Impoverished Journalism and Impious Mullahs

Amaad Ahmad’s exclusive piece for PTH.

On June 16th 2010, Ulema of different religious parties appeared on the popular show Point Blank hosted by Mubashir Lucman of Express News for a discussion on the case of Ahmadis. The ‘scholarly’ panel launched unwarranted and slanderous attacks on the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian and his followers. Compromising all journalistic ethos, no hearing was given by Mr. Lucman to those being denounced as the infidels. Image the reaction if Sunni beliefs were analyzed by Shia Ayatollahs on Point Blank instead.

This was not a discussion between two points of view since no Ahmadi scholar was invited to rebut or reply to the pronouncements of the Ulema. Rather it was only an affirmation of the alleged heresy of Ahmadis. Contrast this with when the Ahmadiyya Jamaat’s spokesperson was brought on the same show only days earlier for expressing his community’s reaction to May 28th atrocity. The spokesman’s limited airtime was generously gifted by Mr. Lucman to the ideological opponents of the movement. So much for the notion of fair and balanced discussion.

Given a free run by their host, the panelists competed for uttering the uglier and professing the more profane. Telling half-truths and full lies, they distorted facts and abused history in a way only Mullahs know best. Given their background, they did not fail in portraying a false and misleading picture of the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The only disappointment was the unbecoming conduct of Mubashir Lucman who joined in the chorus with vulgar laughs, cheap appeasement and suggestion of the divine punishment awaiting Ahmadis. It was troubling to see the depth to which Mr. Lucman has fallen.

As for the slander, some very serious and utterly false allegations were made. Among many things, the oft repeated charge that Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian was a British agent whose sole intent was sowing the seeds of dissension in Muslims through his false claims to prophethood and to strengthening the British imperial designs were made by the Mullahs. Those who know history would recall that a massive Christian missionary effort was launched in India through the blessings of the British Raj during the nineteenth century. Conversion of Muslims to Christianity en masse would have bolstered the Anglican Church and strengthened the colonial Raj.

What was never stated on Point Blank and which would have sounded a death knell for these allegations is that it was Ghulam Ahmad who stood up to these missionaries. Through his writings it was he who vehemently challenged the Church doctrine and tried to win back converts to their original faith of Islam. By engaging in powerful intellectual debates with the priests and by authoring treatise after treatise to assert the supremacy and finality of Prophet Muhammad (sw), Ghulam Ahmad singularly beat back the tide of Christian Evangelism in India. Some of these historical facts have been admitted by men like Javed Iqbal, the son of Allama Iqbal, and renowned scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed, an avowed opponent of Ahmadiyya movement, on a TV show hosted by Mr. Lucman’s fellow journalist Shahid Masood.

Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the other claims of Ghulam Ahmad – of being the Messiah and Mahdi – is an altogether different issue. As amply borne out by his writings, it is absolutely undeniable that Ghulam Ahmad professed his position in relation to Prophet Muhammad (sw) only as that of a humble and lowly servant. Surely, an Ahmadi representative could have elaborated this had Mr. Lucman been kind enough.

Another glaring omission of Mr. Lucman’s guests was the fact that Ghulam Ahmad’s assertion that Jesus died a natural death was a direct hit on the core convictions of Church-going Victorian Englishmen. While these panelists quoted Ghulam Ahmad out of context to show his disrespect of the Prophets, they failed to mention that the quotations were in response to the character assassination of Prophet Muhammad (sw) by some outspoken Evangelists. They hid the fact that Ghulam Ahmad would try to demonstrate the weakness of such vicious slander by using Biblical references – not his own views – for the purpose of rebuttal.

All of this begets the question as to why would the overlords of the British empire be so stupid as to prop up this ‘imposter’ who challenges their very beliefs and thus compromises the Anglican Church’s ostensible effort in bolstering the colonial Raj? Clearly, if Mr. Lucman had been courageous enough to spare Ahmadis a few minutes of airtime, these ridiculous accusations against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could have been dispelled.

