. Then you will argue “but you just said that C comes after B”.

    Dear Insight Incarnate, please make sure this is the last circuit.

    Congregational prayers is not a social activity. It is a spiritual one, in which one would most certainly like to have a certain degree of mutual conformity on the religious plane, before conducting this exercise. There are a thousand and one other occasions available, for establishing social contact. It does not have to be the prayer mat.

  54. OMLK

    @Bin Ismail

    In the context of “Kufr” the reference I read appeared to define it differently than what you have said. However, you may be right when you say I may not have read all the relevent references. If you tell me the one reference for “defining” kufr in the context of Muslims who do not believe that HMGA was a prophet, then I can see if I am correct in saying that the said definition contradicts what I have read. Of course I can also point out the contradiction to you and maybe you can clarify.

  55. HReyman

    It is as evident as a shining sun that we Pakistanis are rotten hypocrite to the core. On one hand we champion the cause of Palestine and Kashmir, while on the other hand we are so so cruel, unfair and unforgiving to our own people who rightly or wrongly differ with us on any issue, thats wanton hypocracy. According to the Holy Quran the hypocrites will be at the bottom end of the fire, well its for all to see where Pakistan stands at the moment!!

  56. @Majumdar

    Zafrulla’s speech in defence of Objectives Resolution is one of the great ironies of history….

    Can you reproduce MZK’s speech in favour of OR? Why was it an irony?

    If I could point out the obvious answer to your second question, it was ironic that Zaffarullah Khan argued for the Objectives Resolution, as it began the slide towards sectarianism, not merely the disenfranchisement of non-Muslims, but also the attempts at narrow definitions of Muslims themselves. This slide, among other things, ensured that Ahmadis should be declared as not Muslim. It was an irony because the result of Zaffarullah Khan’s speech and all other speeches in favour of the OR was that Ahmadis, of whom he was one, were declared non-Muslim.

  57. Moosa

    OMLK: “But my conception of what the Qadiani Ahmadis think about non-Ahmadi Muslims is based on the what your Caliphs have written in their books. I have tried to understand them in context, and have come to the conclusion that their position is totaly at odds with yours over the “kufr” of Muslims who do not accept HMGA as a Prophet.”

    OMLK, may I humbly suggest that you’ve been hoodwinked? What has happened is that opponents of the Ahmadi Caliphs have trawled through their volumes of writings and found a handful of statements suggesting that non-Ahmadis are “kafirs”, and then presented this as evidence that we think of non-Ahmadis as kafirs, therefore the non-Ahmadis are justified in whatever they think or do with us.

    I’ve grown up as a child in Jamaat Ahmadiyya, my father was born in Qadian, I grew up in London so I’ve met and listened to the Ahmadi Caliphs numerous times. Not once have I heard them or my father or any other Ahmadi refer to non-Ahmadis as kafirs. I’m not denying that there’s some tiny (very tiny) element of truth in what you think, but I’m just telling you that generally we consider any person who says “Laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullaah” as a Muslim. It’s a fact. There are numerous Ahmadis who have posted here, not one of them says you’re not a Muslim. If not a single Ahmadi says that non-Ahmadis are not Muslims, then commonsense suggests that these statements from the Second Caliph are being misrepresented to you.

    Now if you want an evidence, then just read this book written by the Second Caliph: “An Invitation to Ahmadiyyat”. Chapter Two is titled: “The name Ahmadiyyat to distinguish Ahmadi Muslims from other Muslims”. You can find the online link here: http://www.alislam.org/books/invitation/content.html

    There are numerous evidences, but even if you watch to the weekly khutbas from the Fifth Caliph every Friday, he keeps on saying, “ghair ahmadi musulmaano”… You can find all these khutbas online on the Ahmadi website, and they are broadcast in realtime on the MTA satellite TV channel. I mean, the statements “ghair ahmadi musulmaano” are overwhelming in number, and yet some enemies ignore all of this, but instead choose to focus on a few statements which suggest we think you’re non-Muslims. This is intellectual dishonesty on their part.

    Now the correct position is as Bin Ismail has stated. The Ahmadi position is as follows:
    1. Islam was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: kalima, salat, saum, zakat, hajj [Sahih Bukhari, Muslim]. Any person who follows these five practises is a “muslim” by definition.
    2. Imaan was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: faith in Allah, His angels, His books, His meeting, His messengers, and His resurrection [Sahih Muslim, kitab ul imaan]. Any person who has these 6 beliefs is a “mu’min” by definition.
    3. Note there’s a big difference. A “muslim” is NOT the same as a “mu’min”. “Islam” is mostly about practise, whereas “Imaan” is mostly about faith and a person’s spiritual convictions. Hence a person can practise Islam, be a “muslim” but yet have little or no faith and not be a “mu’min”.
    4. The question is: what happens when a person says he rejects one messenger but accepts the other messengers? The consensus of most non-Ahmadi ulema is that such a person becomes a “kafir” because Prophet Muhammad (saw) and in fact also the Holy Qur’an categorically state that a “mu’min” must accept all the messengers. For instance, the non-ahmadi ulema have said that any person who rejects Jesus (as) when he comes down from heaven in the future, will be a “kafir”. Then if that is the position of your own ‘ulema, and it’s the position of the Holy Qur’an and of Prophet Muhammad (saw), then what is your objection if we hold the same position that every Muslim holds?
    5. Even then, the Ahmadi Caliphs hold a softer position than the non-Ahmadi Muslims. Please go to this link where the Fourth Ahmadi Caliph answered your exact question: http://www.askislam.org/religions_and_beliefs/islam/sects/question_263.html
    He says, “When we say ‘kafir’, we say them ‘kafir’ of Hazrat Masih Maud (as). And that is to say… when we say ‘kafir’ of Hazrat, this is understood when you deny Hazrat Masih Maud (as), in true essence you are not ‘mu’min’, because all the people you believe in have been left in the past. The only trial which came your way, in your lifetime, you failed in that trial.”

    I hope inshaAllah that clarifies matters.

    Wassalam,
    Moosa

  58. Moosa

    @ OMLK

    I tried to send you a detailed evidence and explanation but for some reason Pak Tea House won’t publish it, perhaps it was too long.

    Anyways, to cut things short, here’s an official answer to your question with regard to whether non-Ahmadis are Muslims: http://www.askislam.org/religions_and_beliefs/islam/sects/question_263.html

  59. Bin Ismail

    @OMLK (June 18, 2010 at 10:41 am)

    “…..If you tell me the one reference for “defining” kufr in the context of Muslims…..”

    Thank you. Let’s examine this issue more closely. When there are more than one references, why limit ourselves to one.

    1. The term “eeman” can be translated as “belief” as well as “faith”. The antonym of “eeman” is “kufr”. The term “Kufr”, which signifies the partial or total absence of “eeman”, can be translated as “denial”, “disbelief” or “ingratitude”. “Eeman” and “kufr” are antonyms and “kufr” is not the antonym of “Islam”. “Islam” and the absence of “eeman” can indeed coexist.

    Ref#1: God says in the Quran: “The Arabs of the desert claim ‘we hold eeman’. Tell them “You do not hold eeman, thus instead you should claim only ‘we accept Islam’. Belief has not even entered your hearts”. (Quran 49:14). In this verse, God tells the tell the Arab Bedouins to give up their claim to “Eeman” because they lack it, but recognizes their claim to “Islam”. This verse tells us clearly that “Islam” and the lack of Eeman or “kufr” can indeed coexist.

    Ref#2: The Holy Prophet said “man tarakas salaata muta’ammidan faqad kafara”, meaning ‘whoever abandons prayer willfully, has committed kufr’. This does not mean that if a Muslim does not pray, he becomes a non-Muslim. It simply means that while remaining a Muslim, such a person is deprived of his state of eeman thereby becoming a kafir.

    2. Non-Ahmadi ulema judge Ahmadis as being both “kafirs” and “non-Muslims”. Ahmadis on the other hand have never judged non-Ahmadis as non-Muslims. So the edict of the other being non-Muslim, is clearly one-sided and has never been reciprocated by the Ahmadis. With respect to “kufr”, Ahmadis ascribe a “kufr” to non-Ahmadis that corresponds precisely with their openly professed denial of the claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Non-Ahmadis deny the claim of Ahmad of Qadian and Ahmadis consider non-Ahmadis “kafirs” of the claims of Ahmad of Qadian. In short, Ahmadis consider non-Ahmadi Muslims as Muslims, who are kafirs of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.

