Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?

By Raza Habib Raja

Democracy is much more than majority

Right now, after 28th May, an issue being increasingly discussed is the status given to Ahmedis through the controversial Second Amendment.

Frankly I would like to say at the onset that I think the Second Amendment is one of the blackest and most shameful acts of legislations ever passed in the National Assembly. Its reprehensible content is reinforced by the fact that it was not an ordinance imposed by a dictator but actually passed by majority through legislative process.

The Second Amendment was passed unanimously and compared to other controversial legal ordinance such as Hadood, appears to have a “democratic’ semblance.   In fact at times more than the religious arguments the supporters of the Second  Amendment come up with the “democratic” defense.

 Supporters say that after all democracy is a game of numbers and if the law was passed unanimously then it reflected the entire collective will of the people. They also say that democracy has to be consistently interpreted and applied. They say that you cannot be “selective” about democratic norms and apply it to your own wishes. The votes cast by the representatives are the most appropriate approximation of the public will and if a bill is passed unanimously then public will has to prevail. The art of legislation is the way of ensuring prevalence of public will.

Though apparently supported by “democratic” credentials, a critical look would reveal that actually this argument is flawed on at least two major accounts.

To begin with, any law duly passed by the legislature does not necessarily possess the direct approval of the populace. This is actually a classical principal agent problem where agents have been given authority by the principal to act on their behalf. In a legislative setting the agents are the members who are representatives. However, once elected it is not possible for them to revert back to public on each and every bill. Generally speaking the assumption is that since public has given them the vote and therefore in some ways also endorsed their manifesto.  And here also vote does not necessarily imply that every single point in the manifesto has been endorsed by all the voters. There is thus a perception asymmetry here. Following this logic the only bills which have some implicit approval of the electorate are those which are based on the manifesto of the party. The Second Amendment was not the part of manifesto of the ruling party at that time and therefore the argument that it had direct approval of the electorate is flawed. I admit here that numerous other bills also may also suffer from the same problem but since supporters of  Second Amendments often tout “overwhelming” support of the electorate therefore dissection of this argument was needed.

However, skeptics may retort by saying that even if a direct referendum is held there are chances that populace may still decide the same. But then is democracy just numbers?

 I think the strongest case against so called democratic credentials of the Second Amendment comes from the philosophical side. Democracy is not merely a game of numbers but at a philosophical level much more than that. DEMOCRACY HAS TO BLEND IN WITH A TOLERANT CULTURE OTHERWISE ITS POPULAR HEGEMONY OF THE MAJORITY. Hitler was also after all apparently democratically elected.

Laws which are contradictory to tolerance and equality, even if completely endorsed by the majority, wont be called as democratic. There is a reason as to why all the civilized democracies have taken extreme care to ensure that while majority does get its way most of the time but not all of the time. Thus democracy in principle while agreeing to majority rule has to enshrine protection of minorities from possible tyranny of majority.  Yes, majority is needed for ensuring expression of popular will but it does not mean that majority should coalesce to infringe the basic rights of the minority particularly when the later is defined along religious or ethnic lines.

 For example in United States, Bills of Right go extra step to protect basic individual freedom. These catalogue the rights that have to be upheld by the government, thus protecting, the rights of ANY minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy. Essentially the Bills of Right RESTRICT the scope of majority and try protecting the minority.

This idea of prevention of tyranny of the majority was explored in detail by the famous British political philosopher John Stuart Mill.  In his most famous essay “On Liberty” , he wrote:

 “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”

The above principle endeavours to ensure that government elected by majority does not end up being an instrument to exercise tyranny by that majority. 

The tyranny of the majority (at times brought through voting mechanism) has been one of the most defining features of the last century. The chequered history in this respect has elevated the need for protection of minorities from possible abuse of the majorities as one of the foremost priorities. The UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, defines not just individual rights but also minimum protections for minorities. Article 27 asserts:

“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”

The above clearly shows that democracy is not merely a game of numbers but for any law to be democratic, it has to fulfil the criteria of non violation of basic rights of the minorities. Yes while it is true that majority rule is important as a mean of popular expression but at the same time, it is not the ONLY criteria. Democracy is a complex phenomenon and would require other caveats such as adequate protection of minorities. In a true democracy the dominance of majority is counterchecked by proper protection of minorities.

Following this logic, the Second Amendment can by no stretch of imagination called a “democratic” legislation. The supporters should at least spare the usage of the word democratic while rhapsodizing about the “unanimity” behind passing of that black amendment.

What our society needs to learn is that every privilege in this world comes with a responsibility. Freedom of expression comes with a responsibility that it would not be used to malign others and for hate speech. Authority comes with a responsibility that it would not be abused. And above all, majority comes with a responsibility that it would not be used to impose undue will on the minority.

The Second Amendment merits several questions.  Does the majority have the right to assume the power of the Almighty and declare someone as Non Muslim? Does the majority have the right to marginalize a community just because it has different views? Does the majority have the right not only to induce discrimination but institutionalize it in the law of the land? And if a majority imposes its will on a minority, can it justify it as democratic?

These are pressing and uneasy questions and the tragedy is that we know the answer to each one of them. It is a matter of listening to our conscience and mustering enough COLLECTIVE courage.

305 Comments

Filed under Democracy, human rights, Law, Liberal Democratic Pakistan

305 responses to “Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?

  1. Ahmadis were declared NON MUSLIMS on the grounds that they believe in a new prophet. It is simple and straight forward, and this amendment wouldn’t be changed uptil 2074 and even afterwards😉. I hope Ahmadis would seriously think to establish their religion now, its been 100 years they are making the name of Islam. If you have a new prophet then OK create basics of your religion and tell the world to embrace it.

  2. kashifiat

    “Right now, after 28th May, an issue being increasingly discussed is the status given to Ahmedis through the controversial Second Amendment.”

    1- Its not discuss “”any where”” other than PTH & drunken Salman Taseer Govt. spokesman newspaper DT or in Express Tribune

    2 – The “”status”” which is given to “”Ahamdies” are justify & according to Quran & Sunna

    3- Its not all “”controversial” its “”clear”” they are non Muslims

  3. Jamal

    دوست

    Don’t worry; Ahmadis are in 190 countries of the world and not just in Pakistan. They don’t need to worry about any human interfering and telling them what to believe. On the other hand people like you, owning to your persecution and denial of freedom of faith to Ahmadis, have brought a very bad name on Pakistan and your version of Islam and have justifiably created a soft corner and sympathy in the eyes of others for Ahmadis.

    So who is loosing here?

  4. Bin Ismail

    @ Dost

    “…..this amendment wouldn’t be changed uptil 2074 and even afterwards…..”

    Aren’t you aware, we’ve already entered 2074. Happy new year!!!

  5. Raza

    dear kashfiat

    I think that no one can legislate any one as Non Muslim. Religion is a matter of faith and Allah is a better judge rather than you and me.

    So I think that this matter should be decided by Allah rather than our parliament. We have just used our majority and nothing else.

  6. Jamal

    دوست

    Watch this;
    youtube.com/watch?v=UD9o7kfOkqU

    You think Ahmadis care for what some religious bigot say or demand in Pakistan?

  7. kashifiat

    “I think that no one can legislate any one as Non Muslim”

    Raza its “””YOU””” think , where as “””WE”””160 million Pakistani Muslims “”Believe””” that “””All Ahmadies””” & supporters of their faith are “””Non Muslims”””

    I challenge you Do U Ahmadies offer funeral prayers of any “” Muslim”” which is according to a “Non Muslim””. Give me answer in clear crystal words

  8. Jamal

    “I challenge you Do U Ahmadies offer funeral prayers of any “” Muslim”” which is according to a “Non Muslim””. Give me answer in clear crystal words”

    Why did Maududi and Tufail not say funeral prayer of Quaid e Azam? Give me answer in clear crystal words”

  9. Jamal

    “If you try to attendtheir jamaat meetings,you will never be aalowed at all.”

    In Pakistan Ahmadis are not allowed to preach and are sent to prison for that. On one hand you stop them under law not to preach and then complain when they don’t? What a bigoted idiot.

  10. Junaid

    This whole problem arises because people take their religious egos too seriously.

    See when I die, I wouldn’t even know I am dead. So you can throw my body to vultures who can feed themselves over it for a day. At least some one will benefit.

  11. Ibn-e-Maryam

    Ahmadis have their own religion. It is ‘Islam’ – the religion founded by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). We don’t need a new religion. We love our religion and our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

    Religion is a matter between man and God. Humans are too ignorant to decide about the relationship between the Creator and His creation. This is very simple. All holy books convey this message very clearly.

    Matters of faith will be decided on the Day of Judgement, and the Creator, who is also the ultimate Judge is not bound by the “Second Amendment” of the Constitution of the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.

  12. kashifiat

    “Why did Maududi and Tufail not say funeral prayer of Quaid e Azam?”

    I knew no Quadiani/Mirzai will answer my question in straight words.

    Maulana Maududi (RA) & Mian Tufail sb (RA) were in lahore not in Khi.

    Now, give me answerof my question ??

  13. Farhat

    “Matters of faith will be decided on the Day of Judgement, and the Creator, who is also the ultimate Judge is not bound by the “Second Amendment” of the Constitution of the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.”

    Well said Ibn-e-Maryam!!!!!!!!

  14. Farhat

    @kashifat

    Your answer has been given many times on this site.. Your a broken record!!!! You just choose to ignore it..

  15. Jamal

    “Maulana Maududi (RA) & Mian Tufail sb (RA) were in lahore not in Khi.”

    They should still have offered the janaza prayer (ghaib), after all Quaid-e-Azam was the father of the nation.

  16. Raza

    @Kashfiat

    I would like to clarify that I am not Ahmedi. Secondly Allah is a better judge rather than you whether they are muslims or not. Our Parliament has no authority to infringe on basic human rights and also no right to assume the role of Almighty
    Any how it is pointless debating with you

  17. An Ahmadi Muslim

    Islam, the religion of Ahmadi Muslims, is vouched for and safeguarded by Allah SWT.

    “He it is Who has raised among the unlettered people a Messenger from among themselves who recites unto them His Signs, and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and Wisdom though before that they were in manifest error; And He will raise him among others of them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty, the Wise.” Surah Al-Jumu’ah 62:3-4

    A companion of The Holy Prophet sa relates: One day we were sitting with The Holy Prophet sa when this chapter was revealed. I enquired from Muhammad sa. Who are the people to whom the words “and among others of them who have not yet joined them” refer? Salman ra, a Persian was sitting among us. The Holy Prophet sa put his hand on Salman ra and said.”If faith were to go up to the Pleiades, a man from among these would surely find it.” (Bukhari).

    Let the reincarnations of Abu Jahals and Abu Lahabs AKA Kaashifiat, Sardar Khan etc fight Allah and try to keep Islam on Pleiades .. The jahils can’t blow out this divine diya of guidance with their foul breaths.

  18. Amaar

    @Kashfiat, @Sardar Khan
    If you want to view Ahmadis as Non-Muslims then by all means do so!

    However, you cannot make a law that forces Ahmadis to think of themselves as Non-Muslims.

  19. @Kashifiat,
    Can you please quote a Quranic injunction where a Community is allowed to label part of its members as non-Muslims?

    Just my 2 cents!

  20. Ibn-e-Maryam

    @Kashfiat, @Sardar Khan

    ھمارا مسلک سبھی سے الفت تمھارا شیوہ سبھی سے نفرت
    معاملات دل و نظر میں عجیب تم ھو عجیب ھم ھیں

  21. Raza

    @ Amaar

    I fully agree with you…That is in fact the central point behind my article..
    Law can not be simply justifed just because of majority. Just because majority thinks that they are non muslim does not mean that they should be legislated as non muslims.

  22. YLH

    How does the follower of anti-Pakistan maududi lay claim to speaking for 165 million Pakistanis.

    As I see it … Pakistan has two options: it can adopt its founding father’s secular vision now or it can do so after Kashifiat types have totally made it a hellhole.

    Ultimately Pakistan will give up this nonsense and move forward. Posterity will bless people like Raza Habib Raja and people like kashifiat won’t even be remembered.

  23. Raza

    Thanks Yasir

    I fully agree with you. Founder of Pakistan had a secular vision for this country. Even Advani and Jaswant Singh have admitted it. It is funny those who were against Pakistan’s creation are now acting as “Patriots”.
    Our society needs to understand that majority does not mean that you use it to abuse those who differ from you. Just because a law has been passed by numerical majority does not mean that it becomes a “democratic” law.
    Majority comes with a responsility and this is something which we as a nation have to understand.

  24. Voldemort

    [[Even Advani and Jaswant Singh have admitted it.]]

    advani, who until not too long ago was enemy no.1 and was called several names for my friends across the border is today the gospel truth. how times change!!!

  25. Ibn-e-Maryam

    @Raza, @YLH

    You both are right. Eventually, Pakistan will find a just path. Efforts of PTH, DT, and also Dawn (paper and blogs) will be greatly appreciated at that time.

    Keep up the good work. We need to have ‘insaanaun wala Pakistan’

  26. Raza

    @Voldemort

    His example is given in a specific sense and that is why I have used the word EVEN before it.
    What I meant was that even Advani who had a very harsh view about Pakistan admitted that Jinnah was a secular.

  27. emrun

    Muadudi tola has brought Pakistan to the lowest level of humanity. If this continues, there will be no Pakistan in 2074.
    But I want to assure kashifat, sardar khan and Dost. The people who made Pakistan, will save it too.

  28. krash

    Good article Raza. However, I think the focus could have been sharper. You have mixed up 2 separate issues. First issue is the limitation of democracy in general. The second issue is the Ahmadi situation in Pakistan.

    Regarding the first issue, it is an unfortunate fact of life that any country can only be as ‘democratic’ as the majority of its population. Yes, it is correct that a majority cannot take away basic rights. But those basic rights are established by the majority in the first place. Let’s not forget the history of slavery in the US. This is a limitation of democratic mode of governance and there is no way around it. In the case of Pakistan, the only solution would be to raise awareness among the majority about minority rights and change the mindset of the majority. This will be a long and slow process.

    Regarding the second issue, Ahmedis in Pakistan, I think the focus on the 2nd amendment is misplaced. Granted that many of us would like to see it go away, but we are a small minority. The 2nd amendment simply declares Ahmadi’s non-muslim. This, by itself, does not take away any rights. However, forcing Ahmadi’s to declare themselves non-muslims and persecuting them for their religious practice and discriminating against them in state employment is a gross violation of their basic rights. This is not enforced by the 2nd amendment but by the infamous ordinances from the Zia era and by legal precedents set by courts from those times. Our immediate goal should be to develop a consensus around repealing these laws and restoring the basic rights of the Ahmadis.

  29. Raza

    Thanks krash, actually the idea behind “mixing” the two concepts originated because several times people have touted that 2nd amendment has orginated due to democratic process and in essence is democratic.
    That is why I merged the two together and tried to refute this notion.

    Regarding that eventually majority decides what protection minorities get. I think the issue is that soem rights are presumed to be natural rights and supercede every other law.

    This even if Parliament passes a doscrimantory law by 100% support, it may not be termed as democratic if it adversely affects natural rights.

    In fact in civilized society such law can even be struck down by higher courts.

    Actually the second amendment becomes the basis for subsequent ordinaces of Zia. But my basic point irrespetive of Zia’s ordinance is that how can parliament declare someone who is professing himself to be Muslim as non Muslim and that too against his will.
    This is violation of his basic rights again. It all started with that amendment

  30. Tilsim

    @ Krash

    “This is not enforced by the 2nd amendment but by the infamous ordinances from the Zia era and by legal precedents set by courts from those times. Our immediate goal should be to develop a consensus around repealing these laws and restoring the basic rights of the Ahmadis.”

    Campaigning to preserve basic/natural rights is essential. For our information, could you sum up what the infamous ordinances from the Zia era are.

  31. Giri

    Has anybody ever tried to appeal against the 2nd amendment in the courts? I know that it can be a dangerous thing to do for an individual, but what about organizations? If the courts interpret it as running foul of any of the fundamental rights (and I do think it does), couldn’t that be used to strike down the law? It is going to be hard for a Government to amend the law using the legislature, but the same can be done using the courts.

    And then of course, there is an appeal to the “basic features” of the Constitution. Courts regularly use precedents from other countries, and there is an Indian Supreme Court decision on the basic features of the Constitution (the democratic, secular nature of the polity and fundamental rights) which says that Parliament does not have a right to amend these “basic features”. That could be used to argue in courts against the 2nd amendment.

    Has it ever been attempted?

  32. Sahal

    Sardar Khan and Kashifiyat are zia’s brainwashed chutiya children.

    End of story.

    Kutton, Pakistan ache banane ke liye Kuch kiya hai ya barbadi machana ke liye peda hua ho.