Incidentally, the panelists also condemned the attacks on Ahmadis on May 28th as briefly as brief can be. This was a waste of time though. As their host Mr. Lucman passively looked on, they could not resist announcing the fatwa of death during the show against Ahmadis for their ‘apostasy’. He needs to be asked: Why bother hearing such condemnation on the murder of Ahmadis? After all, Ahmadis are wajib-ul-qatal in the light of this latest fatwa.

From what anyone can gather from this particular show is that we don’t need to look afar for why sectarian tension and terrorism is engulfing our country. Those who use false religious frenzy and emotional propaganda to arouse violent passions in the public exist right here in our midst in front of our screens through the blessings of such anchors.

With laws of the land and such ‘flag bearers’ of free and independent media stacked against them, the Ahmadis can only beseech God for Divine Intervention. As for the allegations by these bigots and the deplorable submissiveness of the show’s sponsor, a Persian couplet of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would suffice. It translates as:

After the love of God it is the love of Muhammad which has intoxicated my soul,

If this makes me an infidel, then I am, by God, the staunchest of infidels.



Filed under journalism, Media, Taliban

36 responses to “Impoverished Journalism and Impious Mullahs

  1. Straight Shooter


    Dear brother Mubashir Lucman sahib:
    Aslam Alikum,

    Today I watched your TV show Point Blank aired on June 16, 2010 on the subject of Qadiani beliefs. I think it’s a great idea to hold public debate in your program, as you have put it very aptly “to do unlimited number of shows on this subject”.

    I am member of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (aka Lahori-Ahmadis or Lahori-group). I am sure you must be aware that there are two factions of Ahmadis. In 1914 Ahmadiyya Jammat split and its members that moved to Lahore are called Lahori-Ahmadis, and those who remained in Qadian, India are called Qadiani-Ahmadis. Later Qadiani-Ahmadis moved to Rabwah (now Chenab Nagar), Pakistan. And since mid 1980s their Khalifa is residing in London. I don’t know if you‘re aware about the differences between these two factions. Anyways, there are very fundamental differences between the two factions.
    Briefly, Lahori-Ahmadis hold beliefs:
    1-All reciters of Kalima-Shahada are Muslims.
    2- Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) is the LAST prophet/ messenger of Allah (SWT).
    No new or old prophet can come after him.
    3- Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of Qadian was only a Mujaddid (reformer) of 14th Islamic Hijra century.
    4- It is NOT must to believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib for a Muslim.
    5- Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement is only an organization for propagation of rational, tolerant, peaceful, inspiring, non-sectarian message of Islam. Mostly focused on taking its mission of service to Islam to Christian countries of Europe and Americas.
    6- If some Muslim brother/ sister wants to join our organization they are expected to volunteer their time, energies and finances as much as they can afford comfortably for propagation of Islam.
    7- Every Muslim and non-Muslim is welcome to read, benefit and propagate message of Islam published by Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) literature. LAM literature is available online and in print. There websites:
    8- Like Pakistani Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamdi and other Islamic Scholars in countries outside Pakistan, Lahori-Ahmadis hold belief that Hazrat Isa AS (Jesus) has died and will NOT return to this earth in physical form.

    Mubashir Lucman sahib you’re this effort will go a long way in service of Islam and Pakistan. I can start answering to accusations made by your guests; actually they are as old as Ahmadiyya Movement started by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani sahib. They have been answered zillion times by LAM and available on their websites referred above. Instead I want to request you and bring some information to your knowledge:

    1- It will be highly appreciated if in one of your TV program you can mention about LAM and their beliefs, as given above.

    2- If you can raise issue on your TV program that Government of Pakistan should officially make public 1974 National Assembly sessions proceedings (including the first TWO days when LAM representative testified) that passed 2nd amendment to 1973 constitution declaring both groups i.e. Lahori-Ahmadis and Qadiani-Ahmadis as non-Muslim (Kafir). After all it has been more than 35 years, and under Pakistani law confidential documents can be made public after 25 years. Record of 2nd amendment does not contain any national security issue. Especially when it has been many years since Hamud-ur-Rehman inquiry commission report on fall of Dacca has been made public. And that report dealt with national security issues.