  60. Bin Ismail

    @ Vajra

    It could indeed be termed an “irony of fate”. However, the fact remains that the sole reason for Sir Zafrulla to speak in favour, was that he was trying to put across the point that a constitution based on Islamic principles will only protect and safeguard the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of the state.

    What perhaps ZK could not predict,was that those who called Quaid-e Azam “kafir-e azam”, would so soon be in the driving seat of the very country he founded.

  61. bciv

    a constitution based on Islamic principles will only protect and safeguard the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of the state.

    The problem was not the Islamic principles but the urge to slap on the Islamic label. This chest-beating kind of urge compromised the law’s ability to “only protect and safeguard the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of the state”. For the state to own or recognise one religion more than others in its laws is at the very least a clear appearance of bias (whether intended or not) and, therefore, dangerous and harmful. It often leads to disaster.

  62. bciv

    would so soon be in the driving seat of the very country he founded.

    The OR was tantamount to putting a label “maulvis enter here” on the driver’s door

  63. @Bin Ismail

    Extrapolating further from BCiv, it seems in hindsight that Zaffarullah Khan’s statement was terribly indiscreet, completely blind to the possibility of a future monster like Zia.

  64. Keeping Honest

    LET’S KEEP BIN ISMAIL HONEST

    Mian Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad on page 35 of his book Aaina-i-Sadaqat admits that his beliefs are:

    “That I have spread the idea about Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood that he is, in fact, a prophet. … Thirdly that all Muslims who have not entered the baiyat [pledge] of Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood, although they have not heard even his name, are kafirs and outside the pale of Islam.”
    Again during the Annual Jalsa of December 1913, Mian Sahib called his party of Ansaarullah. Other people also attended this meeting. In this meeting he stated: “If someone places a sword on one side of my neck and asks me not to call non-Ahmadis as kafirs, even then I shall reply that they are kafirs and I shall certainly call them kafir.” (Paigham-i-Sulh, 21st September 1947, page 5).

  65. Keeping Honest

    LET’S KEEP BIN ISMAIL HONEST–PART2

    So strongly held and argued was this standpoint of the Qadiani Jamaat (i.e. that they must not hold janaza prayers for other Muslims) that in 1940 Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote a brief booklet on this issue addressed to Qadiani Jamaat members. He asked if any single one of them could testify that:

    ‘In the time of the Promised Messiah and the time of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, that is before 1914, saying funeral prayers for non-Ahmadis was considered to be prohibited as it is now, and no Ahmadi community ever held the funeral prayers of a non-Ahmadi.’

    A few months later in 1941, Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote a book in reply which was more than 200 pages long, entitled Mas`ala Janaza ki Haqiqat. The standpoint in this book was that when the Promised Messiah wrote that janaza prayers of non-Ahmadis were allowed, he put such conditions on it that such a non-Ahmadi would in effect have to be an Ahmadi!

    Mirza Bashir Ahmad wrote about these conciliatory statements of the Promised Messiah that: “The Promised Messiah gave people a bitter pill to swallow which he coated with sugar, but Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih 2 has given them the pill directly without sugar coating.”

  66. Bin Ismail

    @bciv

    Sir Zafrulla Khan’s primary defense was against the accusation that Islam does not guarantee the rights of non-Muslims. Zafrulla Khan never contended that even with the Mullah in the driving seat, the state would still function on the lines of justice. His arguments were in defense of Islam – not in defense of the mullah.

    @ Vajra

    “…..completely blind to the possibility of a future monster like Zia…..”

    We are talking about 1948. Yes, back in 1948, such an eventuality was certainly not foreseeable. Most people would have hoped that the party leadership would certainly be able to keep the bitterest of Jinnah’s enemies and their influence out the party.
    Zafrulla Khan, inspite of being the foreign minister of Pakistan, was not among the decision-makers of the party. Jinnah’s firm anti-mullah resolve was not maintained by the latter party leadership and pro-theocracy elements soon began to creep in. So, yes, it can indeed be inferred that Zafrulla Khan was not foreseeing a Zia in the offing.

  67. yasserlatifhamdani

    Monster like Zia was clearly predicted by one of the legislators opposing Objectives Resolution. It was almost as if the gentleman was looking through a crystal bowl.

  68. Bin Ismail

    @ Keeping Honest

    I am grateful to you from the depths of my heart, both your uphill task of keeping honest, as well as for your additional task of keeping Bin Ismail honest.

    Keep honest. I mean keep it up.

  69. Bin Ismail

    Erratum: Bin Ismail (June 19, 2010 at 8:16 am)

    …..both [for] your uphill task of keeping honest…..

  70. Bin Ismail

    @ yasserlatifhamdani (June 19, 2010 at 8:12 am)

    “…..Monster like Zia was clearly predicted by one of the legislators opposing Objectives Resolution. It was almost as if the gentleman was looking through a crystal bowl…..”

    This gentleman was either looking through or into a crystal bowl, or was possibly privy to the covert change in stance of the ML top brass, a luxury that Zafrulla Khan evidently did not enjoy, and for obvious reasons.

    In any case hats off to the perceptive gentlemen.

  71. OMLK

    @Bin Ismail

    Thanks for your reply. The references I was asking for were in response to your statement that, “If a certain author has used a certain term, say twenty times, but has defined it only once, it would only be fair to first consider the definition and then proceed with a study of those twenty references.” Since I had earlier stated that I have read writings of the Qadiani Ahamdi leaders that contradict your assertions, I could only assume that you are referring to the definition of Kufr which has been defined by such leaders and which should be applied to the same term whereever it is used in thier writings. I also said that I am asking this because certain things I have read written by Qadiani Ahamdi leaders do not seem to imply the limited kufr that you have described but seem to decalre non-Ahmadis as complete Kafirs or non-Muslims. Now, to clarify this situation the only way out is to point out the definition of “Kufr” as articulated by Qadiani Ahamdi leaders that I should apply to their writings. If I still find a contradiction I will point out.

  72. OMLK

    @ylh

    “Monster like Zia was clearly predicted by one of the legislators opposing Objectives Resolution”

    Who was this person?

  73. Bin Ismail

    @ Keeping Honest

    Thank you once again for your untiring efforts to keep Bin Ismail honest. Bin Ismail honestly feels indebted.

    During the proceedings of the Inquiry Commission of Justice Munir and Justice Kayani, in 1953, the following questions and answers took place. The questions were put forth by the Honourable Court and were answered by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad, then Imam of the Ahmadiya Jamaat. Some questions were also from Chaudhry Nazeer Ahmad Advocate (representative of Jamaat Islami). You will find the following references in the recorded proceedings of the Munir-Kayani Inquiry Court of 1953.

    #1: Question [Court]: If a Muslim, after superficially examining the claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, arrives in all honesty at the conclusion that his claims were not correct, would such a person still remain Muslim?

    Answer [Mirza Mahmood Ahmad]: Yes indeed. In the general sense of the word, he would still be considered a Muslim.

    #2: Question [Court]: In your opinion, would Allah punish such people, who hold wrong beliefs, but do so in honesty?

    Answer [Mirza Mahmood Ahmad]: In my opinion, reward and punishment are based upon the degree of honesty and the real intention, not on the correctness of one’s belief.

    #3: Question [Nazeer Ahmad Advocate]: Do you still maintain your point of view, which you expressed in your book “Aa’ina-e sadaqat” chapter 1, page 35, that all “Muslims” who have not entered the bai’at of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, even if they have not heard even his name, are kafirs and outside the circle of Islam?

    Answer [Mirza Mahmood Ahmad]: It is evident from my words that I consider such people Muslims. When I use the term “kafir”, I have the second category of kafirs in mind, whom I have defined earlier. When I use the phrase “outside the circle of Islam” with reference to those who are within the Ummah, I have in mind the concept mentioned on page 240 of Mufridaat-e Raghib. According to this concept, there are two categories of “Islam” – one is termed “doon-al eeman”, while the other is termed “fauq-al eeman”. The “doon-al eeman” class includes those Muslims whose “Islam” falls short of “eeman”. The “fauq-al eeman” class includes those Muslims who transcend the level of “eeman”. Thus when I say that some people are outside the circle of Islam, it is with reference to being “not within the circle of fauq-al eeman”.