  33. Sahal

    Just repel the hudood ordinance for now, if we repeal the 2nd amendment, Sardar khan and Kashifiyat will strap on a bomb to carry out what they were born for.

  34. krash

    Raza,
    “But my basic point irrespetive of Zia’s ordinance is that how can parliament declare someone who is professing himself to be Muslim as non Muslim and that too against his will.”

    And what I am saying is that this should not be your basic point. It is not central to the problem at hand.

    By itself, it is a weak argument. You and I can call anyone non-muslim. So can Al-Azhar university or anyone else. I can be called non-muslim by others. A state may need to classify its citizens by religion, for perfectly legitimate reasons. A state may come up with a definition of muslims using it own ‘democratic’ procedures. This is not a violation of any right. The violation happens when the state uses force to restrict religious practice and persecute the practitioners. This is the central issue and the focus should be on reversing such violations.

  35. krash

    Raza,
    “Regarding that eventually majority decides what protection minorities get. I think the issue is that soem rights are presumed to be natural rights and supercede every other law.”

    Who gets to determine what those natural rights are? In a democracy, it is the majority or a supermajority.

  36. Giri

    krash,

    Some rights are universally accepted as “natural”. These have been laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Pakistan is (I think) a signatory to. They don’t require a majority – people across the world have got together to agree that these rights are universally applicable to all humans.

    (Enforcement is of course a different question altogether).

  37. ofcourse not, its not our job!

  38. Bin Ismail

    @kashifiat (June 30, 2010 at 5:35 pm)

    “…..Raza its “””YOU””” think , where as “””WE”””160 million Pakistani Muslims “”Believe””” that “””All Ahmadies””” & supporters of their faith are “””Non Muslims”””…..”

    Your inverted commas match your inverted logic.

    You appear to contend that Ahmadis are non-Muslims because this is what the millions in Pakistan believe. I find your comment exceedingly intriguing because your mentor Maulana Maududi is reported to have said: “…Pakistan is filled with millions of robbers, thieves, murderers, adulterers and uncouth wrongdoers…”[Tarjumanul Quran vol.31, p.59]. So essentially what your saying is that millions of robbers, thieves, murderers, aduterers and wrongdoers are of the opinion that Ahmadis are non-Muslims.

  39. krash

    Giri,
    Such declarations are meaningless unless accepted by a majority in a sovereign country.
    I am not saying that whatever a majority does is right. I am saying that in a democracy a majority (or at least a supermajority i.e. what is needed to change the constitution) is ultimately in charge and there is no way around it. The only recourse is to raise awareness and change the mindset of the majority.

  40. Giri

    Courts exist to interpret the constitutionality or otherwise of any law, including constitutional amendments. That does not require a majority or supermajority. Enforcement of an international obligation (which the UDHR is) is also possible through the courts. One of the judiciary’s roles is to act as a check on the tyranny of the majority.

    Whether somebody has the courage to approach the courts on an issue that can put them in physical danger, and whether the courts will muster the courage to do the right thing is questionable. But has it ever been tried?

  41. Raza

    @krash

    Second amendment was the beginning and provided the base for what came later on. Coerisive power of state was used once they were being able to be categorized non muslim.
    Secondly in our private lives you can call any non muslim but can you legislate that? The central issue is that ordinances are imposed where as laws are passed through a more participative process. Does that mean that you can make JUST anything as law?
    I am against second amendment and also against other ordinances. The reason as to why second amendment is under discussion rahter than those ordinances is that it was passed by majority and the article is about democracy and humanity.

  42. krash

    Giri,

    Judges are just people and reflect the bias of the general population. Besides, in a democracy courts are not dictators. Their powers are circumscribed by the legislature. Parliament is supreme.

  43. krash

    Raza,

    “Does that mean that you can make JUST anything as law?”

    Think about this! In every democratic country there are limits on what the parliament can do. But, who places those limits? They are placed by the very same parliament through a constitution.

    This is how every democracy works. A supermajority (e.g. two-thirds) comes up with a constitution that enshrines basic rights that a majority cannot take away. After that a majority can legislate anything within those limits. But the supermajority is in charge of those limits and there is really no way around this. A democracy is not a utopia. It will reflect the shortcomings of the population.

    That is why it is futile to argue that the 2nd amendment is not democratic because it is. You don’t get to decide what is democratic. The constitution making body does.
    You can , however, argue that 2nd amendment is wrong or immoral or unIslamic or stupid or harmful. If you can convince enough people then it can be repealed democratically. I hope that eventually happens but I am pretty sure that it will take a long time.

    The Zia ordinances on the other hand are laws that exist within the limits of the constitution. They can be struck down by courts or repealed by simple majority if they can be shown to violate the constitutional protection of religious freedom.

  44. Giri

    krash:

    I am with you that the Constitution is a guaranteer of rights only to the extent that the people enforcing it are, and ultimately the people of the country as well.

    However, the very system of checks and balances in a democracy ensures that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a majority to enact just about anything. The courts play a crucial role in this regard, and can rule on the constitutionality or otherwise of any piece of legislation, including a constitutional amendment. The courts’ powers are not unbounded – there is a balance between the courts, legislature and executive.

    This is a theoretical discussion, since the courts in Pakistan have not stood up at most occasions when they should have. And as per AG3L’s post, the amendment has been through judicial review already. So the question is moot.

  45. Giri

    Also, krash: if the 2nd amendment violates the Constitution itself, won’t it be null and void ab initio? While a supermajority can legislate anything, it cannot be internally inconsistent. I am no expert on the Pakistani constitution, but usually the articles corresponding to fundamental rights in most Constitutions give these rights superiority over any other article of the constitution, any legislated law or any customary law. If that is the case, any amendment that violates fundamental rights is ultra vires of the Constitutions, is it not?

  46. Amaar

    @Krash

    I disagree on this contention that the state can define a Muslim for constitutional reasons alone. I have three arguments for this:

    1. Islam and its founder have already defined who is and who is not a Muslim. There is a hadith which says that a person who believes in Allah and His messenger, offers namaz and partakes of meat of animals slaughtered by Muslims. I dont remember the precise order or its reference for this but this is a qawi hadith. And Ahmadis do fall in this category. Secondly, in the time of the Prophet, a census was conducted in Madina to count the number of Muslims. The criterion set forth by the Prophet was simply that anyone who calls himself/herself a Muslim is a Muslim for the purposes of the census (no distinction between Munafiq or Momin was made). I don’t think that Pakistani law can violate this Sunnat in the guise of definitions.

    2. The 2nd amendment definition would also put many Non-Ahmadi Muslims outside of the pale of Islam as well. Many among them believe that Isa would return to earth and Muslims are supposed to believe in him. In other words, even non-Ahmadis believe in continuation of prophethood all but in name.

    3. Defining a Muslim is harmless unless certain legal rights are associated with being a Muslims. When you define someone a ‘Non-Muslim’ you take away those rights. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, a ‘Muslim’ identity entails certain privileges which makes the 2nd amendment a gross violation of justice.

  47. Amaar

    Correction:
    There is a hadith which says to the effect that a person who believes in Allah and His messenger, offers namaz and partakes of meat of animals slaughtered by Muslims is a Muslim. Ahmadis would fall in this category.

  48. Tilsim

    @ Raza

    From reading Krash’s well reasoned comments, it looks like only recourse is to Parliament unless there is a legal argument that this can go before the Supreme Court again as suggested by Girish. Although at present, we have an activist Supreme Court who’s recent statements and decisions suggest that it is opening the door for a greater role for Islam in the State, in particular traditional orthodox Islam of the JI variety. Our Justices are likely to respond to arguments that fit their narrower frame of reference. I would not hold out too much hope, but I could be wrong.

    Campaigning and building a national consensus will be difficult and a long road but is the other way forward – good old fashioned democracy at work.

  49. Mirza sb was also like his followers, he always ran away from Manazras, always answered which wasn’t asked to him.
    Great people, I think Muslims are in 200 countries, if Ahmadis are in 190🙂. And I know very well the way of preaching. A very close relative of my family is Qadyani so its not new for me.
    Well, guys keep on discussing it here, so there may be a place where it is discussed otherwise this ‘Issue’ isn’t discussed anywhere in the streets and villages of Pakistan🙂.

  50. Giri

    I quickly looked through the Constitution of Pakistan. So here is a limited rationale for why the 2nd Amendment is ultra vires.

    Article 8 (the first article in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights) says,

    “1) Any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this Chapter, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
    (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights so conferred and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of such contravention, be void.”

    This article establishes the superiority of the articles in Chapter 1, which deals with Fundamental Rights (Articles 8-28). Thus, it is sufficient to establish that the 2nd Amendment takes away or abridges the rights conferred in this Chapter to make the said amendment null and void.

    Now, Article 20 states that
    (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and

    It seems as if the 2nd Amendment takes away or abridges this right to profess one’s religion. The relevant dictionary definition of the word “profess” is:
    to declare or admit openly or freely.

    By declaring people who would like to profess that they are Muslims as non-Muslims, the Amendment is taking away this right, or at least abridging it.

    Read together with the Ordinances that Zia introduced (which are enabled by the 2nd Amendment), it also takes away the right to practice and propagate his religion.

    It seems to also violate Article 19, which describes the right to freedom of expression though the article allows for the restriction of freedom of expression in the interest of the glory of Islam. This seems like a later addition to the Constitution, but nevertheless could be used as a justification to restrict the freedom of Ahmedis to express themselves freely.

    Irrespective of whether violation of Article 19 can be used to justify striking down the sections of the constitution introduced/modified by the 2nd Amendment, Article 20 could be used, when read with Article 8.

  51. Raza

    @krash

    First of all I fully agree with you that mindset of the majority has to change. Even if natural rights are not defined by it, majority by its numerical superiority and dominance in courts and parliament can impose its will on minority.
    In fact the entire point of this article was that majority comes with a responsibility.
    My issue is that justbecause some thing is passed by the majority, it does not mean it is democratic in the true sense. So the idea was to try explaining it to skeptics that at least morally not every law if passed by parliament is democratic.
    Any how both of us agree that majority’s mindset has to change. I am in complate agreement with you regarding that

  52. krash

    Giri,

    In these very pages you must have seen YLH, a stout defender of Ahmadi rights, argue that the doctrine of basic structure of Constitution is not a valid doctrine and is unique to India. So that would not be a valid reason to annul the 2nd amendment.

    The 2nd amendment also, by itself, does not take away any fundamental rights from the Ahmadis. It declares Ahmadis non-muslims but does not prohibit them from declaring themselves muslims. Those restrictions came 10 years later through the Zia ordinances. Arguing against it on constitutional grounds would be very difficult.

    Of course, that doesn’t make it right. Just legal, constitutional and democratic.

  53. Raza

    @ Tilsim

    I agree to you here. The article was written to point out that majority comes with a responsibility. Court’s recourse is not available because of the reactionary orientation clearly visible in its recent decisions.

  54. Raza

    @krash

    Ordinances were a derivative or in some ways connected with the amedment. Moreover most of Ahmedis I have talked to think that second amendment was infringing their rights.

    The topic was that can parliament declare soem one as Non Muslim? It has in Pakistan due to majority point of view but that does not mean it is a right decision.

    Majority has just bull dozed here
    But I agree it would be difficult to put a constitutional defense

  55. krash

    Raza,

    You seem to be defining democratic as equivalent to ‘right’ or ‘moral’ . Even truly democratic acts can be wrong or immoral. That’s why I don’t understand why you are arguing against the 2nd amendment as undemocratic. That’s the weakest possible argument and probably untenable.

    The point is, even if it is democratic, it can argued against as harmful and counter-productive and then democratically repealed.

  56. Jamal

    “Great people, I think Muslims are in 200 countries, if Ahmadis are in 190”

    Yes, but in these countries when they say “religion of terror” they are not referring to Ahmadiyya Islam. Because you live in some small village like Faisalabad or some such place you don’t see the bigger picture, and how things are turning out in the west. Many here curse your version of Islam day and night as they see nothing good, peaceful or productive about it.

    “otherwise this ‘Issue’ isn’t discussed anywhere in the streets and villages of Pakistan”

    Pakistan is centre of the earth only for you; otherwise it’s discussed everywhere in the world and it is ruining any last shred of respect your version of Islam had in the world. Even the last remaining supporters of Pakistan in west are giving up. Bravo.

    Of the numerous examples;

    Ahmadi massacre silence is dispiriting – by Declan Walsh
    I often find myself defending Pakistan against the unbidden prejudices of the outside world. No, Islam is not the cause of terrorism. Yes, the Taliban is a complex phenomenon. No, Imran Khan is not a major political figure.

    This past week, though, I am silent. The massacre of 94 members of the minority Ahmadi community on May 28 has exposed something ugly at the heart of Pakistan – its laws, its rulers, its society.

    Link: guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/07/ahmadi-massacre-silence-pakistan

    On the other hand, check these out;

    youtube.com/watch?v=l1rBfSY3bzY
    youtube.com/watch?v=bvApt8ydRyA
    hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-london-news/local-hounslow-news/2010/06/18/bus-posters-promote-positive-image-of-islam-109642-26680746/

    Bottom line is these laws will be repelled but only after 100 chittar and 100 onions to you; once you have totally ruined your reputation in the world and when repelling these laws wont earn you any credit as it has been done by the world twisting your arm.

  57. Jamal

    My above comment only for دوست

    Everyone else please ignore the harsh language.

  58. Giri

    Krash:

    Admittedly, the Basic Structure Doctrine is not an uncontested legal principle. It was an innovation introduced by the Supreme Court of India in 1973 as part of the “Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala” case and elaborated/strengthened by subsequent decisions, notably the “Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India” case. And it is subject to a vigorous debate even today, as it was when the judgements were delivered.

    However, while I did suggest it in one post, that was not the main point I was making. As I said in my previous comment, the constitutional challenge to the 2nd amendment’s provisions can, in my view, be mounted on the basis of Articles 8 and 20. That argument does not rely in any way on the Basic Structures doctrine.

  59. Raza

    @
    krash

    krash we are in agreement but arguing just on defintions here.

    Democracy in spirit in my opinion is much more than majority. You disagree with the definition but agree that not every thing which is democratic is a good thing.

    That in effect is my point also though articulated differently.

    Secondly once you put something in the law the ordiances and courts would be needed to implement it.
    Once you declare Ahmedis NOn Muslim and that too through law, ordnances would come to define “specific” implementation procedures.

    Plus No Ahmedi thinks that second Amendment was not infringing their rights.

    In its essense second amendment is a violation of rights as majority has declared someone as a Non Muslim against their will and put in in law.

    If something is in law then sooner or later state’s coercive power may come into use.

    Any how as I said that we are broadly in agreement just arguing over minoe things here

  60. Raza

    @krash
    Any how if democracy is technically defined by a rule of majority then my point of view would be exactly the same as yours that not everything democratic is a good thing.
    I have actually said the samethign though in a different way that in essence democracy is more than numbers.

  61. Giri

    I see your point about the 2nd amendment not explicitly preventing Ahmadis from professing their faith. However, in law the effect of the law is considered, not just the explicitly stated language. For instance, many of the constitutional challenges to Jim Crow laws of segregation in the American south, which claimed to provide “equal but separate” treatment to the blacks and whites (and hence consistent with the provisions of the 14th and 15th amendements to the US constitution), were on the basis of de facto discrimination, not just de jure discrimination.

    By declaring the Ahmedis as non-Muslims, the provisions of the 2nd Amendment may not explicitly take away the rights of Ahmedis to profess their religion, but on a de facto basis, it can be argued that it does. That could be the basis of the constitutional challenge, similar to the challenges to many of the Jim Crow laws.

  62. Giri

    BTW, I am not disagreeing with you, Krash. I am only trying to explore if there are alternatives to legislative action, which to me seems quite unlikely – more unlikely than judicial action.

  63. Shahd

    YLH and Raza can there be an IP based ban on commenting so that we don’t have to tolerate the verbal vomiting from Kashif sb?

  64. Jamal

    Since the Second Amendment July 2010 By: Husain Naqi, July 2010

    The 28 May mayhem at two Ahmadiyya mosques in Lahore brought into sharp focus the agenda of extremist Islamic groups against Pakistan’s religious minorities. It also exposed the political opportunism of the government, especially in Punjab province. The civil administration’s complacency, despite being tipped off about the entry of extremists aligned with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) into the province, also lays bare its failure to deal sternly with easily identifiable perpetrators and their patrons amongst banned sectarian outfits. In late May, this complacency resulted in the loss of 94 lives and over a hundred injured.