    3- It might be information for you that in early to mid 1980s there was a court case between LAM and Muslim Ulema in South Africa. Muslim Ulema were supported by all the prominent ulema from Pakistan and other countries. This case was tried in an impartial court and an impartial judge gave the decision. The decision was in favour of LAM. Interestingly Muslim Ulema from Pakistan decided not to defend their case saying that, “a non-Muslim court can not decide a case of Muslim”. They forgot Pakistan also had famous non-Muslim Supreme Court judges from Justice Alvin Robert Cornelius to as recent as Justice Rana Bhagwandas. Anyways, the South African court case was published in Pakistani Law book: Pakistan Supreme Court Cases, March, 1986, Vol V, Part 3
    (Chief Editor: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court)
    The judgment said:

    (a) Ahmadis (Lahori)
    — Held: Ahmadis are Muslims. (Para 67, 68, 83)
    (b) Ahmadis
    — Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – Founder of Ahmadis sect of Muslim —
    Held:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was “Wali” or “Mujadid” and not the prophet.
    (Para 27)
    (c ) Ahmadis (Lahori)
    — Muslim Mosque – Admittance of –Entitlement of – Ahmadis (Lahori)
    — Held: Ahmadis (Lahori) are entitled to admittance to Muslim mosque held under dead of transfer dated 11-2-1881 (Para 83)
    (d) Ahmadis (Lahori)
    — Muslim cemetery –Burial – Right of –Ahmadi (Lahori)
    — Held: Ahmadi (Lahori) has right of burial in Muslim cemetery as another Muslims have. (Para 83)
    (e) Ahmadis (Lahori)
    — Muslims – Right of propagation against Ahmadis – Muslims restrained from disseminating, Publishing or otherwise Propagating false, harmful malicious and defamatory matter of and concerning members of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ashati Islam Lahore South Africa to wit, that such members are non-Muslims disbelievers “Kafir, apostates, murtads” that they are non-believers. (Para 83)
    (f) Ahmadis
    — Founder of Ahmadi Sect – Claims of – Stated:-
    (i) He denied receiving wahy nubuwwat (prophethood) and affirmed receiving wahy wilayat (sainthood).
    (ii) He denied the use of Prophet (nabi) in its technical sense and affirmed the use of this term in its literal sense.
    (iii) He denied that the term muhaddas could be applied to him in its literal sense and affirmed that he was a muhaddas in the technical sense.
    (iv) He denied being an actual or real prophet and affirmed being a metaphorical prophet.

    The SCANNED PAGES of Pakistan Supreme Court cases are available on Lahori-Ahmadis websites. See the link:
    (Scroll to bottom of the link).

    To read it in text form please visit:

    It is very unfortunate that Lahori-Ahmadis are bundled together with Qadiani-Ahmadis. And Pakistani masses, politicians and Ulema wrongly think since Lahori-Ahmadis also hold belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a truthful person, so they “must” hold the same belief as Qadiani-Ahmadis.

  2. Syed

    “the quotations were in response to the character assassination of Prophet Muhammad (sw) by some outspoken Evangelists.”

    Our Maulanas proclaim their love of the Prophet. They can’t withstand Facebook but if someone tries to respond intellectually -not violently-to the blasphemers, they declare him a Kafir for being *disrespectful* to Jesus.

  3. S B Ahmad

    Excellent response to Mubashar Lucman’s show. His show was indeed pathetic and it was funny to see him trying to ‘regain’ his stature in the eyes of these ulema…’aap muje maarein gay to nain’

    He is mistaken! No one who has appeased the mullahs has ever survived their demands.

  4. wama maohamad illah rasool kad khalit min kablihill rulas that was recited by hazrat abubakar may good plz with him when prophet mohammad pbuh passed away.