    Dear “Keeping Honest”, notwithstanding that I feel grateful for your efforts in keeping honest yourself and also in keeping Bin Ismail honest, may I humbly conclude this debate, before it gets boring for the rest of the participants, on the note that the point of view of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat is very clear and very consistent.

    Goodbye.

  74. Keeping Honest

    IN WHICH CATEGORY BIN ISMAIL AND HIS ELDERS BELIEVE?

    ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS!

    So it is obvious Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and those who hold him in high esteem, such as people like Bin Ismail, believe in that category of ‘Kafir’ regarding Muslims and Lahori-Ahmadis which is the absolute, pure, 100% ‘Kafir’. This is the reason Qadianis do NOT offer prayer behind Muslim and Lahori-Ahmadis, or offer their funeral paryer, or give their daughters in marriage.
    I guess in logic of Bin Ismail and Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, ‘pregnancy’ in a woman does mean woman is pregnant. (Unlike physicians when they say lady is pregnant then she is pregnant, as there is no such thing as ‘half-pregnant’).

  75. Moosa

    @ OMLK

    OMLK: “But my conception of what the Qadiani Ahmadis think about non-Ahmadi Muslims is based on the what your Caliphs have written in their books. I have tried to understand them in context, and have come to the conclusion that their position is totaly at odds with yours over the “kufr” of Muslims who do not accept HMGA as a Prophet.”

    OMLK, may I humbly suggest that you’ve been hoodwinked? What has happened is that opponents of the Ahmadi Caliphs (eg “Keeping Honest”… lol, what a hilariously deceptive name)have trawled through their volumes of writings and found a handful of statements suggesting that non-Ahmadis are “kafirs”, and then presented this as evidence that we think of non-Ahmadis as non-muslims, therefore the non-Ahmadis are justified in whatever they think or do with us.

    I’ve grown up as a child in Jamaat Ahmadiyya, my father was born in Qadian, I grew up in London so I’ve met and listened to the Ahmadi Caliphs numerous times. Not once have I heard them or my father or any other Ahmadi refer to non-Ahmadis as kafirs in the sense that you use the word “kafir”. I’m not denying that there’s some tiny (very tiny) element of truth in what you think, but I’m just telling you that generally we consider any person who says “Laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullaah” as a Muslim. It’s a fact. There are numerous Ahmadis who have posted here, not one of them says you’re not a Muslim. If not a single Ahmadi says that non-Ahmadis are not Muslims, then commonsense suggests that these statements from the Second Caliph are being misrepresented to you.

    Now if you want an evidence, then just read this book written by the Second Caliph: “An Invitation to Ahmadiyyat”. Chapter Two is titled: “The name Ahmadiyyat to distinguish Ahmadi Muslims from other Muslims”. You can get free access to that book on the official Ahmadi website, I’d like to provide you the link but for some reason Pak Tea House won’t allow me to post messages with weblinks on it.

    There are numerous evidences, but even if you watch to the weekly khutbas from the Fifth Caliph every Friday, he keeps on saying, “ghair ahmadi musulmaano”… You can find all these khutbas online on the Ahmadi website, and they are broadcast in realtime on the MTA satellite TV channel. I mean, the statements “ghair ahmadi musulmaano” are overwhelming in number, and yet some enemies ignore all of this, but instead choose to focus on a few statements which suggest we think you’re non-Muslims. This is intellectual dishonesty on their part.

    Now the correct position is as Bin Ismail has stated. The Ahmadi position is as follows:
    1. Islam was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: kalima, salat, saum, zakat, hajj [Sahih Bukhari, Muslim]. Any person who follows these five practises is a “muslim” by definition.
    2. Imaan was defined by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as: faith in Allah, His angels, His books, His meeting, His messengers, and His resurrection [Sahih Muslim, kitab ul imaan]. Any person who has these 6 beliefs is a “mu’min” by definition.
    3. Note there’s a big difference. A “muslim” is NOT the same as a “mu’min”. “Islam” is mostly about practise, whereas “Imaan” is mostly about faith and a person’s spiritual convictions. Hence a person can practise Islam, profess to be a “muslim” but yet have little or no faith and not be a “mu’min”.
    4. The question is: what happens when a person says he rejects one messenger but accepts the other messengers? The consensus of most non-Ahmadi ulema is that such a person becomes a “kafir” because Prophet Muhammad (saw) and in fact also the Holy Qur’an categorically state that a “mu’min” must accept all the messengers. For instance, the non-ahmadi ulema have said that any person who rejects Jesus (as) when he comes down from heaven in the future, will be a “kafir”. Then if that is the position of your own ‘ulema, and it’s the position of the Holy Qur’an and of Prophet Muhammad (saw), then what is your objection if we hold the same position that every Muslim holds?
    5. Even then, the Ahmadi Caliphs hold a softer position than the non-Ahmadi Muslims. There is another online link where the Fourth Ahmadi Caliph answered your exact question, but again I can’t post it because Pak Tea House won’t let me post links. Just google “AskIslam”, then go to “religions and beliefs”, then go to “islam”, then go to “sects”, then click on “question 263” and you’ll hear a recording of the Fourth Ahmadi Caliph answering your question. He says, “When we say ‘kafir’, we say them ‘kafir’ of Hazrat Masih Maud (as). And that is to say… when we say ‘kafir’ of Hazrat, this is understood when you deny Hazrat Masih Maud (as), in true essence you are not ‘mu’min’, because all the people you believe in have been left in the past. The only trial which came your way, in your lifetime, you failed in that trial.”

    There is a huge huge difference between what the non-Ahmadi ulema and the Ahmadi ulema say:
    1. Non-Ahmadi ulema: Ahmadis are not Muslims although they follow the definition of Islam given by Prophet Muhammad (saw). Therefore we will put them in jail if they say they are Muslims.
    2. Ahmadi ulema: Non-Ahmadis are Muslims, but they do not have imaan in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) as a prophet, therefore they have kufr of believing in Ghulam Ahmad (as).

    Last but not least, the Holy Qur’an itself says: ” The Arabs of the desert say, ‘We believe.’ Say, “You have not believed yet; but rather say, ‘We have accepted Islam,’ for the true belief has not yet entered into your hearts.” [Surah al Hujurat, verse 15]. If the Holy Qur’an says that people accepted Islam but they did not have the status of “mu’min”, then what is your problem with that?

    I hope inshaAllah that clarifies matters.

    Wassalam,
    Moosa

  76. Moosa

    I’d like to make a further point because I feel quite aggrieved at what I’m seeing on this community, I had previously heard second-hand about the conduct and motivation of our Lahori brothers/sisters, but this is the first time I have seen evidence myself.

    The Qadiani/Lahori split happened when the vast majority of Ahmadis freely elected and supported Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as the Second Caliph. He was very young at that time, aged in his mid-20s. A small group of respected scholars of the Ahmadi community decided that Khilafat was not a correct way of leadership for the community, and they broke away to form a community ruled by a Committee. The principal protagonist was Muhammad Ali, he essentially led the splinter group in Lahore, hence the name “Lahori”.

    The problem was that Muhammad Ali couldn’t justify his decision as himself not accepting the leader who was preferred by the huge majority of the Ahmadi Community, because this would suggest he simply wanted to be the leader himself and could not bring himself to accept a young inexperienced man as his leader. Therefore suddenly, after the Qadiani/Lahori split, he and the Lahoris sought to: 1) develop, highlight and accentuate some religious differences between the two communities, and use those differences to justify the split, 2) bring into disrepute the character of the Second Caliph.

    Most of you will have noted that almost all the Lahori posts are vitriolic attacks against the Second Caliph and the Ahmadi Caliphs in general. Moreover, they seek to turn the general population of Muslims against Ahmadis. Not only this, but rather than offer condolences to the Ahmadis who were martyred recently, again they have sought to blame everything on the Ahmadi Caliphs. For any fair-minded person, this behaviour makes it clear that the Lahori community have become blinded by their enmity to the Ahmadi Caliphs, to the point where they have lost essential basic Islamic qualities such as justice, love, compassion, etc.