    Unfortunately, the twin attacks targeting this religious minority were not unexpected, but merely constitute the latest in a century of Ahmadi discrimination by mainstream Muslims. Ahmadis were declared to be ‘non-Muslim’ through a constitutional amendment in 1974, under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – despite the fact that, at that time, Bhutto’s left-of-centre Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) enjoyed a two-thirds majority in the national legislature.

    Article link: himalmag.com/Since-the-Second-Amendment_nw4592.html

  65. Raza

    @
    Giri

    I agree and secondly once a status is given, further laws and procedure always evolve to implement it.
    Once you declare a different status to Ahmedis AGAINST THEIR WILL, there will be pressure to implement the status if they continue to profess themselves as Muslims.
    That is why second amendment is against basic rights. When something is stated in law then it id for proper legal recognition.
    A Fatwa is far differnt from law as law will eventually have state behind it. Once 2nd amendment was passed we paved the way for all that

  66. Jamal

    “Mirza sb was also like his followers, he always ran away from Manazras”

    دوست:

    Why are Ahmadis blocked from preaching under law? Why are you persecuting them if your arguments hold water? Why are Ahmadis banned from national media? Its one thing to make a claim but in reality who is running away, and using unfair means and force to keep the other side quite? Not Ahmadis.

  67. Raza

    @Shahd

    I know Mr kashfiat is unfortunately bigot to the core. But in this way others can see how shaky his arguments really are

  68. yasserlatifhamdani

    “Also, krash: if the 2nd amendment violates the Constitution itself, won’t it be null and void ab initio? While a supermajority can legislate anything, it cannot be internally inconsistent”

    Giri,

    My understanding is that the prevalent Legal view holds all parts of the constitution equally valid even if inconsistent.

    The issue in Pakistan is that avay ka ava bigra hai.

    Forget second amendment…. even Ordinance XX which clearly violates atleast 5 fundamental rights of Pakistani citizens of Ahmadi sect has been upheld as constitutional.

  69. @Giri
    @Krash

    Forgive my butting into this with frankly limited knowledge of constitutional law.

    1. Constitutions can be amended two ways: through formal procedure laid down, or by a constituent assembly. They can’t be amended any other way. However, regular legislation under a Constitution can be struck down by a judicial review.

    2. The review may hold that the legislative procedure was wrong, in which case obviously the legislation in question was not legitimately introduced.

    2a. The review may also find a conflict between different sections of the constitution, in which case it seems logical that the later section will be set aside.

    3. Perhaps what you had in mind was judicial review by a constitution bench which defines what may or may not be amended.

    If it is three that you are referring to, the situation in Pakistan is not the same as the situation here. Perhaps what you are thinking of is that landmark judgement where the judges of the Indian supreme court ruled that there was an essential part of the Indian constitution which could not be ignored by any amendment outside the modification or replacement of the constitution by a duly constituted constituent assembly.

    The Pakistani Supreme Court has made no such ruling, and it is not clear that it will do so in future. Under those conditions, it seems to me that it will have with itself only the powers to strike down amendments to the constitution which are not procedurally correct, or which clash with other sections of the constitution.

    This needs to be analysed for us by a practising Pakistani lawyer familiar with the constitutional history of Pakistan, and with the current interpretation of the law by the courts.

  70. @Giri
    @Krash

    I posted without having seen Yasser’s comment, which really sums it up. What is needed now is a root-and-branch overhaul, because the successive patches, over-riding ordinances and illegal additions have now created a legal minefield. Rescinding any section will have an impact on subsequent executive action taken on the strength of that section; rescinding multiple sections will create an unpredictable situation.

  71. Girish

    Vajra,

    I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that any act of Parliament, including a constitutional amendment act, is open to judicial review, either as part of a formal judicial review heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, or even as part of another case. And to my understanding, the application of the basic structure doctrine is not essential to striking down a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional. I am not sure how applicable this is to Pakistan.

    I don’t see how these features of the Constitution and law are going to be removed through legislative action. Perhaps if there is sufficient revulsion amongst the people against these laws. But this revulsion did not come about even after a horrific incident like the attacks in Lahore. What will bring it about? On the other hand, an enlightened and activist judiciary is more likely and can be used to overturn the laws. Hence my continued focus on how to use the judiciary to overturn these laws.

    Are you guys saying that it is a lost cause?

  72. Girish

    I didn’t get the reference to “avay ka ava bigra hai.” Could you help me?

  73. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that any act of Parliament, including a constitutional amendment act, is open to judicial review, either as part of a formal judicial review heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, or even as part of another case. And to my understanding, the application of the basic structure doctrine is not essential to striking down a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional. I am not sure how applicable this is to Pakistan.

    You are correct; these are the ‘wrong procedure’ and ‘contradictory’ aspects used sometimes.

    I don’t see how these features of the Constitution and law are going to be removed through legislative action. Perhaps if there is sufficient revulsion amongst the people against these laws. But this revulsion did not come about even after a horrific incident like the attacks in Lahore. What will bring it about?

    Very easily; the way they were introduced.

    But, as you have pointed out, even the horrific acts of massacre against the Ahmadis was not sufficient for people to call for rescindment of these laws and amendments, except among sections of the Pakistani liberal community such as this.

    On the other hand, an enlightened and activist judiciary is more likely and can be used to overturn the laws. Hence my continued focus on how to use the judiciary to overturn these laws.

    The judiciary, if it were so inclined, and it doesn’t show signs of such inclination, would have to do two tasks in one, or at least one after the other.

    It would have to declare certain parts of the Constitution basic, and beyond amendment.

    This has never been done in Pakistan before, and it is not necessarily applicable in all countries in all constitutional structures under all legal systems. It was done in India, and we need to remember that such an action by itself does not affect the constitutions of other countries, or change the legal point of view in other countries.

    It would then have to particularise sections that it thinks are altered in violation of the integrity of the basic structure, and rescind them.

    This too will be controversial. There is nothing to prevent a suitably cooperative and ‘understanding’ court in future from striking down any ‘basic structure’ definition today. There is nothing to prevent any future court from revisiting these rescindments and voiding them in turn. And the ping-pong match would continue.
    _________________________________________
    What PTH has consistently argued needs to be re-stated: it is continued, sustained democratic practise of power that will form a self-sustaining and organic system of government. It is this dependence on civilian, elected and accountable governments that will remove oppressive laws in due course, not all at once. It is an interdependence between legislative and judiciary which has to be grown and nurtured carefully through two to three generations at the minimum before it can be considered to be able to stand on its own, with constant vigilance to ensure that attacks are resisted and cast back.

    The courts by themselves can’t do it. The people have to, through a mandate to the legislature, a mandate renewed from time to time.

    It may not happen overnight. If the people today do not have a consensus on good governance and on civil liberties, these will not be there. But if democracy continues long enough, and there is confidence and trust in the legislature, then these reforms will come in, and will pass, and will be implemented.

    I hope you will be able to connect this view with the occasional brusqueness, or the short-tempered response that non-Pakistanis get on occasion. I am willing to expand this in full detail off-list.

  74. OMLK

    What I find ironic is that there exists no definition of a Muslim, yet we have managed to define the followers of one specifc individual as Non-Muslims. Logically speaking, should not there be a definition of what is a Muslim, before you can define any one as a Non-Muslim. After all entities are identified as belonging to a certain group if they possess certain attributes. Any entity not having those attributes, automatically stands excluded. But here, we do not what a Muslims is, yet we know that Ahamdis are non-Muslims. This makes no logical sense at all.

    This convulated scenario is exposed in the language of the Muslism declaration that Pakistani Muslims sign, and totally belies “Dost’s” assertion that ” Ahmadis were declared NON MUSLIMS on the grounds that they believe in a new prophet. It is simple and straight forward.” Its any thing but simple and straight forward..

  75. @Girish

    That explanation was intended in reply to you. Please read it (the second section in particular) along with Yasser’s brief response.

    ‘avay ka ava…’ ≅ irretrievably messed up

    Are you guys saying that it is a lost cause?

    No.

    There has been a huge surge in open and radical re-statement of position by liberal, even relatively conservative sections of public opinion. BUT…

    It is still not enough, the spark has not been found, for a popular movement, such as the recent Lawyers’ Movement.

    Religious fundamentalists will oppose any democraticisation tooth and nail; sometimes one wonders if this might be some day a literal description, and at those moments, one looks over one’s shoulder at the situation at home.

    Democracy depends on the people using a curious breed of parasite known as a politician to bring about the living conditions that they themselves want. Usually in a living democracy, the people are adept at using their very poor-quality tools, the pols, to achieve their purposes. Here, the general quality is shocking, and the use of these shockingly bad tools is also not familiar. This will take time.

    Finally the most stable institution, the one that has hung around while the legislative cut open its wrists in a morbid moment of depression, while the judiciary became smug and complacent, and made the fatal error of joining the pols in their bland appropriation of the surpluses lying around, is stressed and under tremendous tension. Given their past heinous offences, their present role is undeniable and critical to the continued existence of the state until the re-installation of democracy is stable, and the judiciary again functions as it should have been. And they will step in if things appear to be going out of hand, meaning that the initiative is in the hands of the mullahs.

    No, it is not a lost cause, but it is in a delicate balance. From personal experience, it is possible to inform you that positive criticism will be welcomed, negative ‘raakh pe mutnaa’ will not.

  76. yasserlatifhamdani

    I don’t think it is a lost cause necessarily… but like with so many things… one must always seek solace in these immortal words:

    “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.” — Atticus Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee

  77. yasserlatifhamdani

    {{EDITED FOR ABUSE-YLH}}

  78. yasserlatifhamdani

    tujhe wahee nazil hui hai kay kon musalman hai aur kon nahin?

  79. yasserlatifhamdani

    away ka awa bigra hua hai: logic has been inverted on its head.

  80. کاشف نصیر

    @ yasserlatifhamdani

    After Muhamamd (s) no one would received WAHI, Ok

    I have Quran-e-Karim ALHAMDOLIAH
    which said
    ماکان محمد ابا احد من رجالکم ولکن رسول االہ و خاتم النبین

  81. Raza

    @ Kashif Naseer

    This is pathetic. Let me answer you here by putting forward another question to you.

    That why are you so concerned about the rest of the world when havoc is being inflicted in your own backyard.

    While you are so concerned about drone attacks have you ever written anything when Taliban monsters kill far more people. i am sure you think that atrocities committed by Taliban do not merit condemnation or worse still you must be thinking that they are actually a conspiracy of the West against soldiers of Islam.

  82. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashif naseer,

    Tum khudai daway daar ho… nahi to qadiani bhee is ayat ko mante hain… unki interpretation durust hai ya tumhari…. only God knows if he exists. But here… I am not going to allow a crook like you to comment anymore.

  83. کاشف نصیر
  84. Shahid

    YLH : If during this 18th amdt case, the SC even if it does not strike does this amdt, elaborates in the judgment that SC has powers to review amdts beyond the basic denial of rights, it has the power of becoming a major impediment later if (if) a liberal parliament is elected. Judges of the like of Khwaja Sharif would become a major bone of contention then.

    If the SC deems that there is such a thing as a basic structure, and it is the duty of the SC to protect the basic structure then we are in for a very bumpy ride. Like the Indian SC created a crapload of problems with its “basic structure” doctrine, ours can create a lot of problems as well.

  85. Raza

    @ Kashif

    I am not ahmedi but I think that no one has the right to declare anyone as Non Muslim through legislation.

    Shia and Sunnis also think that the other is kafir but does that mean that the majority (whther shia or sunni as the case may be) should legislate the other as Non Muslim.

  86. MusaJ

    Root&Branch inconsistencies: -5 in Ordinance XX vs ?, -2nd Amend vs human rights, -NonMuslim definition derived by some claimant from NonDefinition of Muslim.
    Yasser, can you please outline these RootBranch errors? so I can develop a software which can automate this process for future market$ in seconds, for us both! Its an opportunity not to be missed, thinking from silicon valley mindset🙂 Thanks much for the insight!

  87. Raza

    @ Kashif

    First of all, I have not abused you. Secondly I am not Ahmedi muslim. Thirdly, I did my first job in Gilgit and there Shia Sunni strife was very strong. Religous leaders of both had declared the other as Kafir.
    If you think that ahmedis are kafir, ok think whatever you want to. My point is that you can not legislate someone as Non Muslim.

  88. MusaJ

    Kashif, Your first question, did you mean is wrong to swear at another Muslim? If so Good practice. How about Whabi & Suni any dispute, please enlighten? Do you believe Essa-Masih will come if so when? La Katala Ho La Salabaho, Quran. How old do you think is the earth? or Universe? How long have humans been on earth? Where does the microwave radiation on old tv sets noise come from? Your view of conception? Can you invite a non-muslim to Islam and how? Thank you.

  89. ali hamdani

    The world is moving on and sadly we are stuck in religious issues till now. How tragic for our country one can say. We must promote religious tolerance in the country so that we can succeed as well.

  90. Tilsim

    “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.” — Atticus Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee

    Thanks YLH. Brilliant.

  91. MusaJ

    Kashif, According to Jews they consider themselves to be best people, inventors of Monotheism, (Ya-hoo, One God, yes yahoo.com name was so inspired), well they believe in arguments of Musa untying the knots. They believe they own they are the prophets and define what God is, others are adulterers. Many Jews consider Sharon may be a prophet. Christians believe God is in heaven Jesus Christ is also God and will come again and is the last one. Muslim as myself do believe The Prophet (pbuh) excellence in humanity, and divinity of Quran. No new, Nor Old prophets after him, its upto ordain mortals us to make the world a better place through reasoning or destroy it. I believe we will find life forms in exoplanets and asteroids. Allah is closer than jugular vein and we are both, you and I believing in the use of internet developed by DARPA a US research agency, and US formed by Thomas Jefferson author of Declaration of Independence, and US Constitution of unalienable rights of freedom, also called prophet of democracy. Then there are other thought I personally believe if cigarettes were invented during Prophet Mohammad’s (pbuh) times he would have banned them as Haram. I do believe earth is about 4 billion years old, all you have to do is pick up a rock and observe it, where it came from, how it disintegrates or radioactive decay. I try to admire good in other people, I am open to it but have not seen any person come close in qualities to favorite Prophet from Arabia. I do understand the Babylonian system of measuring things in units of 12 and 60. Which I think you also believe in like many others never bothering to than the greats of Babylon who created it for measuring eggs, seconds and minutes doing away with units of 70 which The Prophet counted in, because these are no violation of basic doctrine. Whenever I get a chance I do preach Islam. Any questions are welcome?

  92. @YLH

    “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.” — Atticus Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee

    Succinct and apt. Well said.

  93. hindu militant

    I am a declared hindu and a declared non-muslim. What you gonna do? Attack my temples like you attacked ahmedis? Your islam teach you that?

  94. Farukh Sarwar

    The author has very rightly pointed out that the right to declare someone a Muslim or Non Muslim does not rest in the hands of a human being; someone’s faith is his/her own problem and he/she has all the right to decide what should be followed.

  95. MusaJ

    Kashif, Please avoid rhetoric, slogans. Question was of inviting someone to Islam, and how you understand the universe, how many people are there on earth today. What are the most advancing systems. Which are most fickle systems? How could a tiny country like England rule over Pakistan-India Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine before and if need be rule it again? Genghis Khan so fast spread across Islamic Kaser or Kusras. Then again Soviets across Tajek, Turk, Kazak… -istans. China so peacefully has succeeded past any other empires? That is why I am asking about your estimate of the world size? and age? Though rhetorical let’s make progress, I am not Quadiani. Though it is admirable how coolly (peaceful & tenaciously) the this community is surviving and persisting in Pakistan and India. And what do they like in Islam? Can you explain why? Could you with your family have had the spine of Quadiani’s and where could you test it out? I know it is hard for us to imagine as you and I are not brave enough to do so, but I do wonder why? Any clues or are you clueless like me? Where they find the strength to believe in their understanding of Islam? they are no dummies either? Any ideas?

  96. EDITED for abusive language.

  97. yasserlatifhamdani

    So it is not about religion is it… it is actually about Ahmadis working hard and being prosperous which bothers crooks like Kashif Naseer.

    Gentlemen please don’t respond to this asshole anymore. I am deleting this crook right …

  98. Majumdar

    Ahmedi threads on PTH remind me a little of the G-man/J-man threads on chowk. Once that going, little room if left for other conversation.

    Regards

  99. Jamal

    After Muhamamd (s) no one would received WAHI, Ok

    I have Quran-e-Karim ALHAMDOLIAH
    which said
    ماکان محمد ابا احد من رجالکم ولکن رسول االہ و خاتم النبین

    :کاشف نصیر

    Kindly check the deobandi view by Maulana Qasim Nanutwi founder Darulaloom Deoband on this verse here;
    youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04

    Views of classic and sufi scholars like Ibn-e-Arabi here;
    youtube.com/watch?v=DjXYoX7l1zM

    And here;
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_prophets

    Then come back and tell us these scholars Qasim Nanutwi, Ibn-e-Arabi, Imam Raghib and others who do not agree with your point of view are kafir.