  5. An Ahmadi Muslim

    Hazrat 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)

  6. YLH

    You guys have no idea. A few days later the brave Nadia Jamil took me on air to discuss this issue and kamran shahid- that third rate fool who does that show for frontline- shouted me down like a crook.

    Express TV is a ridiculous TV channel. Most of Pakistani media is fucked up.

  7. Syed

    Which date was Nadia’s show?
    I know she brought Ali Dayan, Imtiaz Ahmad and Mujeeb Shami but that was earlier.

  8. OMLK

    I did not see this show by Mubasar Luqman, but did see a similar one by Mr. Aalim Online some time back on Geo. It was much in the same vein, with some Mullahs freely abusing HMGA and his followers and ofcourse the “wajb ul qatl” issue was mentioned. At one point the “intellectual” criticism was that one Maulana felt nausea after reading a book by HMGA! Question is: where is the law of the land? From the blasphemy law (as pointed out by ylh) to the law guaranteeing all citizens protection of their lives and property; which are blatanly violated by such media personnel and their invitees. But when sitting ministers publicly state that the Ahamdis are conspiring agaainst Pakistan, what can one expect….

  9. Mansoor Khalid

    Although I am not in favor of debating religious views on TV for the sake of it because no matter how liberal and tolerant I and you are, there will be people who would take it in wrong sense. So let’s just agree that religion should and the choices about it are personal and shouldn’t be made a point to be discussed.

  10. Tilsim

    “As their host Mr. Lucman passively looked on, they could not resist announcing the fatwa of death during the show against Ahmadis for their ‘apostasy’.”

    This programme is available on the web if one searches for it. The government and the ‘secular’ political parties are not taking robust action against hate speech and threats of violence. It’s not clear to me why the Supreme Court does not take suo moto notice of this incitement to violence and murder on TV channels, media and in political rallies? The honourable court has taken up many other issues. At least such notice would put the TV channels on guard. They are causing the greatest damage to the nation’s mind.

    If matters continue like this, there is real danger of genocide. The Pakistani judicial system must wake up to the threat.

  11. Tilsim

    @ Mansoor Khalid
    “So let’s just agree that religion should and the choices about it are personal and shouldn’t be made a point to be discussed.”

    Agreed, are you talking about Pakistan? 🙂

  12. Jamal

    Public support for militancy
    By Asad Hashim
    Tuesday, 22 Jun, 2010

    ON a recent research visit during Friday prayers to a madressah known for advocating the use of violence against ‘unbelievers’, I was advised, in no uncertain terms, and on the highest authority, to harm those who would “offend the shaan of the Prophet (PBUH)”.

    Topping the list were Jews and Christians, with Ahmadis following close behind. (Interestingly, the man leading the prayers reserved his harshest words not for any of these people themselves, but for those who “sympathise and provide comfort” to members of the Ahmadi community.) All this was happening behind a police security picket and, indeed, happens week in and week out.

    Earlier, I had visited the Karachi headquarters of a banned sectarian group (now operating under the name Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat), where I was told that the organisation’s main purpose was the disenfranchisement of members of the Shia community. The group’s representative told me of all the ‘dangers’ that the Shias pose and how and why it was perfectly correct to oppress them, given that they ‘offend’ the sensibilities of other Muslims; a Rangers jawan sat opposite us.It’s time to talk about the elephant in the room. Mainly because the elephant is violently intolerant at best and homicidal at worst.

    This is not, however, a piece about the government not cracking down on religious groups with intolerant views of society that espouse violence against other Pakistanis. It is about why the government is not in a position to do so, not because of some double or triple game being played with ‘strategic depth’, but because of what regular Pakistanis believe, and more importantly, tolerate.

    Take the Lahore High Court’s ban on Facebook for hosting material that was declared as offensive to Muslims. The LHC’s decision may have been particularly narrow and conservative, but the actual issue, as raised by a legal analyst, is this: if indeed the ban was challenged on appeal in the Supreme Court, the court could very likely have upheld it, not because of any legal merits of the case, but because it ‘could not be seen to be supporting blasphemy’.