    Now here is the crux of the matter: the Lahoris are angry, they are literally biting their fingers with anger. Why? The reason is that for over 80 years they have compromised their beliefs for the sake of acceptance by the Muslims of Pakistan. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) clearly wrote in his books, “I am a zilli nabi (reflected or shadow prophet)” and the Lahoris chose to present this as “He’s saying he’s reflected prophet, so that means he’s not really saying he’s a prophet himself, he’s only a reflection of prophethood”. Regardless of whether this presentation is rational (I’d argue it’s not), but the Lahoris did all this in the hope that they would be accepted by the majority Muslims of Pakistan. But the most awful thing they did, was that they sought to vilify the Qadiani community in order to make other Muslims think that Lahoris were “good Muslims”. This is why the Lahoris bang on about, “The Qadianis believe he’s a prophet but we believe he was only a spiritual reformer, so please continue to say they’re not Muslims, but please we beg you, we beg you, we beg you to accept our Islam”. But what is causing them so much pain, is that after all these efforts on their part, after compromising to the extent of becoming ethically bankrupt, they are still not accepted by the Pakistani Government as Muslims.

    I’m not asking anybody here to make any judgment based on religious beliefs. I’m simply talking about the practical conduct of the Lahoris on this blog, and to evaluate it on purely ethical (not religious) grounds.

    Peace,
    Moosa

  77. OMLK

    @Moosa and Bin Ismail

    Thanks for the references. FYI though, my view so far was not based on what “keeping honest” etc. have written but what I have myself read from original works. In fact to properly contextualise what I have read I did ask for refernces for definition of Kufr. So far what I have is the Q&A from the Munir Inquiry (quoted by Bin Ismail) and some weblinks you have suggested that I intend to check out. After doing that, I will definately then revisit what I read and understood earlier in the light of new material/information.

    Also I am a bit confused over the assertion that belief in all messagers is required to only be a Momin and not a Muslim. So, with the obvious exception of Muhammad (SAWS), one can dis-believe in a messanger of God whom Quran has mentioned and still be a Muslim, while being a “limited” Kafir to the extent of dis-belief in that particular messanger. Let me say though that I have yet to explore all the references you have given, so may be my confusion will be clarified after I have done so. If you think that the case, feel free not to reply.

  78. Keeping Honest

    MOOSA, WHERE IS THE BEEF?

    Qadianis neither offer prayer behind Muslims and Lahori-Ahmadis, nore offer their funeral prayer and then say, ‘we consider you Muslim”. LOL.
    Now to know what was the reason for split in 1914, it becomes quite clear, as later proved by facts, that Lahori-Ahmadi elders disputed with Qadianis issue of FINALITY OF PROPHETHOOD. Qadianis hold belief prophethood continues. Lahoris-ahmadis hold belief prophethood ended. Lahori-Ahmadis have TONS of literature on this subject available online!

  79. Keeping Honest

    Printer-friendly Version

    Mirza Nasir Ahmad:
    Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad:

    The following writing appears on pages 216-217 of the Third Khalifa of the Rabwah Jamaat, Hafiz Mirza Nasir Ahmad Sahib’s, Daura-i-Maghrib 1400 Hijra ki Roo-i-dad, in reply to a correspondent’s question:

    “In such a case no one has the right to tell a person who calls himself a Muslim that you are not a Muslim. If one has to act according to the Quran, then he has to be accepted as a Muslim. Those people who do not consider us Muslims are violating the Quran. But we accept their right to call themselves Muslims and according to us they are part of the Muslim Ummah.”
    At this the correspondent said:

    “They do not accept you as Muslims. Will you call them Muslims in spite of this?”
    His Eminence replied:

    “Yes, we consider them Muslims in spite of this. If they are violating the Quran by not calling us Muslims, it does not follow that we should also violate the Quran. Let anyone do as he likes, but we cannot violate the Quran.” Mian Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad on page 35 of his book Aaina-i-Sadaqat admits that his beliefs are:

    “That I have spread the idea about Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood that he is, in fact, a prophet. … Thirdly that all Muslims who have not entered the baiyat of Hazrat Masih-i-Mauood, although they have not heard even his name, are kafirs and outside the pale of Islam.”
    Again during the Annual Jalsa of December 1913, Mian Sahib called his party of Ansaarullah. Other people also attended this meeting. In this meeting he stated:

    “If someone places a sword on one side of my neck and asks me not to call non-Ahmadis as kafirs, even then I shall reply that they are kafirs and I shall certainly call them kafir.” (Paigham-i-Sulh, 21st September 1947, page 5).

    Now, members of the Rabwah Jamaat can decide for themselves whether Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad holds the correct beliefs or Mirza Nasir Ahmad. They are both their “Rightful Imams”. Inna lillahi wa inna elaihi rajeoon.

  80. Keeping Honest

    Now, members of the Rabwah Jamaat can decide for themselves whether Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad holds the correct beliefs or Mirza Nasir Ahmad. They are both their “Rightful Imams”. Inna lillahi wa inna elaihi rajeoon.

  81. Moosa

    @ OMLK

    I don’t mean to say that directly you’ve learned from people such as ‘Keeping Honest’. I mean to say that I doubt you’ve read the entire corpus of the writings of the Ahmadi Caliphs. You’ve read specific quotations or references, and the question is: who directed you to those specific quotations?

    I can find you thousands of references from the Ahmadi Caliphs where they clearly refer to non-Ahmadis as “Muslims”. So the question is: who has pointed you towards the very few references which suggest otherwise?

  82. Moosa

    @ Keeping Honest.

    Please stand back and look at yourself. I’m saying unambiguously that I think you’re a Muslim, OMLK is a Muslim, and anybody who says “laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullaah” is a Muslim. If despite this, you insist that I think you’re not a Muslim, then what can I do?

    You’ve taken a handful of quotations out of context, due to your enmity and hatred against the Ahmadi Caliphs, and you’re doing your level best to ignore every reasonable explanation of those quotations which is presented to you. This is a sign that your mind is closed, you’ve made your decision, and hence discussion with you cannot be fruitful.

    For the benefit of other people who may be reading this, the fact that Ahmadis don’t pray behind other Muslims has nothing to do with whether a person is a Muslim or not. Firstly, Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslims by all the non-Ahmadi ‘ulema, therefore how can we accept them or their followers as our imams?

    Secondly, there are reasons which are philosophical and based on principle. We believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) is the Imam Mahdi, meaning he is the “imam” (leader) and “mahdi” (guided one) appointed by Allah (swt) Himself. The Lahoris seek to pretend that it’s almost inconsequential if a Muslim accepts/rejects the Imam Mahdi, but even they believe that Ghulam Ahmad (as) was the Imam Mahdi. Prophet Muhammad (saw) commanded the Muslims that when Imam Mahdi comes, they must pledge allegiance at his hand. Therefore acceptance/rejection of the Imam Mahdi is not a small matter, it’s a matter of obedience to Allah (swt) and Prophet Muhammad (saw). Our position of principle is that if a Muslim does not accept the Imam appointed and sent by Allah (swt), then how can we accept that Muslim as our imam (in prayer)?

    I’m sure that those with open minds will understand the essential logic of our stand.

    Peace & love to all,
    Moosa

  83. yasserlatifhamdani

    Let us solve this issue. Technically speaking if a Shia Muslim didn’t consider Ahmadis non-muslim… could you pray behind him.

    If the answer is yes… all your detractors are merely engaging in technicalities that don’t make sense.

  84. Moosa

    @ Y L H

    I personally would not pray behind an imam who has not accepted the Imam appointed by Allah (swt). This has nothing to do with whether a person is Muslim or not. It has to do with Ghulam Ahmad (as)’s status as the Imam Mahdi. If a person has not accepted the Imam sent by Allah (swt), then what right has he to expect me to accept his own imamat?

    My father is a devout Ahmadi (far more devout than myself) and he has told me he would pray behind a non-Ahmadi who doesn’t say Ahmadis are non-Muslims. Therefore this is not a clear-cut issue. However, my position is as described above, and I think it’s a fair position. If you have a problem with it, then I’d appreciate if you can point out to me the intellectual flaw in my position (rather than an emotional refutation).