  100. Jamal

    Kashif is actually gloating on the brutal murder of Ahmadis on his blog (see below). What can you expect form such terrorist mindset.

    ایک انسان کی جان تو بہت بڑی بات ہے اگر میں کسی جانور کو بھی مرتا دیکھ لوتو میری نیندیں اڑ جاتی اور حلق سے کچھ نہیں اترتا۔ لیکن آخر کیا بات ہے کہ خون میں لتھڑے ہوئے یہ قادیانی، انکی عورتوں کا گریہ و ماتم، انکے گھروں میں رکھے جواں لاشے، انکے چہرے پر خوف اور وحشت کی جھلک اور انکی بے بسی میرے لئے اس درد کا درمہ بن گئی ہے جس کی شدت سے میں کئی سالوں رو رہا ہوں۔ اس سوال کا جواب ہر وہ شخص دے سکتا ہے جسے قادیانی فتنہ سے کچھ اگاہی ہو، اس مکار کمیونٹی کے طریقہ واردات کا کچھ ادراک ہو۔

    Link: http://smkashif.blog.com/2010/05/29/%da%a9%db%8c%d8%a7-%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%b2%d8%a7%d8%a6%db%8c-%d8%a8%db%92-%da%af%d9%86%d8%a7%db%81-%db%81%db%8c%da%ba/

    He did try to cover for it by some pseudo-explanation but his real feelings at the time did come out in his original blog post.

  101. Jamal

    Kashif is actually gloating on the brutal murder of Ahmadis on his blog (see below). What can you expect form such terrorist mindset.

    ایک انسان کی جان تو بہت بڑی بات ہے اگر میں کسی جانور کو بھی مرتا دیکھ لوتو میری نیندیں اڑ جاتی اور حلق سے کچھ نہیں اترتا۔ لیکن آخر کیا بات ہے کہ خون میں لتھڑے ہوئے یہ قادیانی، انکی عورتوں کا گریہ و ماتم، انکے گھروں میں رکھے جواں لاشے، انکے چہرے پر خوف اور وحشت کی جھلک اور انکی بے بسی میرے لئے اس درد کا درمہ بن گئی ہے جس کی شدت سے میں کئی سالوں رو رہا ہوں۔ اس سوال کا جواب ہر وہ شخص دے سکتا ہے جسے قادیانی فتنہ سے کچھ اگاہی ہو، اس مکار کمیونٹی کے طریقہ واردات کا کچھ ادراک ہو۔

    Link: smkashif.blog.com/2010/05/29/%da%a9%db%8c%d8%a7-%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%b2%d8%a7%d8%a6%db%8c-%d8%a8%db%92-%da%af%d9%86%d8%a7%db%81-%db%81%db%8c%da%ba/

    He did try to cover for it by some pseudo-explanation but his real feelings at the time did come out in his original blog post.

  102. YLH

    Someone ought to alert the anti-terrorism squads at this point…

    We’ve got a live one.

  103. An ordinary man

    Source: Page 224 of the Report of the Cpourt of Inquiry set up under Justice Munir under Punjab Act II of 1954

    “We are wholly incompetent to pronounce on the merits of this controversy but what has to be pointed out is the result to which the doctrine of jihad will lead if, as appears from the article in the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam and other writings produced before us including one by Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi and another by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, it involves the spread of Islam by arms and conquest. ‘Aggression’ and ‘genocide’ are now offences against humanity for which under sentences pronounced by different International tribunals at Nuremburg and Tokio the war lords of Germany and Japan had to forfeit their lives, and there is hardly any difference between the offences of aggression and genocide on the one hand and the doctrine of spread of Islam by arms and conquest on the other. An International Convention on genocide is about to be concluded but if the view of jihad presented to us is correct, Pakistan cannot be a party to it.”

  104. An ordinary man

    Source: Page 228 of the Report of the Cpourt of Inquiry set up under Justice Munir under Punjab Act II of 1954

    Some “pearls” of Maudoodi sahib in response to a question put to him by the court, worth reading.

    “Q.—If we have this form of Islamic Government in Pakistan, will you permit Hindus to base their Constitution on the basis of their own religion?

    A—Certainly. I should have no objection even if the Muslims of India are treated in that form of Government as shudras and malishes and Manu’s laws are applied to them, depriving them of all share in the Government and the rights of a citizen. In fact such a state of affairs already exists in India.”

  105. An ordinary man

    Maudoodi’s fantacies… on page 230

    “Q.—What will be the duty of the Muslims in India in case of war between India and Pakistan?

    A.—Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

    Let’s show this to the Indian cricket players first of all!

  106. Girish

    Vajra:

    BTW, I did not clarify this earlier. It was the “Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab” judgement that made constitutional amendments and not just other laws open to judicial review. It basically clarified that constitutional amendments were also “laws” as far as the interpretation of Article 13 (which makes any law that is inconsistent with fundamental right null and void) is concerned. Another less known feature of that judgement is that it also laid out a procedure for changing the fundamental rights themselves – which was for Parliament to convene another Constituent Assembly through a new election. The idea was that the power of the people is supreme, but that the people had given themselves some rights through the Constitution of 1950 which could not be taken away by even Parliament. Only they themselves, through the procedure of a Constituent Assembly could take these rights away. Inherent in this is the idea that while Parliament represents the will of the people in terms of governance and legislation, it does not represent the will of the people in terms of fundamentally changing the constitution to the extent that it is effectively a new constitution. Only a Constituent Assembly, expressly elected by the people for the purpose is empowered to do so. To summarize, the doctrine of basic structure makes it difficult for Parliament to alter the Constitution’s basic structure. But it does not take away the people’s power (through a Constituent Assembly) to do so. Nothing, not even the Constitution, is above the people in a democracy.

    Also, somebody referred to the doctrine as causing a “crapload of problems”. I agree that it is not an undisputed doctrine, but this is a pretty harsh view of it. Careful use of the doctrine is useful to protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority (or more appropriately in the Indian form of Parliamentary democracy with enforceable whips, the tyranny of the leader of the majority party).

    One other point – judgements at the Supreme Court level often use precedents from other countries. The Supreme Court in Pakistan is no exception to this rule and it has used precedents from the Indian Supreme Court in past judgements. So there is no reason why it cannot in this case as well. What of course comes in the way is that there are judgements of the Pakistan Supreme Court itself, which reject the basic structure doctrine. But a Constitution bench can override those precedents if it wishes to.

  107. An ordinary man

    The court’s summary opinion: page 298:

    “We therefore do not say that the Ulama’s outlook is narrow because they are Ulama; it is narrow because they are specialists in one branch of life. They look for rain that their own small crop should thrive; they do not know or care where it injures another small crop five miles away. The Ulama have frankly told us, without the blinking of an eye,—to say nothing of tears— that they do not care what happens to Muslims in other
    countries, so long as their own particular brand of Islam gains currency here.”

  108. An ordinary man

    Page 201 of the Report….

    “When we come to deal with the question of responsibility we shall have the occasion to point out that the most important of the parties who are now clamouring for the enforcement of the three demands on religious grounds were all against the idea of an Islamic State. Even Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi of Jama’at-i-Islami was of the view that the form of Government in the new Muslim State, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular.”

  109. Nusrat Pasha

    Thirteen and a half centuries ago, the Assembly of Yazeed declared Imam Hussain a non-Muslim, by a unanimous vote. Thirty six years ago another Assembly declared the Ahmadis non-Muslims, again by a unanimous vote.

    “Wo tum ko Hussain banaatay hain aur aap Yazeedi bantay hain
    Yeh kya hee sasta sauda hai dushman ko teer chalaanay do”

  110. krash

    I have a very simple definition of democracy.

    It is the rule of the majority within the limits agreed upon by a supermajoritarian consensus.

    The problem in Pakistan is that the supermajoritarian consensus is not very liberal. As YLH said, ‘aavay ka aava hi bigra hua hai’ . The only democratic recourse is to keep fighting the good fight and slowly develop a more liberal consensus.

    Any shortcuts via ‘enlightened’ autocracy, even judicial, are going to undermine democracy in the long run.

  111. banjara286

    the height of deception is to deliberately ask a misleading question. not surprisingly, ahmadis never tire of persisting with this deplorable practice in matters of tenets of religion of others, in particular the mainstream muslims. little wonder, then, that we have yet another malicious attempt here to twist the real issue, which is not in the least bit whether an ahmadi – or for that matter any tom, dick, or harry, or x, y, z – is a muslim or not. anyone can claim to be anything they like, even alien from outer space, if that is what they desire. equally, others are not under any compulsion whatsoever, the say aamanna wa saddaqna to such claims.

    for the benefit of those who care to understand, the real issue is that an overwhelming majority of maistream muslims do not accept ahmadis as muslims. and not accepting just any group of people, who claim to be muslims, as muslim is very much a muslim’s political right. it is very much an issue that can be debated and voted on in the parliament. the mainstream has its reasons, they have been given and adequately debated and voted upon in the parliament, and there is absolutely nothing improper about that.

    this post is only intended to set the record straight. i am not under any illusion that it will put an end to incurable dishonesty. but people have a right to know the truth.

  112. Bin Ismail

    banjara286
    July 2, 2010 at 7:06 am

    “…..not accepting just any group of people, who claim to be muslims, as muslim is very much a muslim’s political right…..”

    Political right to interfere in religious rights – interesting indeed. I think the more elementary and questions need to be addressed first, questions which if sorted out, would save us from irrelevant debates:

    1. Judgments on temporal matters aside, is it even within the scope of rationality for a group of mortals to issue a judgement on the spiritual state of another fellow-human?

    2. On the religious plane, who is the Lord of Judgement – God or man?

  113. Khullat

    I suppose, this is one issue on which all religions agree. Muslims believe that Allah alone is the “Maalik-e-yaumid-deen” or Master of the day of Judgement. Jews and Christians believe Yahweh to be the Final Judge and Hindus believe this role to belong to Parmeshwar. Only someone with the unfulfilled juvenile desire of playing God, would want to assume this role, in this life.

    Muslims, moreover, are required to recite Sura Fatiha, in which this attribute of Allah is mentioned, in every single rakat of the prayers. How many more reminders are needed?

  114. Raza

    @ banjara

    First of all, I am not an Ahmedi Muslim.
    Secondly, I am not asking a misleading question and trying to deceive. This is an interactive forum and I have the right to present my point of view and you have the right to disagree. However, kindly do not resort to name calling and personal allegations just because you have not liked what I have written. Just like none of us knows whether anyone is a Muslim, you do not know what is my intention.
    Thirdly, I am a Sunni Muslim and know that several of my sect members think even Shiites are Non Muslims. My first job was at Gilgit and there both Shiites and Sunnis thought the other to be non Muslim. It is ok for me as long as this perception is not incorporated in law. Just because some sect is in majority does not mean it should institutionalize its differences in law. Once law is there, state’s coercive mechanism is also behind it.
    The article if you have read it talks about responsibility that comes with majority.
    For me its perfectly Ok that if you think that Ahmedis are non Muslims. For that matter even Ahmedis may think that you are non Muslim. It is ok as long as neither party takes advantage of its strength and institutionalizes that perception difference into law.
    That was the whole point of the article.
    Any how I wont debate further because you have already made up your mind. In fact this interact post was somewhat similar to one of your earlier posts to one of my article on chowk.

  115. YLH

    This Banjara fellow is a crook of the highest order. That is all I have to say.

  116. YLH

    The basic structure theory sadly is the worst gift of two most extraordinary institutions … the Indian constitution and H M Seervai.

  117. Bin Ismail

    @ Bin Ismail (July 2, 2010 at 9:12 am)

    Erratum: It should be read as:

    “..I think the more elementary and [fundamental] questions need to be addressed first..”

  118. Pingback: Ahmadis in Pakistan - Page 59 - Pakistan Defence Forum

  119. Khullat

    Can you declare anyone non-Christian by legislation? Can you declare anyone non-Jew by legislation? Can you declare anyone non-Hindu by legislation? Can you declare anyone non-Buddhist by legislation? Can you declare anyone non-Sikh by legislation?

    By legislation? No. You can not.

  120. banjara286

    ylh, it takes one to know one. nothing any decent person has to say to a weasle like u.

  121. banjara286


    Political right to interfere in religious rights – interesting indeed.

    bin ismail,
    yes, even more interesting than muslims cannot interfere in the religious rights of ahmadis but ahmadis can interfere in the religious rights of an overwhelming majority of muslims …

  122. banjara286

    @raza,
    first of all u don’t even know the definition of who is a sunni muslim, let alone being one. however, i am perfectly willing to call ur bluff. plz tell us what makes a muslim a sunni muslim.

    go on … we’ll all find out soon enough!

  123. banjara286

    @bin ismail,
    i have clearly stated in my post that the issue is not one of judgement at all, but of acceptance of a claim by others.

    i absolutely agree that the judgement of who is, or is not, a muslim is between the claimant and g_d alone.

    that said, a very clear majority of muslims does not accept ahmadis as muslims. if u have an issue with it, take it to the parliament, or the supreme court and get a decision.

    thanks.

  124. Raza

    @banjara

    Think what ever you want to. A civilized person debates rather than acting like All mighty and knowing about so called bluffs.

    If you think that you are superior in intellect and knowledge besides being a God, why dont you tell me what makes any one a sunny.

    If you think that I am bluffing well you know my name and can find out to which sect I belong to. Thanks to Zia ul haq it is not difficult to find out to which sect we belong to. If I had been Ahmedi i would have admitted that also.

    So go ahead mr self proclaimed know all, tell me about myself. Surely since you are so “bright” and have supernatural powers, you would know

    So please humour me….

  125. banjara286

    @raza,
    ahmadis have every right not to accept me as muslim. u won’t find me endlessly whining about it.

    and plz…

    i am notr interested in ur first, or for that matter, any other job. what many of ur (sunni, like u) friends think of shia is also none of my concern. the perimeter of my faith is defined primarily by the quran and the sunnah of muhammad(saw), not by ur friends, or mullah ali qari, or muhiuddin al-arabi, or sharastani or any other raft of names u care to dig out of ahmadi archives.

    enuff said…

  126. Moosa

    Firstly, I’d like to say to Banjara sahib: I am an ahmadi muslim. I hope that this is completely irrelevant to any interaction I have with you. A person should judge another person on the merits of his character, actions and words, not on the basis of his religion. If I say something true, then you should accept it (doesn’t matter if I’m sunni/shia/ahmadi/agnostic or alien from planet venus). Similarly, if I say something false, then you should reject it.

    Raza sahib, I’d like to make a philosophical proposal. My proposal is that some things are fundamentally wrong according to basic ethical values, and democracy is irrelevant in those matters.

    What I mean to say is, for instance, if the majority population of Pakistan decides to vote for a proven liar and a thief as president of the country (this is a purely hypothetical example, of course), then this doesn’t make it an ethical decision.

    Then what can one say about the ethical value of any decision made by the Pakistani people?

    Every modern constitutional framework recognises that the democratic will isn’t always the correct will, and for this reason modern constitutions always have a bill of rights or a set of fundamental laws which enshrine basic essential laws which can’t be overturned by a democratic majority. These laws typically include a right to freedom of religion. Pakistan has derogated that right.

    Furthermore, Banjara sahib grossly mirepresents the situation when he says that “overwhelming majority of maistream muslims do not accept ahmadis as muslims”. Firstly, it’s not simply a case of “not accepting”, it’s a case of active persecution. I may not accept Banjara sahib is a sausage or a potato, but he has full right to say he’s a potato, and I shouldn’t put him in jail for simply making that statement. So it’s not a situation of difference of opinion in Pakistan anymore, it’s a situation of active coercion: Ahmadis, you’re not allowed to say you’re Muslims, else we’ll throw you in jail. Secondly, Banjara sahib has no right to say what overwhelming majority of muslims believe because he hasn’t permitted ahmadis to present their case to the population of Pakistan. When mullahs actively tell all sorts of lies about ahmadi beliefs, or else present one angle while hiding the complete picture, and then ahmadis aren’t even permitted to respond because they’ll be put in jail for propulgating “false beliefs”, then how can any person give any credence to what the Pakistani population believe? It’s like if I allow the attorney for prosecution to present his case, tell all sorts of lies, and then refuse to allow the defence attorney to present anything, and then I loudly proclaim, “The jury found the defendant guilty!”. It’s a nonsense.

  127. banjara286

    So please humour me….

    @raza,
    i’ll humor u all right, just as soon as u can tell us what makes a sunni muslim a sunni muslim.

    incidentally, feel free to research it from any available sources, or even ask other sunnis if u r just plain lazy.

    c’mon… how hard can it be?