    The issue, then, does not focus so much on the organs of the state and the decisions that they make, but the society in which those decisions are made. Specifically, when it comes to religion, it is about how violent actors are able to gain public support.

    Understanding this support is, in many ways, key to understanding how and why members of the PML-N campaign with heads of banned sectarian organisations, or the courts uphold the release of the heads of organisations that have been banned because of their links to violent jihad. And what’s more, it appears that everything we thought we knew about the nature of this support is wrong.

    A recent report published in the International Security journal suggests that there are four ‘conventional wisdoms’ that appear to govern counter-terrorism policy in Pakistan. First, that poorer or less educated people are more likely to support militancy. Second, that personal religiosity and support for Sharia predicts support for militant groups. Third, support for religious political parties (such as the Jamaat-i-Islami) predicts support for militancy. Finally, that belief in democracy and support for militancy are mutually exclusive.

    Fair enough. Those sound perfectly reasonable. But, as it turns out, not really. Having carried out extensive fieldwork to gather data from thousands of individuals from various backgrounds, the author found that, in general, there is no correlation between support for militancy and the factors outlined. A separate study, carried out on six Muslim countries in 2009 for the Journal of Conflict Resolution, found that not only was there no correlation in any of those countries, higher-income and higher-literacy groups in Pakistan were actually more supportive of militancy than lower-income and lower-literacy groups.

    Clearly something is wrong with the way the question is being framed. Inherent in each of the conventional wisdoms is a simultaneous assumption that there is such a thing as a ‘taste’ for militancy that can be ‘educated’ out of a person, and the divorce of the model from politics.

    What the authors of the International Security report found was that the Pakistani public’s support for militancy is, essentially, a political decision. People will support violent action against US forces in Afghanistan, for example, if they believe the US presence in Afghanistan to be an occupation; they will support action against Pakistani government targets if they believe the Pakistani government is acting against Pakistan’s interests.

    Further, there is heavy discrimination when it comes to the different types of militant groups: while support for groups such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan may be generally low, there is more solid support for sectarian groups, or those that mainly operate in Kashmir.

    Where support for groups in Kashmir is concerned there are further nuances. The data shows that those people who believe that the Indian government harshly cracks down on Muslims do not necessarily support Kashmiri groups, because there is an inherent realisation that any violence on their part would result in a violent backlash against other Muslims.

    While the data does not show that understanding the political views of people will always predict support for militancy, it does show that there is a significant correlation. The point here is, of course, that support for violence in this country runs deeper, and is more complex, than policy appears to have so far assumed.

    So, to return to that madressah, or to the Lahore High Court, why do Pakistanis feel, by and large, comfortable with the fact that there are groups advocating violence against other Pakistanis, or courts advocating blanket bans on freedom of speech?

    That’s a question that this society needs to answer, and it appears that the truth is more messy than advocates of liberal democracy would like to believe: Pakistan is not a largely closed, repressive (in the matter of religion) country because its rulers are that way. It is because its people are.

  13. OMLK

    “The point here is, of course, that support for violence in this country runs deeper, and is more complex, than policy appears to have so far assumed..”

    We have an obessession with religion and “killing”. For example we want to kill those who commit blashmey, kill those who leave Islam, and kill those who commit adutery by burying them half in the ground and stoning them to a bloody pulp. And all this is sanctified by a twisted interpretation of religion. Any surpise then that “support for violence in this country runs deeper.” And the one interpretation of Islam that actually denies all these barbaric practices and presents arguments for peace, tolerance and patience from the Quran is officially outlawed in Pakitan.

  14. bciv


    The law does not side with one religious opinion or the other. It stays above all subjective opinions. Otherwise, it has no hope of remaining just and fair. What and where does unjust and unfair law lead to? Ahmadis subverting the law to have non-Ahmadis declared non-Muslim would have been just as unjust and wrong as the non-Ahmadis subverting the law for equally subjective ends. Both would have led to the kind of disaster we have been witnessing. Things will continue to worsen unless the wrong is righted.