  85. Majumdar

    I dont know why this drama over whom not to pray behind. If at all I wud be bothered about something, I wud be bothered who is praying behind me, not who I am praying behind.

    Regards

  86. Keeping Honest

    IMAM MAHDI ISSUE AND LAHORI-AHMADIYYA!

    Lahori-Ahmadi hold belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a MAHDI, but NOT a bloody Mahdi. His mode of ‘Quatil-i-Khanzeer’ and ‘Quatil-i-Saleeb’ was with ARGUMENTS and PEN, and NOT with sword.

  87. Keeping Honest

    CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG!

    For Moosa a person does NOT become a Muslim just by reciting Kalima-i-Shahada. he needs more like ulema needed in Munir Commission.
    This puts Moosa (and Qadianis) together ulema. Both calling other kafir.

  88. Keeping Honest

    GOOD COP. BAD COP.

    Moosa:”I’m not asking anybody here to make any judgment based on religious beliefs. I’m simply talking about the practical conduct of the Lahoris on this blog, and to evaluate it on purely ethical (not religious) grounds.”

    Have you heard of Good Cop, Bad Cop strategy to get the truth out of suspect?

  89. Keeping Honest

    MOOSA DEMAND MORE QUOTES FROM WRITINGS OF QADIANI ELDERS.

    Just to oblige you:
    “The fifth tenet that is binding upon my sect in this erase is that you should not give your daughters to non-Ahmadis. He who gives his daughter to a non-Ahmadi does not know what Ahmadiat is. Do you find non-Ahmadis giving their daughters to Hindus or Christians? Non-Ahmadis are, according to our faith Kafir, but they are better than you in this respect. In spite of being Kafirs themselves, they do not give their daughters to Kafirs but you, in spite of being Ahmadi, give your daughters to non-believers.”

    (Malaika-tullah; by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud)

    “Any person who believes in Moses but does not believe in Christ, or believes in Christ but does not believe in Muhammad or believes in Muhammad but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a Kafir, but he is a confirmed (Pakka) Kafir, and out of the fold of Islam.”
    (Kalimatul Fasl, By Mirza Bashir Ahmad Qadiani)

    “It is incumbent upon us that we should not regard non-Ahmadis as Muslims, nor should we offer prayers behind them, because according to our belief they deny one of the messengers of Allah. This is a matter of faith. None has any discretion in this.”
    (Anwar-e-Khilafat, by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani)

    1) “So whatever has been ordained in the Holy Quran about non-belief in a Prophet, the same applies in the case of Mirza Sahib.” (Al-Qaul-al-Fasal, p. 33).
    2) “If we don’t believe in him as a Prophet then a dangerous flaw occurs (in iman [faith]) which is enough to render one a ‘kafir’.” (Haqeeqat-un-Nabuwwat, p. 204).

    3) “It is obligatory for us not to consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims.” (Anwaar-e-Khilafat, p. 90).

    4) “… and one who does not believe in the Promised Messiah, whatever his reasons for this non-belief, he is kafir.” (Zikar-e-Illahi, p. 22).

    5) “The third matter to which he (Maulana Muhammad Ali) calls my attention is the issue of ‘kufar and Islam’. He says the path of peace is that we consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims, but I say ‘the path of peace is that we accept the decision of the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran calls the non-believers in a Prophet a kafir, and the same Allah calls Mirza Sahib a Prophet’.” (Haqeeqat-ul-Amar, p. 17).

    6) “Is there any such irreligious non-Ahmadi who will marry his daughter to a Christian or a Hindu? You call them kafir but in this matter he is better than you in spite of being a kafir, but you even being Ahmadi marry your daughters to kafirs.” (Maliakatullah, p. 46).

    7) “We met a person in Lucknow who is a great scholar. He said ‘many of your adversaries falsely propagate about you that you call us kafir. I cannot believe that a person of your vast capacity would be saying so.’ Sheikh Yaqub Ali was talking to him. I told him, ‘you tell him that we in fact call him a kafir.’ On hearing this he was much astonished.” (Anwar-e-Khilafat, p. 92).

    8. All such Muslims who have not entered in the Baiat of the Promised Messiah, whether they have not heard the name of the Promised Messiah, are kafir and out of the pail of Islam. That these beliefs have my full concurrence. I readily admit. (Aaina-e-Saddaaqat. p. 35).

    His younger brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad, M.A., surpassed him when he wrote:

    “Every such person, who believes in Moses but does not believe in Jesus, or believes in Jesus but does not believe in Mohammed, or believes in Mohammed but does not believe in the Promised Messiah, is not only a kafir but a confirmed kafir and out of the pail of Islam.” (Kalamatul-Fasal, p. 110)

  90. Moosa

    lol @ majumdar, that was a good one.

    @ Keeping Honest: i’ve given my opinion and my understanding. i can’t explain any better. if you’re not satisfied, then you have a right to your opinion.

    going back to the topic of the original article written by Fasi Zakar, one of the most poignant sentences in this article is: “What really helped me see the inhuman treatment of the Ahmadis in Pakistan is the absence of condemnation for it.”

    why do i say this is poignant? because many people (including myself) have been arguing about whether ahmadis are kafirs or believers or muslims, but at the end of the day: this is a horrific crime against a peaceful group of civilians who were engaged in prayer. whatever our interpretation of islam (or if we’re christians, agnostics, atheists, etc), at the end of the day we’re human beings. we have basic rights as human beings, and also duties to our fellow human beings. it seems sad to me that a person writes an article about the murder of almost 100 civilians, and some people start to say that ahmadis think non-ahmadis are non-muslims. the question is: does this justify murdering ahmadis in large numbers? is this relevant to the atrocity we’re discussing? are we proposing: “ahmadis think we’re non-muslims, therefore we can murder them freely”?

    i apologise for myself being sucked into the argument regarding ahmadis’ views of non-ahmadis, i simply wished to speak against what i felt was a misrepresentation. i hope that everybody here at least agrees on one thing: that the large-scale murder of peaceful law-abiding civilians is an unacceptable atrocity, whatever is their religious belief. i hope that we don’t permit anybody to turn this into a sectarian or political point-scoring exercise.

    peace.

  91. Keeping Honest

    HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
    TO REMIND MOOSA OF ANOTHER HORRIFIC CRIME

    May I remind you of another Lahore High Court Judgment:
    Decision of Honorable Lahore High Court F. W. Ckemp , Honorable Judge of Lahore High Court. Dated September 23, 1937.
    The honorable judge gave decision in murder trial of Fakhar ud Din Multani Shaheed. Because the victim questioned some “holy” personality in India.

  92. Keeping Honest

    MOOSA GET TO THE ROOT OF THE CONFLICT

    If someone insults your father and mother, i’m sure you will like to beat the shiit out of him. Howcome you don’t understand if other get angry with Qadianis when they feel their beloved prophet Muhammad pbuh, his family, and companions are insulted by Qadianis?

  93. Keeping Honest

    MUNIR INQUIRY COMMISSION REPORT

    Please read in Munir Report, in the section on allocating responsibility, the page about Qadiani Jamaat which concludes:

    “We are, therefore, satisfied that though the Ahmadis are not directly responsible for the disturbances, their conduct did furnish an occasion for the general agitation against them. If the feeling had not been so strong against them, we do not think that the Ahrar would have been successful in rallying round themselves all sorts of heterogeneous religious organisations.”
    PAGE 260

  94. Syed

    @Keeping Honest
    ‘their conduct did furnish an occasion for the general agitation against them’

    just like the claim of the first Muslims that there is only one God furnished an occasion for agitation against them by the idol-worshiping overlords of Qureish.

  95. Keeping Honest

    MAKE IT SIMPLE AND SAFE. START A NEW RELIGION.

    “just like the claim of the first Muslims that there is only one God furnished an occasion for agitation against them by the idol-worshiping overlords of Qureish.”

    Accept you’re is NEW religion. period.
    No ones feelings will hurt.

    BTW above Munir Commission inquiry report quote is from Qadiani affiliate website ‘persecution’.