  128. Raza

    yes you have the right to consider them non muslim and they have right to consider you

    If you had bothered to understand the article and my interact above, that is not my point of “whining”

    I am saying that you can not legislate someone as Non Muslim based on your perception. I know majority thinks like you but that does not make it morally right.

    Sir you are not a God or nor are the rest who think like you. Learn to be humble here. Onlt God knows who is Muslim and who is not.

    And if you and others can not change your mindset, at least refrain from personal allegations.

  129. banjara286

    moosa sahib,
    for the umpteenth time, let me repeat that the issue if not one of judgement; it is what the majority of muslims will accept.

    r all of u ahmadis hearing impaired?

  130. banjara286

    @raza,
    of course muslims can legislate who they will, or will not, accept as muslims. and they have.

    what r u going to do about it?

  131. banjara286

    @raza,
    oh puhleeze … i don’t need lectures on humility from u or other ahmadis.

    as for me being g_d, let us take that up when we r both face-to-face with g_d, shall we?

    thanks.

  132. Raza

    @ banjara

    Kindly re read the article. That is all I am going to say because it tries to address this point.

    I am sorry but I wont debate it with you. You are so damn “intelligent” and “brilliant” and above all soooo humble that I am astounded. And yes you know more about me than God and myself also.

    Ok happy now….I have been humoured!!!

  133. Raza

    @ Moosa I have made the same point in the article that just because the majority thinks something, it does not make it ethically right. For that matter it does not even make it democratic.

  134. banjara286

    @moosa,
    how do u know that i believe that ahmadis should be persecuted if they r not to be accepted as muslims. have u seen anything i have written on this topic in this, or any other, forum?

    ur claim that ahmadis were not allowed to present their case to the people of pakistan is nonsense. what exactly has stopped them from doing so? don’t they keep on saying whatever they like in this forum and many others. i am given to understand that u have ur own satellite tv channel; r u not allowed to present ur beliefs on that channel as well?

    if u believe that i am misrepresenting things when i claim that an overwhelming majority of muslim do not accept ahmadis as muslim, why don’t u take it to the parliament or to the court.

    but no, u wouldn’t do that. u would just simply require (i have no clue by what right?) that there should be things, which the majority will be forced to accept, but over which the majority will have no right of say.

    how convenient?

    and some of u have the gall to suggest i am a crook …

  135. Moosa

    banjara sahib, i just read your last post now. nobody is whining about being declared a non-muslim. however, there is a legitimate complaint that it’s unjust for an ahmadi to be put in jail for simply saying publicly, “I believe i’m a muslim”. there is also a legitimate complaint that mullahs are publicly encouraging people to murder ahmadis in pakistan, and the government isn’t intervening and putting those mullahs in jail.

    i hope you can now see the difference. if something remains unclear to you, please tell me, and inshallah i’ll try to say things in a simpler way.

    furthermore, it’s not useful to use words like “whining”. raza sahib isn’t whining at all, he’s simply asking a valid question regarding whether a person’s spiritual status should be decided by a democractic vote, or whether we should leave it for God to decide a person’s spiritual status. this is a very important question which should be considered in an appropriate and respectable manner, without using emotive words such as “whining”. i also deplore the emotive and perjorative words used by some members to describe banjara sahib, he is a human being with a point of view, we should discuss with him on the basis of rationality and ethics, it’s not constructive to make fun of him or his beliefs.

  136. banjara286


    I have made the same point in the article that just because the majority thinks something, it does not make it ethically right. For that matter it does not even make it democratic.

    @raza,
    of course, of course. ladies and gentlemen, we have a new definition of democracy.

    Ok happy now….I have been humoured!!!

    oh u have been humored, have u? just u wait until we can take it up on that big day that neither of us can escape.

  137. banjara286


    banjara sahib, i just read your last post now. nobody is whining about being declared a non-muslim. however, there is a legitimate complaint that it’s unjust for an ahmadi to be put in jail for simply saying publicly, “I believe i’m a muslim”. there is also a legitimate complaint that mullahs are publicly encouraging people to murder ahmadis in pakistan, and the government isn’t intervening and putting those mullahs in jail.

    i hope you can now see the difference. if something remains unclear to you, please tell me, and inshallah i’ll try to say things in a simpler way.

    i think now we r talking; and i absolutey agree with u. and have been saying as much on a number of forums for years. but u and other ahmadis should not read it; indded, u shouldn’t even bother to ask.

    u should just believe that i am g_d, arrogance personified, and a crook to boot.

    that’s the proper ahmadi attitude!

  138. Raza

    @banjara

    So you know in advance that what awaits me at the big day!!!
    But then you also know so much about me that it should not be a surprise…
    Such arrogance
    I am indeed humoured…

  139. Raza

    @ moosa

    You wrote

    “i also deplore the emotive and perjorative words used by some members to describe banjara sahib, he is a human being with a point of view, we should discuss with him on the basis of rationality and ethics, it’s not constructive to make fun of him or his beliefs.”

    Please understand that Banjara sahab is not a human because he thinks that he is God.
    He claims that he knows more about me than myself and even that what awaits me in the hereafter.

    He thinks that he is also superior in knowledge than you or me and knows that it for him to decide whether I am a sunni and whther you being an Ahmedi can qualify to be called a Muslim.

  140. banjara286


    So you know in advance that what awaits me at the big day!!!

    of course i do. have i been demoted from being g_d.

    (viasay, in my court even non-ahmadis r allowed to bring up their complaints. scandalous, is it not?)

  141. Raza

    hehehe you are funny beside being awesome in knowledge and intellect. At least I give you full marks for that

  142. Moosa

    ah banjara sahib, mashallah you’re very active, you’ve posted yet again while i was posting my last post. let me reply to your important and very interesting points one by one:

    you said: “how do u know that i believe that ahmadis should be persecuted if they r not to be accepted as muslims. have u seen anything i have written on this topic in this, or any other, forum?”

    my response: You have argued that it’s correct to consider ahmadis non-muslims on the basis that majority consider them to be so. Well majority parliament have also decided that it’s fine to persecute ahmadis who publicly say “laa ilaaha illallaah muhammad arrasoolullaah”, and they haven’t repealed that law, so then I assumed you thought persecution was also okay (on the basis that you’re arguing majority actions are valid simply because they’re majority).

    Let’s take your logic further. Majority of the world today is christian, not muslim. Therefore, if majority is always correct, and there was a worldwide vote, and the overall majority was that Jesus was the son of God and Muhammad (saw) was false, then presumably you’d accept that this was true on the basis that the majority can never be wrong?

    Or let’s take another view: Historically, the Shia Ismaili muslims were once the dominant political power in Islam, in fact they built the world-famous Al-Azhar University. At that time, in Egypt, if majority muslims voted that Ismailis were true muslims and sunnis were false, then you’d say that Ismailis were true, but today living in Pakistan there is domination of Sunnis, therefore today you say that Sunnis are true. So you’re basically saying that truth changes depending on political opinions at a particular time in a particular place? Or am I misunderstanding you?

    You wrote: “ur claim that ahmadis were not allowed to present their case to the people of pakistan is nonsense. what exactly has stopped them from doing so? don’t they keep on saying whatever they like in this forum and many others. i am given to understand that u have ur own satellite tv channel; r u not allowed to present ur beliefs on that channel as well?”

    It’s not nonsense. We do say things on our TV channel, but that’s only because it’s broadcast from abroad, not Pakistan. In Pakistan, we’re arrested if we say our views, it’s illegal on the basis that we can’t present our views without saying “this is our interpretation of Islam” and there are countless documentated cases of ahmadis being jailed when they do this, because in Pakistan it’s a crime for an ahmadi to “pretend to be a muslim”. Similarly, of course we can talk in forums like this one, but I think you’re unreasonable to say we can “present our case” because we’re able to speak on forums. Forums are a subversive and small-scale hidden manner of expression. Freedom of speech isn’t evidenced by an internet forum. Freedom of speech requires that ahmadis should be allowed to publicly speak on Pakistani television, for instance, or publish a newspaper in Pakistan giving their views.

    I’d like to add that I think it’s really bizarre for you to claim that ahmadis have freedom of expression in Pakistan, because they are broadcasting a satellite TV from outside Pakistan. Can you please explain that logic again?

    You wrote: “if u believe that i am misrepresenting things when i claim that an overwhelming majority of muslim do not accept ahmadis as muslim, why don’t u take it to the parliament or to the court.”

    Let me explain my point again, I don’t think you understood me first time. I’m saying that if mullahs present their idea that ahmadis are non-muslims, and if ahmadis are thrown in jail for refuting the mullahs (because it’s a crime for an ahmadi to say he’s a muslim), then it’s impossible for the Pakistani public (parliament, courts, anybody) to make a fair decision. Parliament and the courts also can’t make a fair decision if they’re populated by people who come from such a society where ahmadis aren’t even allowed to say their beliefs.

    you wrote: “but no, u wouldn’t do that. u would just simply require (i have no clue by what right?) that there should be things, which the majority will be forced to accept, but over which the majority will have no right of say.”

    My response: If the Iranian parliament voted that all Sunnis are non-muslims, and that Sunnis will be jailed if they say they are muslims, then would you accept this as right, because the majority in Iran voted for this?

    You say you believe in democracy and the will of the people. Then another question: If you were alive during the early Islam, in Makkah, when majority of Makkah’s population were saying that Muhammad (saw) was false and a liar, then who would you say was right… the majority?

    banjara sahib, i hope i haven’t offended you by anything i’ve written. please forgive me if i’ve hurt your feelings in any way, that’s not my intention.

    salam.

  143. banjara286

    oh, i still need “full marks”?😦

    i thought i had already been appointed g_d by the ahmadis.

    am i not allowed to give myself whatever i want?:-(

  144. Raza

    @ moosa

    Brilliant post

    However you botched at the end by apologizing to banjara sahab.

    His feeling can not be hurt because he thinks that he is GOD.

    Its us the mortals whose feelings can be potentially hurt. Mr Banjara is way beyond mortality.

  145. Moosa

    banjara sahib, i’d like to say something more about the obsession with declaring ahmadis as non-muslims: it’s not a positive approach to islam.

    let me quote the fourth ahmadi khalifa during a television interview in 1984: “General Zia ul-Haq’s regime has no raison-d’etre… no reason for being in existence… absolutely no justification… so they have to seek reason for their existence… why?… so they took upon themselves to champion the cause of Islam. And because they could not champion the cause of Islam in any positive manner, because it’s very difficult to champion the cause of any religion in positive values, so they took the downhill course of following the negative values, of persecution in the name of religion.”

    my proposition is that those people who march around loudly proclaiming who is muslim and who is not muslim, in many cases these are the same people who are encouraging murders of political opponents, bombings of innocent civilians, beating of women, and all sorts of negative values. this path is the downhill path. if a person wishes to prove his islam and disprove another person’s islam, then he should take the uphill path of transforming himself into a living example of islam, adopting purity in his own life, adopting justice, adopting charity, avoiding corruption.

    now this is the firm evidence that Pakistan’s population isn’t honest or valid in its proclamation that ahmadis are non-muslims. if the population are honestly so keen to defend islam, then why is Pakistan widely known to be one of the most corrupt, unjust, crooked countries on earth? Why did the population vote for a president who is a confirmed criminal? Why are there kidnappings of children every day? Why is there bribery in the courts, and in many walks of life? Actions speak louder than words. You can’t prove ur islam simply by shouting out slogans or loudly proclaiming, “you’re not a muslim!”. Such people, for me, their opinion on my islam isn’t valid and i give it no importance, i don’t even complain about their opinion because i think their opinion is worthless. But i do complain if they put me in jail for saying my beliefs.

  146. Moosa

    @ Raza sahib and Banjara sahib

    Can I pls clarify that ahmadis have not nauzubillah appointed Banjara sahib as “God”. The God statement was said in jest by Raza sahib, who is NOT an ahmadi.

    For ahmadis, there is only one God: Allah. And His messenger is Muhammad (saw). (doh! i have to go to jail for saying that! but banjara sahib still thinks i have freedom of expression in pakistan…)

  147. banjara286

    @moosa
    by and large u have not offended me by what u wrote in ur last post. the persecution of ahmadis, indeed of any one whether muslim or not, for their faith is wrong and obscene. i do disagee with ur wording that i have argued that it is correct to do such and such . I have simply argued that muslims cannot be compelled by any moral authority to accept any tom, dick, or harry as muslim. it is no different than a lot of early muslims thought the choice of abu bakr(ra) as the caliph after the prophet(pbuh) was correct, while many others believed that ali(ra) should have been the caliph. the decision/choice that was made was a political choice and, in the sense that it was the consensus of the community, it was acceptable within the limits of faith, therefore correct.

    incidentally, in his acceptance speech, abu bakr(ra) clearly said:”obey me as long as i follow Allah(SWT) and His Messenger(pbuh). if i do not, then i have no claim of obedience on you”.

    regarding the parliament having made it lawful to persecute ahmadis, if i am compelled to subscribe to it, i’d be willing to go to court. and argue that the constitution of pakistan says that no laws can be made that are contrary to the teachings of islam; and any law which requires that people be persecuted for their faith is against the creedal teachings of islam as taught in the quran and sunnah. any such law is thus unconstitutional and cannot lay claim to allegiance by believing muslims.

    it is unclear to me where u want to go with all this majority argument in different points in space and time. in matters of faith, i have already stated that – for me – its perimeter is defined by the quran and the sunnah of muhammad(saw) (see my post to raza above). so why would i be bound what the people of egypt during the time of ismailis, or the kuffar of mecca in the time of muhammad(saw), decide? are all these decisions in line with the teachings of the quran and sunnah?

    i live in america and have to conform to the law of the land. the law of the land is not islamic law, but it is the law legislated by the majority of the population here. i consider their choice legitimate adhere to it in so far as it does not demand that i have to go against creedal tenets of my faith.

    when, and if, it does, i’ll have no choice but to pack my bags.

    i hope i have answered some of ur questions.

    wassalam

  148. Raza

    @ moosa

    In Pakistan you will actually be arrested for that and you know it. of course Mr banjara along with his like minded majority will approve it.

    of course I will not approve it and will perhaps be called a liberal fanatic and a traitor of Islam.

  149. Moosa

    @ raza sahib

    I know you’re joking, but to be a little bit serious, I apologised to banjara sahib for any possible hurt to his feelings because of something tremendously beautiful written in the Holy Qur’an: “And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best. And lo, he between whom and thyself was enmity will become as though he were a warm friend.”
    I don’t regard myself as a devout Muslim, I fail in many respects, but I do try to practise this verse of the Holy Qur’an because it can perform miracles.

    @ banjara sahib

    There is a problem with ur statement that you follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That statement is very simplistic. The problem is that all the different sects and interpretations of Islam claim to follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Ahmadis also claim this. All their arguments are based on the Qur’an and Sunnah. The problem is that different people interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah differently. So I don’t agree that you follow “the Qur’an and the Sunnah”, I think that you follow a particular interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah which you have decided is correct. it may even be the current majority interpretation (different from the majority interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah when the Ismailis were the dominant Muslim political force), but a majority interpretation can be a wrong interpretation.

  150. banjara286

    @moosa,
    the population of pakistan may or may not be honest or valid but ahmadis r part and parcel of this population; therefore as much subject to ur pronouncement on the character of pakistanis. there is no basis to prefer the argument of ahmadis over other pakistanis in this regard.

    the issue of zia’s govt. being moral is, likewise, an attempt to sidetrack the issue. the unacceptability of ahmadis as muslims is not because muslims have any burning desire live by zia’s commandments.

    i have had occasion to listen to one polemical speeches o mirza tahir ahmad sahib and, i am sorry to say, i found him just as bent on misrepresenting the belief of muslims as anyone else. why would i want to accept him as an impartial honest broker in the argument regarding ahmadis and non-ahmadis.

    lastly, i do not believe that i, or any other muslim, is obsessed with having to prove anything to you or other ahmadis; neither do we require ur approval. how u view urself, and how u conduct ur religious affairs ias up to you as far as i am concerned. the state is wrong in not protecting the life, property, and civic right of ahmadis; ahmadis should be free to recite kalima, or geeta, or sing christmas carols and should not have to suffer persecution because of what they do.

    the issue of their persecution cannot be conflated with the demand that they must be accepted as muslims by other muslims.

  151. banjara286

    moosa sahib,
    it is absolutely fine that u think that there is a problem with my understanding of following of quran and sunnah. i have no problem with that. and when it comes time for me to explain my deeds, i guess i’ll just have to explain and leave the judgement to … err myself (going by the sentiment on this board).