  15. Jamal

    Pakistan conflicted over targeting rising extremists in its heartland

    But on a recent day at the Lahore Zoo, several people interviewed said they agreed with the mullahs.

    “They have no right to live here. They are followers of the devil,” shopkeeper Mohammed Nadeem, 26, said of the Ahmadis, as he watched swans with his wife and toddler. The attacks, he said, “were good.”


  16. @kashifiat

    June 22, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    YLH, Keep in mind these Ahmadies understand you as infidel, see here

    Sir, I have a question for you. Would you go against the law of your land and kill an Ahmadi?

  17. Syed


    Ahmadis still consider you a ‘Muslim’ if you profess belief in Allah and His Rasool even though it appears that ’emaan’ has long forsaken your heart.

    Unlike you, YLH is a decent human being who is showing moral outrage at the abuse of religion and state power.

  18. Jamal


    These prominent Mullahs consider YOU kafir.

  19. Israr

    Oye….dont be bothered by Kashfiat, he has dysentry

  20. Ummi

    Thanks kashifiat for exposing the true face of Qadyanis who are no different than other Mullahs.

    hey !Kashifiat is quoting the Qadyanis “Holy Molly” text. Why cursing him for the filth preached by Mirz Qadyani?

    Infidel means to reject something and YLH in past has already rejected to act like a decent man so technically he is an old time infidel.

  21. Vijay Goel

    @ Bin Ismail Wd respectfully beg to differ. The Parsi community much smaller in number did very well for themselves. Actually after independence when offered a separate seat in Parliament as Christians were done their leader Sir Homy Mody said we are proud Indians and don’t want any special privilege. Christians smaller in number than muslims never blamed their minority status for their economic backwardness rather devoted themselves to education with a missionary zeal and areregularly improving their economic and social status. Even in Muslims the Bohras and Khojas were well off. Otherwise there were big Muslim Landlords or Nawabs and for over 700 years they were the privilaged community.There was never an argument that they are backward because of religion. The backward casts had a real grouse they had been maltreated for centuries but their leader Ambedkar fought for their rights within the National framework and they are regularly improving their lot. So for an avowed secularist and a highly intelligent person to use religion as an excuse for supposed backwardness seems to less intelligent persons like me a political ploy to gain Political Power. Having said that I admit that for getting Political Power (A very legitimate) exercise one in todays world has to use gimmicks. But to argue with an absolutely opposite argument to ones beliefs can lead to grief. YLH may not agree but I think here Gandhiji wins. He also used gimmicks but the moment he felt things were going far he always backed off. Further he also used his energies for Social upliftment apart from using them for Political gains.
    MAJ having won them a state the Theologists see their chance and are doing everything to get Power. No Holds barred.

  22. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashifiat… so do you! You consider me an infidel too. You should then be declared non-Muslim by that logic?

  23. yasserlatifhamdani

    vijay goel,

    Name any Islamist in Pakistan responsible for the Islamist impulse in Pakistan and I’ll show you how he was connected to Gandhi pre-partition. Majlis-e-Ahrar – the leading amongst these – was an organization consisting of Gandhi’s greatest allies and supporters. This is an undeniable historical fact which no Gandhi apologist can deny.

    So I admit Gandhiji has won and Jinnah has lost in Pakistan… The fruits of Gandhi’s victory are visible all over Pakistan.

  24. yasserlatifhamdani

    And in India Gandhi lost to Nehru and Ambedkar.

  25. Bin Ismail

    @Vajra (June 22, 2010 at 7:15 pm)

    “…..Would you go against the law of your land and kill an Ahmadi?…..”

    People who can go against the law of God, the law of uncorrupted human nature and even the dying shreiks of their own dying conscience, should have no problem in going against the law of the land.