  96. Bin Ismail

    @yasserlatifhamdani (June 19, 2010 at 6:40 pm)

    “…….Let us solve this issue. Technically speaking if a Shia Muslim didn’t consider Ahmadis non-muslim… could you pray behind him. If the answer is yes… all your detractors are merely engaging in technicalities that don’t make sense…….”

    Technically speaking, these “detractors” as you rightly call them, are neither dying to pray behind Ahmadis, nor are exactly eager to have Ahmadis pray behind them.

    Our most worthy interlocutor “Keeping Honest”, inspite of having a tough time keeping honest, not to mention rational, was finally able to come up with something useful in his post of June 20, 2010 at 2:43 am:

    “…..If someone insults your father and mother, i’m sure you will like to beat the shiit out of him…..”

    May I very humbly submit to all, that following the kind of insults that are extended everyday to the Imams of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat by non-Ahmadis and Lahoris, would it make any sense at all, to pray behind them?

  97. Bin Ismail

    Erratum: “…May I very humbly submit to all, that following the kind of insults that are extended everyday to the Imams of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat by non-Ahmadis and Lahoris, would it make any sense at all, [in praying] behind them?…”

  98. Keeping Honest

    BIN ISMAIL DOGGED YLH QUESTION

    YLH question:
    “…….Let us solve this issue. Technically speaking if a Shia Muslim didn’t consider Ahmadis non-muslim… could you pray behind him. If the answer is yes… all your detractors are merely engaging in technicalities that don’t make sense…….”

    BI answer:
    “Technically speaking, these “detractors” as you rightly call them, are neither dying to pray behind Ahmadis, nor are exactly eager to have Ahmadis pray behind them.”

    Sawal Gandum. Jawab Channa!

    Cat is jumping out of the bag. Rather, inside the bag.

  99. yasserlatifhamdani

    The issue here is that it doesn’t matter if Ahmadis don’t pray behind others or consider others non-Muslims…every sect considers every other sect non-Muslim but that the state doesn’t have any locus standi determining it.

  100. Keeping Honest

    “every sect considers every other sect non-Muslim”
    –JUST LIKE DOGS BARKING AT EACH OTHER IN A STREET.

    “but that the state doesn’t have any locus standi determining it.”–WELL SAID.

  101. Moosa

    @ keeping honest.

    KH, you wrote: “If someone insults your father and mother, i’m sure you will like to beat the shiit out of him. Howcome you don’t understand if other get angry with Qadianis when they feel their beloved prophet Muhammad pbuh, his family, and companions are insulted by Qadianis?”

    Firstly, as a moral human being with a respect for the law, I would not beat a person for insulting my father and mother. The Holy Qur’an forbids that I should beat a person for insulting a person. Prophet Muhammad (saw) on many occasions forbade his sahaba from beating people who insulted him. The people who beat others, they are not obeying the Holy Qur’an or the Holy Prophet (saw), they are simply animals who have no control over their own ego and anger. I believe that you also have very little control over your ego and anger. May Allah (swt) help you in this regard.

    Secondly, and very importantly, you have suggested that Ahmadis insult the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his family and his companions. This is a false accusation, I deny it absolutely. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad (saw) is His messenger, he is the elect and supreme prophet, the pride of the prophets, the light of humankind, the pearl and the jewel and the sun and the moon and all the stars together cannot match his spiritual beauty. His sahaba were the best of sahaba granted to any prophet, his family such as Khadija, Fatima, Ali, Hasan and Hussain were the best family to have ever graced this earth. This is my belief. Ahmadi Muslims have died because they have held fast to this belief and refused to accept that they are not Muslims, whereas the belief of most other Muslims has not been tested in this way. Have you cut open my heart, that you tell me my belief and you tell me what is in my heart?

  102. yasserlatifhamdani

    Keeping Dishonest is a crook. No point discussing anything with him.
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  103. Moosa

    @ Y L H

    You seem open-minded. If you want to hear an intellectually brilliant and insightful response from the Fourth Caliph to the question, “Do Ahmadis think non-Ahmadis are Muslims?”, then please go to the following link:

    1. Google, “AskIslam”, and go to that website.
    2. Click on “Religions and Beliefs” at the top of the page.
    3. Click on “Islam”.
    4. Click on “Sects”.
    5. Click on “Question 263”.

    You can make up your own mind, but personally I think the Fourth Caliph’s response is genius.

  104. Bin Ismail

    @Keeping Honest (June 20, 2010 at 8:42 am)

    “…..Sawal Gandum. Jawab Channa! Cat is jumping out of the bag. Rather, inside the bag…..”

    Regrettably, inspite of deep reflection on your idiotically, I mean idiomatically rich expression, its link to the question/answer between YLH and my humble self could not be found. Similarly, the gundum/chana or cat/bag relationship too, was conspicuous by its absence.

    Now to help you out, YLH’s question was based on the assumption that non-Ahmadi imams were eager to have Ahmadis praying behind them as muqtadis, and that Ahmadis were equally eager to pray behind non-Ahmadi imams.

    What I simply pointed out was that since this utter lack of eagerness is mutual, why worry about it.

  105. Moosa

    @ Bin Ismail

    I think the case for the prosecution and the case for the defense has been duly presented to the PTH Courtroom. It’s probably not useful to respond further to KH’s diatribe. Hopefully the fair-minded and intelligent people on this blog will make an appropriate decision on the merits of his/her case.

  106. Farhat

    This video says it all…

  107. An Ahmadi Muslim

    The ignorance demonstrated in the videos posted above, “Farm Boy on June18” and “Farhat on June21″, was foretold in the the following hadith.

    Ali RA relates that the Holy Prophet SAW said:
    A time will come when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of Quran except its script. Mosques will be full of worshipers but as far as righteousness is concerned they will be empty and deserted. Their ulema will be the worst of the creatures under the canopy of heavens. Evil plots will originate from them and to them they will return.” (Mishkat)

    May Allah save us from the evil of these ignorant, so called ulema. These losers forget that Allah SWT is sufficient as the protector of the mantle of the Khatum-un-nabeeyeen and Rahmat-ullilalameen.

    Islam is a simple, beautiful message of peace and a way of life that is in tune with the natural laws. Shukr, Alhamdolillah we choose to follow the Islam that was taught and practiced by the Khatum-un-nabeeyeen, Rahmat-ullilallmeen, Mohammad Mustafa SAW. It does not matter whether or not you care for us. It you don’t, it is your loss. Our hope, aspiration, and strife are that Allah SWT cares for us and is pleased with us!

    May Allah SWT be our protector and our shield against ignorance, hatred, and evil. Mah He be pleased with us. Ameen. Insh’Allah.

    Salaam.

  108. OMLK

    @Moosa

    You are right I have not read the entire corpus of literature by the Qadiani Ahmadi Caliphs. At the same time I doubt you have read the entire corpus of literature by the Lahori Ahmadi elders. I say this because you have presented a distorted version of history to paint the Lahori Ahmadis in a negative light with regard to why the split took place in the movement. I am not doubting your intent, but simply your knowledge. But more on this later…

    First thing to make clear is that based on the writings of one (probably) anonymous individual, you have declared ..”Not only this, but rather than offer condolences to the Ahmadis who were martyred recently, again they have sought to blame everything on the Ahmadi Caliphs. For any fair-minded person, this behaviour makes it clear that the Lahori community have become blinded..”

    Nothing can be further from the truth. The LAM immediately issued a press release not only unequivocally condemning this massacre, but also publicly saying that:

    “We pray that may Allah enter all the martyrs in Paradise and may they be among the successful ones. We sympathise with the families who have lost their near and dear ones.

    We, the members of Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i Islam Lahore (Lahori Ahmadis), stand with Jamaat-e Rabwah in this time of trial and pray that may Allah keep them safe for all times to come.”

    Furthermore as some families are divided between the Qadiani and Lahori sections, the loss of loved ones was also felt by some Lahori Ahmadis. I can confidently state that the general reaction of the Lahori Ahmadis has been one of utter horror and disgust at this dastardly act and the overwhelming feelings towards the Qadiani Ahmadis have been of genuine and heartfelt sympathy. My point is just to dispel the general impression about Lahori Ahmadis that may be created by Moosa’s post which in itself is, I think, based on the posts of one individual on the net.