  152. Raza

    @banjara

    That is the whole purpose that Allah knows better about whether someone who calls himself a Muslim is a Muslim or not.
    If majority imposes it, it will be able to do so but that wont make it right…

    First you talked about faith and then resorted to majority argument. Once it was debunked by Moosa its faith again!!

    For me, it is ok if you think that Ahmedis are not Muslims. But you and your like minded do not have moral right to become God owing to your numerical strength and pass laws declaring some one as Non Muslim. Yes you have managed it but that is simply misuse of majority.

    Matter of faith are to be decided by Allah not by you or likeminded majority.

    My article is just an effort to convince. Do not worry no one is going to change the second amendment because of that.

    And finally the truth

    I am not Ahmedi and I was not bluffing about it.

    But I think sunnis have no right to declare some one Non Muslim through legislation. If tomorrow Ahmedis are in numerical advantage and they pass such a law, i will oppose it on similar grounds.

    majority comes with a responsibility

  153. banjara286

    raza sahib,

    i know (and accept) that matters of faith are to be decided by Allah(SWT) Alone.

    i think that u know my position by now and if u can move some islamic judicial authority in this matter, plz do so. perhaps, then, we can get somewhere.

    my only purpose was to state the position of other muslims in this regard for the readers; and that i have already done. if i have misrepresented it, as moosa sahib has suggested, then surely i deserve be sued.

    at this point i really do not have any further interest in any opinion of urs.

    thanks.

  154. Girish

    The real source of the problem lies in the declaration of Pakistan as an Islamic Republic, and the inclusion of references to Islam and Muslims explicitly in the Constitution. For instance, the following sentence in the Preamble,

    “Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;”

    or Article 41(2)

    “2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.”

    or other references to Muslims and non-Muslims.

    These parts of the Constitution give the locus-standi for the Constitution to define who is Muslim or non-Muslim. If only a Muslim is entitled to be President, it is not just legitimate, but even appropriate for the Constitution to then define who a Muslim is. Take these clauses away from the Constitution and it has no locus standi to determine who a Muslim is. That should be the focus of future legislative efforts of people who want equal constitutional treatment for all.

  155. Moosa

    @ banjara sahib

    “the population of pakistan may or may not be honest or valid but ahmadis r part and parcel of this population; therefore as much subject to ur pronouncement on the character of pakistanis. there is no basis to prefer the argument of ahmadis over other pakistanis in this regard.”

    response: the early muslims were also part and parcel of the Makkan community when there was general corruption in Makkah, should they share the blame for that corruption? ahmadis are very quickly leaving pakistan in large numbers as refugees, there is a much decreased population in pakistan. furthermore, ahmadis are not permitted by law to hold any influential post in government, military, etc. furthermore, ahmadis are very much discouraged from taking any active role in public life. for instance, my aunt was the first pakistani woman to travel outside pakistan for further studies, she had PhD, and gave lectures on a television show in the 1980s; her lectures were cancelled when it was discovered she was ahmadi. therefore, i think the sunnis who provide leadership and exclude ahmadis from any influential role and also form the vast majority of the population really have to take credit for the current state of pakistan.

    “the issue of zia’s govt. being moral is, likewise, an attempt to sidetrack the issue. the unacceptability of ahmadis as muslims is not because muslims have any burning desire live by zia’s commandments.”

    response: zia officially legalised the persecution of ahmadis, with the support of the majority of the sunni ulema in pakistan. i think it’s reasonable to consider the motivation of this decision.

    “i have had occasion to listen to one polemical speeches o mirza tahir ahmad sahib and, i am sorry to say, i found him just as bent on misrepresenting the belief of muslims as anyone else. why would i want to accept him as an impartial honest broker in the argument regarding ahmadis and non-ahmadis.”

    response: where did i say he was impartial? i presented a statement and i referenced that statement (every scholar gives source for his quotations). a person who is interested in truth forms a judgment on any statement brought before him, regardless of the person who said it. the fourth khalifa said that people who persecute in the name of religion are often people who lack the spiritual strength to practise islam’s positive values, and instead they focus on trying to point out others for persecution. if you don’t agree with this statement, then please tell me your rationale, rather than making a non-specific allegation (without providing evidence) against the individual who made the statement.

    “lastly, i do not believe that i, or any other muslim, is obsessed with having to prove anything to you or other ahmadis; neither do we require ur approval. how u view urself, and how u conduct ur religious affairs ias up to you as far as i am concerned. the state is wrong in not protecting the life, property, and civic right of ahmadis; ahmadis should be free to recite kalima, or geeta, or sing christmas carols and should not have to suffer persecution because of what they do.”

    response: I would appreciate if you would retract your statement that no other muslim is obsessed with having to prove anything to me. I have close family ties in Lahore, and currently there are scholars in Lahore who are telling ahmadis that they will be killed if they don’t change their beliefs or else leave Lahore. There are websites devoted to proving ahmadis are wrong. There are many muslims who spend day and night arguing with me that my beliefs are wrong. There are scholars who have openly on television shows transmitted in the UK declared that ahmadis should be killed for their beliefs. There are khatme-nabuwwat organisations camped outside Rabwah, a town near Lahore almost entirely populated with ahmadis, who are using loudspeakers to say insults and degrading comments against ahmadi spiritual leaders. There’s clearly an obsession from some muslims to prove something to ahmadis and me. If many scholars in Pakistan are saying to ahmadis, “You will die if you don’t leave your belief”, don’t you think there’s a small degree of obsession in this statement? I think it would be wiser for you to speak for yourself in future, it’s quite absurd for any single individual to claim he is speaking for all muslims on earth.

    “the issue of their persecution cannot be conflated with the demand that they must be accepted as muslims by other muslims.”

    response: I think you’re really turning the facts upside-down. I’m not sure how much is your knowledge of either Islam or Pakistani history? I won’t discuss Islam with you here because this isn’t the correct forum (we can discuss privately if you wish), but there was a consorted movement to declare ahmadis as non-muslims in 1950s and 1970s. In 1970s, Bhutto (who coincidentally was well-known for his fondness for alcohol) orchestrated the declaration of ahmadis as non-muslims. Then after this, the world muslim league in saudi arabia passed a fatwa that ahmadis were not muslims; i’ve read this fatwa, it gives evidence such as “ahmadis believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a greater prophet than Muhammad” (false accusation), and then says ahmadis are non-muslims. But in any case, the true historical fact is: majority of Muslim scholars have declared ahmadis are non-muslims (by the way, majority haven’t made any profound study of ahmadi interpretation of Islam), and then Ahmadis have responded by saying, “We do believe in Islam”, and then Sunnis have put them in jail. So it’s not we who are insisting we’re Muslims, it’s the Sunnis who are insisting we’re not Muslims, and we’re simply replying to their accusation.

  156. Moosa

    @ banjara sahib (again)

    “the issue of their persecution cannot be conflated with the demand that they must be accepted as muslims by other muslims.”

    Excuse me? It’s your sunni brothers (including prominent sunni ulema) who are repeatedly conflating the two concepts, I think you should speak with them. They’re publicly declaring that ahmadis must be killed because of their beliefs which make them non-muslims. Furthermore, there has been relentlessly progressive persecution since the 1974 declaration that ahmadis are non-muslims, you simply can’t disconnect the two, they’ve gone hand-in-hand for the last 26 years.

  157. Raza

    @ moosa

    You are a rational person but you are expecting rationality from those who follow instinctive irrationalism.

    Let me assure you mr Banjara is actually a mild fellow. The others are far more irrational and aggressive when this question pops up

  158. MusaJ

    Good 4 u 2 kissed & made-up on who is God🙂 Next can u answer the remaining question of what lies ahead, what is heaven and earth? I am Not a whimp, & don’t need any states protection but to facilitate the cobwebs of anyone’s (u no) psyche & nicest conversation I believe in Toheed (free of other Gods & Grandest Personality, LIHAILHOMR) am a Muslim and debated Islam b4 likes of Paul Allen (MSFT vp) said Azaan (call to prayers) on few Mtn I climbed in US. I think I would qualify as Sunni either as my father so said so or perhaps because there were no gashed on my back last time I checked so probably would probably disqualify me as Shia (with due apologies) the definitions are so varied. What mirza tahir says never heard his broadcast or otherwise but will take Banjar’s word for it is not good to stifle anyone. But as you all seem to be wondering what lies ahead, so have I wondered as a scientist and with a child’s curiosity what is heaven. But I think I say it and perhaps you can see it too, when incidentally I saw on youtube and later in a press conference of an wondered Ahmedi gentleman calmly saying Darud with anger to none and love to Allah to his death. He had seen the other side, he had seen what lies ahead, he had seen Heaven, he was at peace with it, He loved it. It makes me cry, Even the police was too scared to arrest him. Now he is a MAN OF STEEL.
    Flies in the face of majority of Paki Parliament and how do you explain this, my brothers Banjara and others. Was that an evidence of violation, can such a spirit be arrested? Executively, legislatively or for me Scientifically?? Amazing..

  159. Victim of Qadianies

    EDITED –

  160. MusaJ

    Dear Victim, good refs, good word for word, evolves us as humans. Is it not better this way?

  161. yasserlatifhamdani

    Banjara,

    I am afraid I don’t know you at all. I am not a crook like you.

  162. yasserlatifhamdani

    I understand that Banjara doesn’t accept Ahmadis as Muslims… and believes that second amendment was right ….and the assembly playing God was the best thig that happened to Pakistan. Fine. If that is your position on the issue…. let history judge for how pathetic it is.

    Could you tell me what your position is vis a vis Ordinance XX of 1984. Read it – if you are an honest man- and read Articles 4 and 20 of the Constitution as well as Objectives Resolution with the word “freely”.

    Then read Zaheeruddin v. the State …. and read the majority view and then the minority judgment by Shafiurahman on it….

    Then if you are an honest man and still think you are right about everything and Pakistan is the milk of land and honey which treats Ahmadis as equal citizens…. I suggest you also read the Dred Scott case.

  163. Raza

    @ Yasir

    Yaar Mr. Banjara thinks that he and his like minded majority can play God here. They are “superior” in status than ordinaty mortals like you and me.

  164. Moosa

    Personally, I’m not offended by Banjara sahib, I’ve encountered far more offensive people. He has always been polite and courteous with me, and I appreciate that.

    From what I understand, he believes that ahmadis are not muslims, and therefore he believes that the 1974 National Assembly decision is justified. However, he thinks that ahmadis shouldn’t be actively persecuted, and therefore my impression is that he would not support Ordinance XX (though he hasn’t said this himself).

    I personally have no problem if a person considers me a non-muslim, and it stops there. The reason I have no problem, is because I know that Allah (swt) Himself is the only valid judge of a person’s beliefs, and He will pass His judgment, therefore why to give any importance to an insignificant man’s judgment on my beliefs? I only care if that man puts me in jail or denies me employment or demolishes my mosque on the basis of my beliefs.

    However, the problem I have with Banjara sahib’s position is that it can’t stop there. The entire purpose of the National Assembly’s 1974 decision was to persecute ahmadis. The mullahs of Pakistan are not people who are content with making fine philosophical points, they aren’t content only to say, “We just wanted to say we don’t accept they’re muslims, only to clarify this point. Now that we’ve made this point, let’s get along and live our lives peacefully and joyfully together as citizens”.

    The mullah mentality is destructive. It is 100% opposed to the mentality of Prophet Muhammad (saw). The mullahs cannot present anything superior in themselves, therefore their strategy is to present others as inferior and victimise others. They cannot achieve greatness in themselves, therefore they think that if they decrease the station of others then their own station will seem (comparatively) elevated. This is the sign that they are parasites, whereas Prophet Muhammad (saw) was a great visionary leader and his elevated status was apparent without him needing to demean others. And yet these are the very people who proclaim loudly that they are following the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saw), when the truth is that they are not following even a single spiritual footstep of that great man. May Allah (swt) sanctify the name and memory and legacy of Prophet Muhammad (saw), and protect his ummah in Pakistan from the evil treachery of the mullahs who claim to act in his name.

  165. Moosa

    I don’t think I should go to great trouble to refute this rather obvious Lahori-type baiting strategy.

    I’ll only say that when people present translations of obscure quotations, then at the very least my esteemed fellow bloggers should read the full original manuscript before forming judgments. But personally, I form my assessments of individuals and communities by what I see with my own eyes. Everybody knows that the Pakistani government has persecuted ahmadis for many years. Everybody knows that ahmadis have distinguished themselves from most other oppressed communities in the world by refusing to retaliate with any form of terrorism or riots or even public demonstrations. Everybody saw the noble response of “qadiani” ahmadis to the massacres in Lahore. Now if a person wishes to say we would treat non-ahmadis as non-muslims in the land (despite numerous well-known statements from the ahmadi khulafa to the contrary and despite complete refutation of this idea from every “qadiani” ahmadi on this blog), then what can I say? I’d only advise you not to listen to the evil whispers of those who wish to stoke up hatred, and instead give importance to what you see with your own eyes in Pakistan.

  166. Moosa

    Hey, I feel silly now, lol. I wrote a response to a Lahori-style attack on ahmadis, but the Lahori-style post has disappeared by the time I posted my response !!!

  167. Nusrat Pasha

    Let’s examine some pertinent questions one by one:

    Q#1: Speaking rationally, is it possible for any body of humans, Parliament or Judiciary, to know, leave alone judge who is a Muslim and who is not?

    A#1: No. It is not.

    Q#2: How does the founder of Islam define the term “Muslim”?

    A#2: On the occasion of the first census of Madina, the question of how to determine who a Muslim was, came up. The Prophet replied, “Write down for me the names of all those who call themselves “Muslim”. The Holy Prophet defined the term “Muslim” also in these words: “He who prays as we do, and adopts our qibla as his, and partakes of animals sacrificed by us, he indeed is a Muslim, a Muslim whose Islam is guaranteed by Allah and His Messenger.[Ref: Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim].

    Q#3: Do Ahmadis call themselves Muslim?

    A#3: Yes, they do.

    Q#4: (a) Do Ahmadis offer the five-time prayers in precisely the same way as determined by the Quran and Sunnah? (b) Do Ahmadis take the Kaaba in Makkah as their qibla? (c) Do Ahmadis partake of animals slaughtered by Muslims?

    A#4: The answer to subquestions (a), (b) and (c) is: “Yes”.

    Q#5: What is the kalima of the Ahmadis?

    A#5: “Laa ilaaha illallahu Muhammadur rasoolullah”.

    Q#6: In a single sentence, what is the primary doctrinal difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis?

    A#6: Ahmadis believe that the prophecy made by the Holy Prophet regarding the advent of the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, has been fullfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (1835 – 1908). Non-Ahmadis believe that this prophecy still awaits fulfillment.

  168. nasir jan

    How would pakis like it if they were treated as second class citizens in western countries and were not allowed to call themselves muslims?.

  169. Bin Ismail

    Dear Confused,

    May the Lord cure you of your confusion. Amen. Wishing you a speedy recovery.

    Get well soon – please.

  170. MusaJ

    Q&A #1 to #6 is a systematic approach. If I may add a few more questions.
    Q#7 Why the Insecurity?
    Why is the “majority” calling uncle? Pak parliment calling uncle?? is not secure enough. While this single person offering peace and blessing with no fear…um??? Needs a deeper analysis!
    It’s too trivial to say after loss to Jinnah, heavy handed military and its tragic loss in Bangladesh the Clergy took it out one a minority, just as Saddam after loosing in Kwait took it out on the Khurd & Shia. But here this one person is praying and offering peace. Sooo Cool? With such cool thinking one can show peace to the world, solved Energy Crisis, abolish smoking, develop Green Power, unify natural forces? This is a genuine, the heaven, the angles and real Hoores. I can invest my humble $10 million for it and on these angles. ..
    Is this calling uncle of parliment worth it, or correct? Talking of uncle,..ahm.. yes finaly Uncle Sam did fix Mladic & Sadam but cann’t we do better.
    Got a go, hearing the fireworks, its too noisy, despite the challenges please have a very happy July 4 we are enjoying here with Bosian Muslims.
    Oh! I owe a reply, I remembered, these are the real angles! And for your sultry offer of future promised … I take a pass at any such bimboo’s.

  171. OMLK

    @Nusrat Pasha

    Ref: Questions # 6.

    Keeping in mind that many non-Ahmadi Muslims have begun to reject the notion that Isa (AS) is alive in Heaven, I think the primary doctrinal differance between the Non-Ahmadis and (Qadiani) Ahmadis would be that the Qadiani Ahmadis believe that Prophets can continue to come after Muhammad (saws) subordinated to Muhammad (saws); and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was such a Prophet. Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer.