  26. Prasad

    Gandhi’s role is irrelevant in Governance post independence

    Gandhi ‘won’ in Pakistan because Jinnah did not build a strong second line leadership. He very well knew age was catching up and fast at that

    Gandhi ‘lost’ in India because he decided to abstain from politics once the job of independence was achieved. In addition he had built sound second line leadership in Nehru and Patel

    Blaming Gandhi for islamisation of Pakistan is incorrect to say the least

  27. Prasad

    Vajra : //Would you go against the law of your land and kill an Ahmadi//

    why should he? he has a strong opinion. That may or maynot convert into a criminal action

    Kashifiat is one amongst lakhs of brainwashed young pakistanis who are countered in futility by a very few brave and rational YLH’s

    Your question is equivalent to supporters of Khap Panchayats in Haryana. Heavy support there as well. Not all kill. Some do however

    Likewise, Kashif and other heavily indoctrinated folks support total islamisation of Pakistan a la glorious 7th Century AD. Some however take up guns. At this instance ‘some’ could be a few thousands prowling world over and periodically maiming civilians

    Blame it on Governance ( or the lack of it) for the last 6 decades and more so since 1980’s

  28. bciv

    Kashifiat types can only be equated with those living in the 7th century A.D. who were busy wishing their society return to the 7th century B.C., ie if there were any such lunatics in the 7th century. Otherwise comparing his types to the people of the 7th century is unfair, to say the least, to a people who were perfectly modern and in tune with their own time and as forward looking, if not more, as any other people.

    You cannot compare his types to even cavemen – it would be grossly unfair to cavemen – for cavemen were facing and moving forward not back… and thank god they were. but the cavemen being forward-looking failed to do any good to kashifiat types; hardly the cavemen’s fault.

  29. Bin Ismail

    @bciv (June 23, 2010 at 1:43 pm)

    There was a clear warning by the Holy Prophet, regarding the clergy:

    “ulamaa’uhum sharru man tahta adeemis samaa”

    meaning ‘their ulama would be be the worst of all creatures beneath the skin of heaven’. [Ref:Mishkat]

  30. Ummi

    bciv types of crooks will always be state of denial. Don’t you have balls to condemn Qadyanis mullahism?

  31. Bin Ismail

    @Ummi (June 26, 2010 at 1:01 am)

    bciv has simply pointed out towards those maulvis who preach intolerance, hatred, disorder, violence, bloodshed and murder.

    It should not be intellectually, a very challenging task to identify who these maulvis are.

  32. bciv


    what makes you think i left you or any other mullah or mullahism of the kind out? you and kashifiat have given us plenty of evidence of your kind here. straight shooter has shown us that he is closer to you than not (except he is also a troll). let anyone else here show the same obscurantism and they will deserve the same condemnation.

  33. Fazal

    In Raiwind Janaza of an Ahmadi was lead by a Maulvi Sahib who was not Ahmad. The Ahmadis afterwards prayed Janaza. According to Fatwa Maulv Sahib an all Janaza praying Sunnis were declared out of Islam and their Nikahs were broken. After that they through saying Kalima became Muslim and their Nikahs werde refreshed.
    As I know if Nikah is dissolved then a woman has to wait until Idat. Now those who did not wait till Idat is that Nikah valid, and without Hilala. If these Nikahs are not valid then the relationship between these partners is against Shariat. Who will answer this?

    Was this Fatwa correct or Islam is hyjacked by Jews and the Ulema are playing in their hands, and true Islam is some thing other?

  34. Fazal

    In Raiwind Janaza of an Ahmadi was lead by a Maulvi Sahib who was not an Ahmadi. The Ahmadis afterwards prayed Janaza. According to Fatwa Maulv Sahib and all Janaza praying Sunnis were declared out of Islam and their Nikahs were declared broken. After that they through saying Kalima became Muslim and their Nikahs werde refreshed.
    As I know if Nikah is dissolved then a woman has to wait until Idat is over. Now those who did not wait till Idat how is that new Nikah valid, and without Hilala?. If these Nikahs are not valid then is the relationship between these partners against Shariat?. Who will answer this?

    Was this Fatwa correct or Islam is hyjacked by Jews and the Ulema are playing in their hands, and true Islam is some thing other?