    As far as the Qadiani version of the split is concerned, let me just state here the Lahori version. I am using the words “version” here to drive home first the point that are “versions” here, and nothing I or Moosa, or anyone else for that matter, may say should be taken at face value. So the Lahori version in short is:

    A certain group led by the founder’s son distorted the teachings of HMGA by proclaiming Mirza Sahib as a prophet and saying that a belief in HMGA is required to be a Muslim. They also claimed that a certain verse of the Quran mentioning the name “Ahmed” is referring to HMGA. This group after the demise of the first Caliph, attracted the following of the vast majority of the Ahmadis. Certain highly respected scholars of the Ahmadi Jammat, differed over all these three points and asserted that HMGA by his writings denied being a prophet and was a religious reformer (metaphorically called a prophet) and that a belief in HMGA is not required to be a Muslim and the said Quranic verse is referring to the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and not HMGA. Based upon these differences this group split away from the majority and founded the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.

    As for Moosa’s comment “problem was that Muhammad Ali couldn’t justify his decision as himself not accepting the leader who was preferred by the huge majority of the Ahmadi Community, because this would suggest he simply wanted to be the leader himself and could not bring himself to accept a young inexperienced man as his leader. Therefore suddenly, after the Qadiani/Lahori split, he and the Lahoris sought to: 1) develop, highlight and accentuate some religious differences between the two communities, and use those differences to justify the split, 2) bring into disreputr…..”

    I would just like to point out that the religious differences (as mentioned above) did not happen “suddenly after the Qadiani/Lahori split,” but were actually present before the split in 1914 and this can be verified. It is true that the Lahori Jamaat is governed by an elected committee.

    Moosa also said: “the Lahoris are angry, they are literally biting their fingers with anger. Why? The reason is that for over 80 years they have compromised their beliefs for the sake of acceptance by the Muslims of Pakistan…..Pakistan. But the most awful thing they did, was that they sought to vilify the Qadiani community in order to make other Muslims think that Lahoris were “good Muslims”. This is why the Lahoris bang on about, “The Qadianis believe he’s a prophet but we believe he was only a spiritual reformer, so please continue to say they’re not Muslims, but please we beg you, we beg you, we beg you to accept our Islam”. But what is causing them so much pain, is that after all these efforts on their part, after compromising to the extent of becoming ethically bankrupt, they are still not accepted by the Pakistani Government as”

    The mocking and insulting tone of these words aside, let’s just note the following points:

    1 – Moosa has basically questioned the intent of the Lahori Ahmadis, saying that they wanted to be accepted by the Muslims of Pakistan. I am sure saying Pakistan was an honest mistake as the religious differences started after 1908. In any case, if it was acceptance by Muslims in general what was desired, then all that the Lahori Ahmadis had to do was to renounce their beliefs altogether. They would have been garlanded with flowers and no doubt reaped immense material benefits as well. Also please note bitter opposition to HMGA and his followers, including fatwas of Kufr, was present long before 1914 (year of the split) and also before the time Qadiani Ahmadi elders started to use the word Kafir for Muslims. In fact severe opposition was even present at the time HMGA was vehemently denying any claim to Prophethood. My point simply being that it could not have been the motivation by the Lahori Ahmadis to be accepted by the Muslims by splitting from Qadian; because the Lahoris have always continued to hold the same basic beliefs of HMGA that earned HMGA severe opposition and criticism from the Mullahs. The Lahori stand has always been and always will be based on what we feel to be the correct teachings of HMGA in the light of his own writings and the Hoy Quran. Just like the Qadiani Jammat, the Lahoris have, on account of their beliefs, been severely persecuted since long before 1974 and Zia happened; and not once have the Lahori Ahmadis budged an inched from their principled stand since 1914.

    2 – As for Moosa asserting that the Lahoris sought to “vilify the Qadiani community” and that they have “begged” to keep Qadianis as non-Muslims, please provide some references to show if in fact this is what the Lahori Ahmadiyya Movement has been doing since 1914. Otherwise what you are saying is in fact itself a “vilification” of the Lahoris and moreover certain things you have said in your post could be construed to lay a similar charge against the Qadiani Ahmadis. There are differences of opinion between the Qadiani and Lahori Jammats agreed, but how do you come to the conclusion that the Lahori Jammat is “ethically bankrupt.” If it is on account of difference of opinion then we can say the same thing about the Qadiani Jammat. If it is on account of alleged “vilification” of the Qadiani Jammat and “begging” non-Ahmadis to call them non-Muslims, then let us see some evidence. And I mean something beyond the diatribe of Mr. keeping honest / m ali 3 / etc.

    3 – This is not to say that the Lahori Ahmadis do not make it a point to differentiate themselves from the Qadiani Ahmadis. They certainly do, and do it simply because most people are not aware of the fundamental differences between the two groups and more often than not assume that some Qadiani Ahmadi beliefs are shared by the Lahoris which is not the case. More importantly we also think it is important that people should know that the attribution of prophethood to HMGA is not something which HMGA himself proclaimed, and there exist followers of HMGA who interpret his writings and claims differently from the Qadiani Ahmadis. To this extent we have no hesitation in saying that the Qadiani Ahmadi leaders have distorted the teachings of HMGA; and this is not vilification but simply calling a spade a spade. Keep in mind that the Lahore Ahmadiyya complaint against the Qadiani Caliphs, right or wrong, is at least based on some published, written evidence, correct or in correct, while the current accusation against the Lahori Ahmadis is focused on the assumed intent of the Lahoris rather than the multitude of literature they have published, clearly stating their position and reasoning.

    I do apologise for this long piece, but felt it necessary to clear the name of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement that was being brought into disrepute.

  109. Bin Ismail

    @OMLK (June 21, 2010 at 5:29 pm)

    The manner in which participants such as “a muslim”, “m ali(1-3)” and more lately “keeping honest” did, I’m sorry to say reflect rather poorly on the civility of a community that attributes itself to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.

    The events that led to these current discussions were tragic. Whatever the depth of anyone’s rancour, simple decency would have called for abstention from doctrinal and personal tirades. This is precisely why I had earlier written to “a muslim” that had Maulana Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin been alive today and witnessed the comments of “a muslim”, who was supposedly representing LAM, they would have most certainly felt disgusted. There is an occasion for everything, and this certainly was not the occasion for saying whatever was said by some interlocutors who at least presented themselves as Lahori Ahmadis.

    Moosa or anybody else or my humble self would feel honoured to defend what we deem as the truth. Ahmadis are a community who have served their faith not by taking the lives of others but by laying down their own. With patience, decency, civility and gentlemanliness, they will defend their doctrine, their Imams and the honour of their Jamaat.

    Around 90 innocent and strictly law-abiding Ahmadi citizens of Pakistan were massacred in a single day, as they knelt and submitted themselves before their Lord. A gentleman would never choose to capitalize on the opportunity born out of such a situation, merely to fulfill an unfulfilled desire of expressing old grudges.

    The discussion that this situation calls for, is not on the doctrinal differences between the two communities. What we need to discuss, as Pakistanis, is how to rescue Pakistan from a situation that clearly spells doom.

  110. Bin Ismail

    Erratum: [1st para of previous post]

    “The manner in which participants such as “a muslim”, “m ali(1-3)” and more lately “keeping honest” [spoke] did, I’m sorry to say, reflect rather poorly on the civility of a community that attributes itself to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.”

    Sorry for the typo error.

  111. Moosa

    @ OMLK

    I take it that you’re a Lahori Ahmadi? This much was not evident to me hitherto. I commend your civility and encourage you to impart it to your brothers.

    I’m glad to hear that the official statement of the Lahori Ahmadis is to express condolences. The offical statement of the entire Pakistani political establishment is also to express condolences. This is very commendable.

    I’m also sad to hear you speak of the “mocking and insulting tone” of my message. I felt that I was responding very gently to extremely provocative and insulting messages from your Lahori brothers on this blog. But if you feel that my tone was not proportionate to the offensiveness of your Lahori brothers, and you felt his messages were not far more “mocking and insulting”, then you have a right to your opinion.