  172. Raza,
    Once again you have written an excellent article. It is simply a shame that Pakistan legislation would do such a stupid thing as to declare its constituents non-“co-religionists”. This is something not new though, if you look at the history of mankind specially in Dark Ages, Church would stage synagogue burnings and stage anti-semitic riots. So till adherents of the most peaceful religion (pardon the intended pun) on earth move forward from Dark ages to 21st century, Kashifiat and people that are blinded by Mullah love (like teenage girls that used to fall in love with Imran Khan in the 80’s) will keep on spewing their “love” which most of us already know is not true and majority of Pakistani’s really dont care about who to call what. They are more interested in “is the load shedding going to spoil my food in fridge” and “oh dang, no water and no muslim shower after the nihari that Khan Chacha made on the Khatam-e-Naboowat festival”.

  173. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:
    I know that this forum is not appropriate for getting into a religious discussion. However, and only for setting the record straight, HMGA himself mentioned in his various publications that God Almighty referred to him as a prophet being an Ummati of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Thus it is half truth that Ahmadis believe in the prophethood of HMGA as subservient to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). the complete truth is that Ahmadis believe in the claim made by HMGA while the smaller Lahori Ahmadi people disagree with some of the views of HMGA. They are therefore neither here nor there. If you require evidence, I will be more than happy to provide you and we can continue our dicsussion via email in which we can invite our other friends as well, if they wish to participate!

  174. Moosa

    @ OMLK

    Sorry, everybody keeps saying don’t talk about religion on this forum, but can I say something if it’s really really really interesting?😉

    It’s arguable that Qadianis Ahmadis also believe that no prophet can be “after” Prophet Muhammad (saw), in the sense of taking his place. This is the true meaning of the Arabic word BA’D, for instance the Holy Qur’an in Surah al-Jathiyah twice mentions “ba’dillaah” (after Allah). Obviously, this isn’t referring to “after God” in time, it’s referring to something standing in the place of God. Arabic is a very profound language, and unfortunately we pakistanis have imported only the most simplistic meanings into Urdu (for instance, in Urdu the word BA’D literally means “after” and nothing else, the Urdu word KHATAM literally means “finish” and nothing else). If you pick up EW Lane’s famed Arabic-English lexicon, you’ll find that the Arabic words have a much richer wealth of meanings than their Urdu counterparts. My wife’s mother-tongue is Arabic and she constantly reminds me of this.

    Linguistically, this gets even more interesting when you examine closely phrases such as “LAA NABI BA’DEE” which has been translated by mainstream scholars as “There will be no prophet after me”, but literally it doesn’t talk about future or past but instead its literal meaning is “No prophet in my absence” [for instance, Prophet Moses (as) in the Holy Qur’an berates his brother for allowing the jews to worship a calf “MIN BA’DEE” ie in his absence, not after his death in time]. Therefore, if you want to know the actual deep core understanding of Qadiani Ahmadis, we actually believe that no prophet [from the time of Adam (as) onwards] ever operated or will operate outside or in the absence of the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (saw). This is why Prophet Muhammad (saw) said in Sunan Tirmidhi that he was created before Prophet Adam (as), the question is that if he was created before Prophet Adam (as), then all the prophets were after him in time, but none were outside of his all-encompassing prophethood, this is the true meaning of “LAA NABI BA’DEE”. But what happens is that the previous historical prophets were not aware of Prophet Muhammad (saw) [even though Allah had already created him as the model of prophethood before creating Adam (as)], therefore they were not obliged to follow his teaching because he had not taught anything in the world yet. But of course, any prophet born after Prophet Muhammad (saw) taught Islam in the world, would be obliged to follow his teaching. However, this is a very deep spiritual point, and therefore for the understanding of the common Ahmadis, it is simply said that there can be no law-bearing prophet after Prophet Muhammad (saw) but prophets can come after him who reflect his light and uphold his teachings.

    For me, in any case, there is a strong element of semantics in all of this. Qadiani Ahmadis believe he was a prophet but that he didn’t bring any new teachings, he was simply guided by Allah to the true understanding of Islam and his mission was to bring muslims back to this understanding and to demonstrate the falsehood of christian dogma. Lahori Ahmadis believe he was not a prophet but that he didn’t bring any new teachings, he was simply guided by Allah to the true understanding of Islam and his mission was to bring muslims back to this understanding and to demonstrate the falsehood of christian dogma. So in fact there’s no difference in opinion regarding Ghulam Ahmad’s role, the only difference is a purely semantic difference whether to use the word “nabi” or not. Furthermore, many great sufi saints in history including Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani and Hazrat Bayazid Bistami have made statements very similar to those made by Ghulam Ahmad, for instance Shaikh Jilani wrote in Guldastah Karamat about himself: “This is not the person of Abdul Qadir but this is the person of Muhammad”. However, Ghulam Ahmad was born in a time of great political agitation and polemic, and his revelations such as “I will take thy message to the ends of the earth” led to an inevitable missionary zeal on the part of Ahmadis, and also the literalistic and intolerant Wahabbi/Deobandi movement was taking hold in India, and so things developed as they did. But for me, there is no fundamental doctrinal difference between what Qadiani Ahmadis and Lahori Ahmadis and also what many sufi saints of the past have said. The differences are simply different people looking at exactly the same claim from slightly different perspectives, and then those imagined differences were hugely augmented by political differences, and they were further exploited by the nefarious mullahs.

    Sorry, but I couldn’t resist saying all that !!

  175. OMLK

    @Moosa and Shah Zaman

    Thanks for the posts. Well, I never actually took a position on whether the Lahori Ahmadis are more correct in interpretation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s claims or the Qadiani Ahmadis are. As you both said, I did not see this as an appropriate forum to get into a theological discussion. My main intent was to point out the main doctrinal difference between Qadiani Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis; which is the issue of prophethood.

    However Shah Zaman chose to take this opportunity to assert that the Lahori Ahmadis disagree with HMGA and that this is the “complete truth.” This has now forced me to clarify that this, infact, is not at all correct. The Lahori Ahmadis are in 100% agreement with all the views of HMGA. If they were not…well they would not be Ahmadis! It is the Lahori Ahmadi belief that HMGA was not a claimant to prophethood. To go into details of this issue will be a long, long post. So I will leave it at this clarification and not make any particular judgment calls because this is not the forum to do so. But the clarification was necessary, because to call a difference of interpretation a disagreement with the original source is a rather self-righteous assertion. It is like the Sunnis saying that the shias disagree with the Quran!

    Moosa…most Muslims believe that no new prophet can come after Muhammad (saws) in time, and do not confine to “in his place” only. Maybe your position is correct, but that does not change the fact that most Muslims are not in agreement with it, and henceforth this constitutes a major doctrinal difference, which was my basic point. I don’t think I was taking any sides there, but just pointing the state of affairs that exists. However, now that you have brought up this topic let me just say the following, as briefly as I can:

    There is no doubt that HMGA and many other great Sufis have referred to themselves as prophets. This is on account of them achieving a certain spiritual status whereby they reflect the light of prophets; however they are not appointed as prophets by Allah. In fact some Sufis have even referred to themselves in divine terms, as being absorbed into Allah, reflecting the divine light and attributes, and losing their self-identity in the process. However, we cannot say that they actually become God or claim to be God in reality on this account. The reference is metaphorical. Similarly the prophetic references do not make these individuals real prophets. This is important because the concept of a real prophet as opposed to those who are like prophets (in terms of spiritual excellences) has to be examined in the light of the Quran and Hadith. Not possible to do it here as an attempt would be, in my opinion, superficial and potentially misleading for such a subtle and sensitive topic. But suffice it to say that the ideological positions of the Lahori and the Qadiani Ahmadis are poles apart on this issue, because the difference is not on semantics, but primarily on how certain verses of the Quran are interpreted. Precisely because Arabic is such a rich language (My Arabic professor in college once told me that each word in Arabic can have 70 different meanings!), the interpretation of the Quran has to be done in a manner that is logical and internally consistent. HMGA himself has laid out certain rules in this regard. My point is simply that the Lahori Ahmadi position on this matter is based squarely on a certain interpretation of the Quran in light of the writings of HGMA. The Qadiani Ahmadis have a completely different interpretation (no doubt based on what they believe to be sound principles), and that is fine (to each his own); but to pretend that these fundamental idealogical differences do not exist at all between the two groups, and instead the differences are merely political, is just not correct.

  176. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    “There is no doubt that HMGA and many other great Sufis have referred to themselves as prophets.”

    Please note that HMGA has not referred to himself as a prophet. He has claimed that God Almighty appointed him as a prophet.

    If the exact phrase is to be quoted, HMGA says in his book: Aik Ghalti ka Izala, on pages 7 & 8 (and I translate in my own words) as follows:

    “How can I deny the reference to ‘Nabi’ or ‘Rasool’ for myself when Allah Almighty has named me as such. So why should I reject this or wh why should I be afraid of someone.”

    He then continues with the following on the same pages:

    “I know that God Almighty will support me, as he has always supported his prophets ‘Rasools’ and there is no one who can stand against me as God Almighty is not with them. So where I have rejected my ‘Nabuwwat’ or ‘Risalat’, it is only in that sense that I have not brought any new law (Shari’at) and neither am I a permanent ‘Nabi’. But in the sense of receiving knowledge from my leader prophet (pbuh) and through him getting the knowledge of the unseen, I am a ‘Nabi’ and a ‘Rasool’, but without any new law (Shari’at). I have never rejected to be ‘Nabi’ in this sense. In fact it is in this sense that God has called me ‘Nabi’ and ‘Rasool’, so I do not deny to be a ‘Nabi’ or ‘Rasool’ in this sense”

    I leave it to the readers to decide!

  177. OMLK

    @Shah Zaman

    I will reply in more detail later. But if you read carefully your own words you will notice that in ecah place it is being referred to as a Prophet that HMGA mentions:

    “How can I deny the reference to ‘Nabi’ or ‘Rasool’ for myself when Allah Almighty has named me as such” (being named as prophet is the same as being referred to as a Prophet and NOT the same as being appointed a Prophet. Ibn Arabi had similarly said he has been given the title of a Prophet but not Prophethood).

    The second reference is that of a Nabi in strictly the dictionary sense of the word, and HMGA quite carefully limits the sense of the word as such. As we know in the dictionary sense a Prophet is one who makes a prophecy. For the word Nabi in Arabic a smiliar (though not exactly the same) argument applies, which has been discussed elsewhere as well. When I have more time, I will explain this further, for now I leave with the following:

    ..”and I have been called a prophet by God in a metaphorical sense, not in the real sense (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Dzamima, p. 65 – 1907)

  178. Moosa

    One of the quotations give above says, “But in the sense of receiving knowledge from my leader prophet (pbuh) and through him getting the knowledge of the unseen, I am a ‘Nabi’ and a ‘Rasool’, but without any new law (Shari’at). I have never rejected to be ‘Nabi’ in this sense.”

    This doesn’t say he was “named” a nabi, it says he “is” a nabi and a rasool without any new law. I’m sure Lahori ahmadis have an intelligent explanation for this, just as Qadiani ahmadis have an intelligent explanation of HMGA’s writings. In the end, therefore, I don’t think that intellectual arguments will prove either case. I believe the proof will be in the fruits given by both respective trees, as Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an that the goodness or the evil of a tree will be known by its fruit. This is not an easy question to answer, because it means not only worldly success (for instance, the rapid expansion of Islam in spite of fierce political opposition from all sides is one of the fruit of the tree of Islam), but it also means spiritual success, and it’s far more difficult to assess whether the Lahori or Qadiani ahmadis enjoy more spiritual fruits. But I do believe that eventually the fruits will distinguish the truth, rather than intellectual arguments.

  179. Moosa

    PS I forgot to thank you, OMLK, for your civilised and informative posts. In the end, however, I think that most mainstream muslims today are opposed to any kind of prophethood (metaphorical or real). They are suspicious also of sufis who claim to be manifestations or reflections of God. I used to employ Ibn Arabi quotations in my discussions with mainstream sunni muslims, but then I realised that Ibn Taimiyya said that Ibn Arabi was satanic and many mainstream muslims don’t accept Ibn Arabi as any kind of authority on Islam. For this reason, the 1974 National Assembly declared both Lahori and Qadiani ahmadis to be non-muslims after listening to the Lahoris and Qadianis give their own accounts of their respective beliefs.

    Therefore, I don’t think the Lahori belief in “metaphorical prophethood” makes them any more acceptable to mainstream muslims. The reasons for this are complex, but essentially the mainstream scholars aren’t opposed to HMGA only because he claimed to be a prophet (metaphorical or otherwise). The opposition is because he claimed to be the Imam Mahdi and the manifestation of Jesus (as), both Lahori and Qadiani ahmadis are agreed on this claim. Of course, such a claim was hugely dangerous for the mainstream scholars. It was very different from any previous sufi claim which was purely spiritual in nature, because of course the claim of Imam Mahdi has political implications, in fact “Imam Mahdi” means “Leader Guided [by God]”. This claim left the mainstream scholars with only 2 options: either they could accept him, in which case (prophet or not) they would have to obey him absolutely and lose their own political/theocratic power because he was the Imam Mahdi, or else they had to reject him as a kafir. As is usual when a person is guided by God, the majority of the religious scholars rejected him.

  180. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    Can you please copy paste the entire paragraph of the citation from Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Dzamima. That will help everyone understand the context of the discussion.

    The difference between a ‘Nabi’ in ordinary sense (as you take it – as someone who has had the privelege of having a conversation with God Almighty) and a ‘Nabi’ as we understand (as someone appointed by God Almighty) is that accepting the latter is a must and accepting everything that he says is a must. Accepting the former (per your understanding) is not a must and while you can agree with what he says, you can equally disagree to what he says.

    Do you agree with the above?

  181. Moosa

    Following on from Shah Zaman’s last post, I’m interested to know from OMLK how Lahori Ahmadis view Sunni Muslims who have declared HMGA is a kafir, ie every Sunni Muslim who has a passport in Pakistan? What does he think of the eemaan of a person who says HMGA is a kafir?

    I’m also interested to know, what Lahori ahmadi thinks of the authentic hadeeth where Prophet Muhammad (saw) says all Muslims must perform bai’at or pledge allegiance at the hand of Imam Mahdi, even if they have to crawl over ice and snow to do so? Do the Lahoris think that Muslims who refuse to pledge allegiance to HMGA are obedient to Prophet Muhammad (saw) or disobedient to him, and what do they think the Holy Qur’an says about people who disobey Prophet Muhammad (saw)?

    I personally think that Sunni Muslims are more honest. They simply reject HMGA as the Imam Mahdi, which is in some cases their honest opinion. But I get the impression that Lahori ahmadis accept HMGA as the Imam Mahdi, and then they seem to relegate him to the status of a mere Sufi saint who can be rejected or accepted without too much implications for the eemaan of a Muslim. I’d appreciate an explanation of this.

  182. OMLK

    @Moosa

    You said

    “This doesn’t say he was “named” a nabi, it says he “is” a nabi and a rasool without any new law..”

    In this case (as already mentioned in my previous post) where HMGA says he is a Nabi, he has explicitly limited its significance as the dictionary meaning of the word Nabi (as in English in the dictionary sense of the word “Prophet” any person making a prophecy is a prophet). This “intelligent” explanation is based on HMGA’s own writings, which I will post here in a day or two (am traveling for next 48 hrs so time is limited, sorry).

    I mostly agree with what you said about the General Muslim attitude towards Sufi’s and Islamic mysticism and the fact that the Mullahs find it difficult to accept HMGA not soley because of the “prophet” issue but also due to his other claims and ofcourse a more rational, porgressive view of the religion. However you may have missed the mark a bit when you say, “Therefore, I don’t think the Lahori belief in “metaphorical prophethood”…” , because it is not “metaphorical prophethood” but that the “references as prophet are metaphorical” which is the Lahori Ahamdi position.

    The decision to determine who is a Muslim lies with Allah alone, so fundamentally the non-muslims status in Pakistan does not matter to the Lahori Ahamdis, except for the fact that restrictions imposed due to it make it all the more difficult to frely propogate the teachings of HMGA; which I think the Muslim Ummah desperately needs in these times. Of course outside Pakistan the situation is somewhat differant and the literatue of the Lahori Ahamdis has found acceptance among non-Ahmadi muslims, inculding some well know scholars. However I agree with you generally that the oppsition to Ahmadis is not solely because of the prohethood issue, although this is a key doctrinal differance. The main concern of the Lahori Ahmadis is that the Qadiani Ahmadi position of HGMA being a claimant to Prohethood is a distortion of HMGA’s words and is also against the the Quran and Hadith; and as such we feel it is important to make this distintion so the name of HMGA is kept clear of this. Apart from this our job is to get the message to the people, acceptance or rejection is their choice.

  183. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    Would you please respond to my post as well?

  184. OMLK

    @Shah Zaman

    I will!