    My opinion of the Lahori Jamaat is not formed from the writings of their elders, I’ve read only two books by Muhammad Ali sahib (ra) and I found them intellectual and “clever”. But my opinion of a Movement is not formed from the written words of one of their elders, beautiful writings can be found in every religious movement. My opinion is based on the fruits which I taste, the evidence and the practical behaviour which I see before me. It’s heartening to see that the Lahori Jamaat has expressed condolences, but I’ve rarely seen a more vitriolic and offensive attack on ‘Qadiani’ Ahmadis than what I’ve seen on this blog from two Lahori Ahmadis. Where did they learn this from? Why are they behaving in this way? Actions speak louder than words. There is obviously a deep-rooted hatred, and I wonder at what stage in their training and education these two Lahori Ahmadis acquire this hatred of Qadiani Ahmadis? Certainly it was not provoked by anything either myself or any Ahmadi here said. They offended first, we responded to their provocation, our response was entirely proportional and in fact a lot more civil than their offense.

    Regarding principles, my opinion is the same. This isn’t the place for prolonged religious argumentation, but briefly Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) clearly wrote he was a “zilli nabi” and a “boruzi nabi”. He also claimed he fulfilled the prophecy of the re-advent of Isa bin Maryam (as) and Sahih Muslim says that Isa bin Maryam (as) will be “nabi” when he returns. Now the Qadiani Ahmadis say a “zilli nabi” is a type of nabi who has borrowed his nabuwwat from obedience to Prophet Muhammad (saw). But the Lahori Ahmadis say “No, zilli nabi is not any type of nabi, it’s purely metaphorical, it doesn’t mean ‘nabi’ in any way whatsoever”. But the question is: what does this metaphor mean? If a “zilli nabi” isn’t a type of nabi, then why use the words “zilli nabi”? For me, it is intellectually dishonest to emphasise the “zilli” over the “nabi” to the extent that the “nabi” disappears. The only reasonable explanation that comes to my mind is that Lahori Ahmadis didn’t like to say that he was a nabi, because (A) nabuwwat tends to lead to khilafat, (B) they were hoping (wrongly, it turned out) that opposition would lessen if they emphasised the “zilli” over the “nabi”, to the extent that the “nabi” disappeared. For me, there is no meaningful theological difference between the Lahori and Qadiani Ahmadis: both accept that Ghulam Ahmad (as) was a “zilli nabi”, which means that in some sense he was a nabi. Both accept that he was the Imam Mahdi and that Prophet Muhammad (saw) commanded all Muslims must pledge allegiance to the Imam Mahdi, hence a Muslim who doesn’t do this is disobeying Prophet Muhammad (saw). The principal differences seem political, and my personal opinion is that the motivation for the split was mainly political. This is my opinion, you have the right to your own opinion.

    I won’t be posting here for a couple of weeks now, I have a difficult professional exam to prepare.

    Peace,
    Moosa

  112. Keeping Honest01

    CALLING SPADE A SPADE
    BI writes:
    “The manner in which participants such as “a muslim”, “m ali(1-3)” and more lately “keeping honest” did, I’m sorry to say reflect rather poorly on the civility of a community that attributes itself to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. ”

    Guys, do you want me to post words used by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib in his writings and even Allah SWT has used much stronger words in Holy Quran while calling Spade a Spade.
    HMGA said: calling thief a thief is NOT using profanity.

  113. Straight Shooter

    PAKISTANI POLITICIAN MR. SHER AFGHAN

    Moosa writes:
    “If a “zilli nabi” isn’t a type of nabi, then why use the words “zilli nabi”? For me, it is intellectually dishonest to emphasise the “zilli” over the “nabi” to the extent that the “nabi” disappears.”

    What Moosa is saying is tantamount to asking, Why Mr. Sher Afghan calls himself ‘Sher’ (a lion belonging Felidae family) when he does not have a tail???
    Moosa good question!!!!

  114. OMLK

    @ Moosa

    Thanks for appreciating my civility; however I am not in a position to impart it to my brothers as I have learnt it from them.

    I am rather disappointed to see you have chosen to degrade the condolence message from the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement to the level of one from the politicians, and at the same time chosen to ignore the genuine feelings of the Lahori community that I attempted to describe. I do not think that any politician would have used the status of “martyrs” or “shaheeds” to honour the victims (for obvious reasons) and prayed for their high station in paradise as the Lahori Ahmadis have done. It appears you like to cast doubt on the intent of the Lahori Ahmadis. Perhaps this is inadvertent, but regardless, let us leave the misgivings aside for a moment, and let the genuine prayers and sympathy expressed by the Lahori Ahmadi community towards the victims, families and the Rabwah Jammat be taken in their true spirit.

    I described your words as “mocking and insulting” because of your choice of words and language such as describing the Lahore Ahmadi community as “ethically bankrupt” and “begging” the non-Ahmadi Muslims. If this was in response to the choice of words and timing by the one individual called keeping-honest/m ali3/etc. (whom you have chosen to call my “Lahori brother”), then even if you chose to stoop low to answer this individual, it was not correct to trash the entire Lahore Ahmadiyya community on this account. In fact I never took exception to whatever you and others have had to say to this person on this forum, but when I saw that some totally in-correct and insulting statements were being directed towards the Lahori Jammat in general, I felt it necessary to defend the community in my personal capacity (Just like you have defended your caliphs and your community.)

    You have suggested that the person whose objectionable posts have sparked this discussion, suffers from a deep rooted hatred towards the Qadiani Ahmadis which has been taught to him, possibly even was part of his education. Now, I don’t know who told you that the Lahori Ahmadis are taught to hate Qadiani Ahmadis. If this no small charge is based simply on the posts on this forum, then all I can ask of you is to reconsider your opinion based on something more solid. If it based on the anti-Lahori second-hand sources you originally mentioned, then I can only tell you that the sources are mis-leading you. In fact it appears you have been pre-disposed to see us in a negative light by some sources, and I can only hope this is not a wide spread practice in the Qadiani Jammat. Unfortunately your pre-disposition was “confirmed” by one anonymous individual and hence your attack on the Lahori community in general.

    We have our difference on religious matter yes, but never has the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ever “hated” or acted against the Qadiani Ahmadis in any way. As I said before if you have valid reasons to believe otherwise then share them with us. In fact on a community level the Lahori Ahmadis often interact with Qadiani Ahmadis as friends, relatives, co-workers etc., and as far as I can tell the relations have always been cordial, respectful and even I would say at times affectionate given our mutual background. At the same it is a matter of record that the Lahori Ahmadis have been severely victimized and persecuted since 1914, but have patiently and steadfastly stood by their original, clear and consistent stand. Anything else is your opinion.
    This is not to deny the fundamental difference in certain beliefs between the Lahori and Qadiani Ahmadis. However, I fear that the Qadiani Jammat practice of ignoring the actual differences and focusing instead on the intent and motive of the Lahore scholars who dared to differ with HMGA’s on ideological grounds, has in fact sown a seed of distrust. I think instead of making it a political issue, which it is not, it is better to focus on the actual arguments presented by the Lahore Jamaat over why they chose to split. This is the civilized way to argue, focus on the issue itself, and not on the honesty or the lack thereof of the other party.

    You are right this is perhaps not the forum to discuss the issue of zilli verses actual prophethood and what the Quran, The Prophet (SAWS) and HMGA had to say on the matter. Suffice it to say we differ on this account. I will, however, still check the sources you gave me earlier on the “Kufr” issue and would still like to engage to clarify matters. In the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement we have always been encouraged against blind following of any one, so I have no hesitation in testing what I know and believe with what you can tell me; with the Quran, The Prophet (SAWS) and HMGA being the judging criteria (in that order).

  115. An Ahmadi Muslim

    The hypocrites, so-called muslims, need to clean their own stinking house before ranting and raving against the evils of others.

    If you have a grain of righteousness in you, then learn from an Israeli mother .. you shameless, holier-than-thou, trigger-happy, followers of ignorant mullahs.

    http://www.mwlusa.org/news/israeli_mother.htm

    This is how to call a spade a spade!

  116. Shah Zaman

    @Straight Shooter:

    PAKISTANI POLITICIAN MR. SHER AFGHAN

    “What Moosa is saying is tantamount to asking, Why Mr. Sher Afghan calls himself ‘Sher’ (a lion belonging Felidae family) when he does not have a tail???”

    I never knew if “Nabi” was part of the name of HMGA!