  185. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:
    Thanks. Your response is eagerly awaited!

  186. OMLK

    @Shah Zaman and Moosa

    “Can you please copy paste the entire paragraph of the citation from Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Dzamima. That will help everyone understand the context of the discussion.”

    If you think I have tried to force a meaning which the context does not bear, please say so. Even if you are right, it is not necessary that the entire paragraph will make the context clear. I could argue that your quotations from “aik ghalti..” are not in context until the full page is copy-pasted for the benefit of every one. It would be better if you just state your position and then let me defend mine if you think I am quoting out of context.

    Now for your second question; let me just clarify the position of Lahori Ahmadis regarding HMGA in the light of your discussion. Because the Lahore Ahmadiyya movement is not a cult revolving around blind obedience to a personality, the test of whatever HMGA says is the Quran and the Prophet (saws). So the only ultimate obligation on any Muslim (Ahmadi or not) is to submit to these two sources; all else (including HMGA claims and teachings) is secondary to, and subject to confirmation with, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (saws). This is an important point in the context that because the Lahori Ahmadis did not raise HMGA to the status of a Prophet (and that his mission was not bringing of a new religion which is also believed by the Qadiani Ahmadis), it logically follows that HMGA himself cannot make up new theological rule to suit himself. All his teachings are hence subject to conformity with the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith.
    Regarding “disagreeing” with HMGA, the Lahori Ahmadi position is that in matters of Ijtihad, it is fine to disagree with HMGA, and doing so does not invalidate his claims or status. However, in matters that involve HMGA making a claim or stating a position based on divine revelation it is obligatory to follow the Promised Messiah, BUT, all such claims still have to be verified in light of the Quran. If any claim is contradictory to the Quran, then that claim has to be rejected; which by extension would then mean leaving Ahmadiyyat. No blind following of any one is allowed.

    Moosa asked:
    “What does he think of the eemaan of a person who says HMGA is a kafir?” in reference to Pakistanis calling HMGA Kafir on passport forms. Plus Moos also asked about a particular Hadith.

    First of all I am not one to make a judgment call on any ones “emaan,” especially if it’s the Emaan of millions of Muslims! This is something too subjective and personal and only Allah is the best judge. I think you answered part of the question yourself when you said some Muslims “honestly” reject HMGA. How does one then know who has honestly and who has dishonestly rejected HMGA. The Hadeeth you mention does not imply that Muslims should blindly pledge allegiance to anyone who claims to be Imam Mahdi or the Promised Messiah. There have been other claimants also. The Muslims are supposed to make an honest appraisal (the criteria as u know is another long discussion). Sure, if a Muslim does that and comes to the conclusion that HMGA is correct in his claims, but chooses to reject him for worldly reasons, then that person’s Emaan (or lack thereof) is that of a hypocrite and his fate will be the same. But who am I to decide as to who is a hypocrite.

    In my opinion, this issue is not a black as white as the answers you seek. If you reject someone, but accept his teaching, then what is your reason for rejection? If the reason is not grounded in “reason”, then that may have its own consequences: which could range from, at best, forgoing the benefit actualization of a correct belief due to ignorance, to, at worst, Allah’s displeasure at committing intellectual hypocrisy and knowingly rejecting a Godly person. And if you go on to persecute such a person and exceed bounds of decency and humanity, then surely Allah will punish you accordingly.

    In the end only Allah can judge in these matters, professions on paper cannot be used by any human to determine the spiritual outcome for any other human.

    And I should add that the position of the Lahori Ahmadis regarding the claim and status of HMGA is based squarely on his own writings. We certainly do not think he was an “ordinary” Sufi or saint as you are incorrectly alleging. We believe that he was the Promised Messiah, Mahdi and reformer of this age. However he was not a prophet appointed by Allah and neither claimed to be one, and hence is not be blindly followed and rejecting his claims does not make any Muslim a Kafir.

    I may now be absent from this space for a day or two.

  187. Moosa

    @ OMLK

    I think you have entirely misunderstood or at least are mis-stating the issues.

    In the old days, I had the habit of analysing and refuting each and every point, but I’m not sure this is always productive, therefore I’ll focus on only a few errors in your logic.

    Firstly, you’ve argued that Qadiani ahmadis believe we should blindly follow a leader, presumably this is a veiled criticism of the institution of khilafat. This is an incorrect position. I have on numerous occasions in person heard the fourth khalifa say that he should only be obeyed in decisions which comply with the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah. If you read the conditions of allegiance to khilafat ahmadiyya, they explicitly say: (1) “That he/she shall refrain from following un-islamic customs and lustful inclinations, and shall completely submit himself/herself to the authority of the Holy Quran; and shall make the Word of God and the Sayings of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) the guiding principle in every walk of his/her life.”, and (2) “That he/she shall enter into a bond of brotherhood with this humble servant of God [the khalifa], pledging obedience to me in everything good, for the sake of Allah…”. Now please explain how this permits Qadiani ahmadis to disobey the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah?

    Secondly, you suggest that the Qadiani ahmadis must follow HMGA blindly because we believe he is a prophet, even if he should contravene the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah. There is ample evidence on the Qadiani website and Qadiani ahmadi literature that this is a false accusation. I’m sure you have studied the Qadiani ahmadi doctrine, so I am somewhat disappointed in your deliberate misrepresentation of our beliefs. You surely know that we believe HMGA claimed to be a subordinate prophet, who achieved prophethood through total obedience to Prophet Muhammad (saw), then how can you claim we would follow him even if he went against Prophet Muhammad (saw)?

    Thirdly, you state that the Qadiani ahmadis believe in a new religion. You know that we believe in Islam, we follow the Holy Qur’an, we clearly state that no nabi can now bring a new shariah or a new religion, and our literature and website makes this abundantly clear. Then if we believe in a nabi with no new shariah, then please explain how we have a new religion when we have no new shariah?

    Fourthly, the quotation is “I am a nabi and a rasool without a new law”. Now please show me in this quotation, either the paragraph before or after, where is this explicit explanation that he is limiting “nabi” in the dictionary sense of making prophecies about the future? I certainly can’t find any explicit explanation. Your argument doesn’t sound convincing to me at all, because: Who is giving him these “dictionary” prophecies, are they revealed to him by God or whom? If God is revealing prophecies to him, and if he is a nabi in this sense, then please explain how this differs substantively from previous nabiyeen such as Prophet Joseph (as) and Prophet Yaqoob (as)? When you say they were nabiyeen, but HMGA is not a nabi, then please explain exactly how their function differed from his function, what did they possess that he didn’t possess?

    Last but not least, you completely misunderstood my question “what do you think is the state of eemaan or all the muslims in Pakistan who declare on their passports that HMGA is a kafir?”. You’re evading the question by responding that only God can decide a person’s eemaan. You know very well that Prophet Muhammad (saw) spoke for God, and that Prophet Muhammad (saw) clearly said that when one muslim calls another muslim a kafir, then one of those two muslims is certainly a kafir. Either the accused is a kafir, or if the accuser has made a false accusation then he himself becomes a kafir. This was to discourage the habit of muslims to make pronouncements of kufr upon others, but it also lay down a clear line that what was the result if you crossed this line. Therefore please don’t evade the question and please answer me sincerely: if Lahori ahmadis believe that HMGA was a mu’min (believer), then what do they believe is Prophet Muhammad (saw)’s position regarding those millions of people who declare on their passports that HMGA is a kafir? [please don’t say they’re misinformed, it’s their responsibility to inform themselves fully before making such a terrible declaration].

    Wassalam,
    Moosa

  188. Moosa

    @ OMLK (again)

    Here are the conditions of the pledge given by ahmadis to HMGA in 1889, presumably Muhammad Ali (the founder of Lahori jamaat) gave the same pledge. Qadiani ahmadis today give the same pledge to the khalifa. I’m interested to know how this pledge in any way compromises the supremacy of the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah? How does belief in a prophet completely subordinate to the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah compromise the supremacy of the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah?

    The initiate shall solemnly promise:
    I That he/she shall abstain from Shirk (association of any partner with God) right up to the day of his/her death.
    II That he/she shall keep away from falsehood, fornication, adultery, trespasses of the eye, debauchery, dissipation, cruelty, dishonesty, mischief and rebellion; and will not permit himself/herself to be carried away by passions, however strong they might be.
    III That he/she shall regularly offer the five daily prayers in accordance with the commandments of God and the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); and shall try his/her best to be regular in offering the Tahajud (pre-dawn supererogatory prayers) and invoking Darood (blessings) on the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); that he/she shall make it his/her daily routine to ask forgiveness for his/her sins, to remember the bounties of God and to praise and glorify Him.
    IV That under the impulse of any passions, he/she shall cause no harm whatsoever to the creatures of Allah in general, and Muslims in particular, neither by his/her tongue nor by his/her hands nor by any other means.
    V That he/she shall remain faithful to God in all circumstances of life, in sorrow and happiness, adversity and prosperity, in felicity and trial; and shall in all conditions remain resigned to the decree of Allah and keep himself/herself ready to face all kinds of indignities and sufferings in His way and shall never turn away from it at the onslaught of any misfortune; on the contrary, he/she shall march forward.
    VI That he/she shall refrain from following un-islamic customs and lustful inclinations, and shall completely submit himself/herself to the authority of the Holy Quran; and shall make the Word of God and the Sayings of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) the guiding principle in every walk of his/her life.
    VII That he/she shall entirely give up pride and vanity and shall pass all his/her life in humbleness, cheerfulness, forbearance and meekness.
    VIII That he/she shall hold faith, the honor of faith, and the cause of Islam dearer to him/her than his/her life, wealth, honor, children and all other dear ones.
    IX That he/she shall keep himself/herself occupied in the service of God’s creatures for His sake only; and shall endeavor to benefit mankind to the best of his/her God-given abilities and powers.
    X That he/she shall enter into a bond of brotherhood with this humble servant of God, pledging obedience to me in everything good, for the sake of Allah, and remain faithful to it till the day of his/her death; that he/she shall exert such a high devotion in the observance of this bond as is not to be found in any other worldly relationship and connections demanding devoted dutifulness.
    [Translated from Ishtehar Takmeel-e-Tabligh, January 12, 1889]

  189. Shah Zaman

    @Moosa:

    If you will please allow OMLK to concentrate on one point at a time.

    @OMLK:

    Yes, I will be honest and blunt here. I do have a feeling that the citation you have referred to is incomplete and out of context.

    Respecting your demand and to allay any concern on my citation being out of context, I set out below the complete page of the citation. Further, and in order to raise your level of comfort, I reproduce the English translation of the book made by the Lahore Jama’at (and not by us Ahmadis):

    QUOTE
    And if no person can be a prophet and messenger in the sense of burooz, then what is the meaning of the following: “Guide us on the right path, the path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours.” [the Quran, 1:5-6]. It should be borne in mind that, according to this sense, I do not deny prophethood and messengership. It is in this sense that the Promised Messiah has been called nabi in the Sahih Muslim. If one who receives news of the unseen from God is not to be called nabi, tell us what he should be called? If it is said that he should be called muhaddas, I say that in no lexicon is the meaning of tahdees ‘making known the unseen.’ The meaning of nubuwwat is, however, making known matters of the unseen. Nabi is a word which is common to Arabic and Hebrew. In Hebrew this word is naabi, and is derived from naabaa which means “to prophesy, upon receiving intimation from God.” And it is not a requirement for a nabi that he should be a bearer of shariah. This is a mere gift by which matters of the unseen are disclosed. As I have received up to this time about 150 prophecies from God, and seen with my own eyes that they were fulfilled clearly, how can I deny the application of the word nabi or rasul to myself? And when God Almighty has himself given me these titles, how can I reject this, or fear someone other than Him? I swear by God Who has sent me — and about Whom it is the work of the accursed to make fabrications — that He has sent me as the Promised Messiah. And just as I believe in the verses of the Holy Quran, similarly, without an iota of difference, I believe in the clear and open revelation of God which I receive, the truth of which has become evident to me by its repeated signs.

    I can swear on oath in the House of God that the holy revelation which descends on me is the word of the same God Who sent His word to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad mustafa, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him. The earth testified for me, and so did heaven. So also did both heaven and earth proclaim that I am the khalifa (appointed one) of God. However, according to the prophecies it was necessary that I should be denied, so those upon whose hearts are veils do not accept me.

    I know that God will certainly succour me, as He has ever been helping His messengers. None can stand against me, as he has not the aid of God. Wherever I have denied prophethood and messengership, it is only in the sense that I am not the independent bearer of a shariah, nor am I an independent prophet. However, in the sense that, having gained spiritual graces from the Messenger whom I follow, and having attained for myself his name, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God through the mediation of the Holy Prophet, I am a messenger and a prophet but without a new shariah. I have never denied being called a prophet in this sense. In fact, this is the sense in which God has addressed me as nabi and rasul. Nor do I now deny being a prophet and messenger in this sense. And my statement, “I am neither a messenger nor bearer of a scripture,” means only that I am not a possessor of shariah (sahib-i shariah).”
    UNQUOTE

    For my quotation, I hope the above passage will clarify the context to the readers.

    I now request you to kindly copy-paste the entire paragraph / page in relation to your citation.

    Once the context of the two citations is before everyone, readers should be able to understand the claim of HMGA.

    Your response is eagerly awaited!

  190. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    And after that we can also discuss other issues, such as, whether there can be a non-law bearing prophet (Ghayer-Sharai Nabi) under Quran and Hadith and what is the rationals behind a non-law bearing prophet (Ghayer-Sharai Nabi).

    We take one step at a time. Firstly, let us get clear on the citations. It is your turn now.

    As you will note, I have not added any commentary from my side on the citation. I hope you will also give the plain statement from the book of HMGA without adding any explanation to it.

  191. Moosa

    “@Moosa:

    If you will please allow OMLK to concentrate on one point at a time.”

    Lol, OMLK raised a multitude of points, and I only rebutted 5 of them. But okay, yes I agree that things could get complicated and confused here, I’ll leave the discussion to both of you, and I’ll remain silent for some time on this discussion.

    Peace,
    Moosa

  192. The answer in one word: No.

  193. Bin Ismail

    @ OMLK (July 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm)

    “…..many non-Ahmadi Muslims have begun to reject the notion that Isa (AS) is alive in Heaven…..”

    Indeed, while many Muslims have given up on the hope of the promised advent of a Messiah, but such Muslims happen to be many many times fewer than those who believe that Esa (Jesus) resides in the heavens, with his material body and awaits his second appearance on earth.

    Interestingly, these Muslims who are many many times more that the many Muslims you were referring to, also believe and contend that when Prophet Esa does eventually make his second appearance as the “Promised Messiah”, he would continue to be a prophet and would also simultaneously enjoy the privilege of being a follower of Muhammad the messenger of God. Thus essentially, the majority of Muslims hold the belief that the Promised Messiah, who in their opinion would be Jesus of Nazareth himself, would be a non-Law bearing prophet, subordinate to Muhammad the Holy Prophet. Hence, in line with the mainstream interpretation, if a historian were to write a biography of the “last prophet to have walked the earth”, the biography would most certainly be of Jesus of Nazareth (Esa).

    Therefore, as Nusrat Pasha has stated, the primary doctrinal difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadi Muslims remains to be the fact that Ahmadis believe that the prophecy regarding the Promised Messiah has been fulfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, while the non-Ahmadis believe that this prophecy awaits fulfillment in the person of Jesus himself.

  194. OMLK

    @Moosa and Shah Zaman (SZ)

    Before proceeding further, I think a few clarifications are in order. For some reason you are making a whole lot of assumptions of what I am intending to say and ignoring what I have actually said! Then based on your assumptions you have given lengthy rebuttals to points I never raised!

    My last post was in RESPONSE to questions asked by you and Shah Zaman, and the aim to was to make the position of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement clear on certain issues raised by your goodselves. So what you have laughingly referred to as points raised by me were responses to questions asked by you guys. For some reason you took it all as allegations against the Qadiani Ahmadis. I think the only accusation I made was that the Qadianis Ahmadis have distorted the words of the HMGA. I never said that they follow a new religion or anything of this sort. So I am a bit lost at your response?????

    The only bit that possibly could construed to be, I suppose, a veiled allegation on Qadiani Ahmadis was my remark that because the Lahori Ahmadis have not raised HMGA to the status of a Prophet, he is subject to the bounds established by the Quran and Prophet (saws). Here my intention was simply to state the reason and circumstances under which we may disagree with HMGA. His not being a Prophet one of the reasons and this I had to specifically mention because SZ in his question had directly raised the point of agreeing or disagreeing with a prophet:
    “…difference between a ‘Nabi’ in ordinary sense (as you take it – as someone who has had the privelege of having a conversation with God Almighty) and a ‘Nabi’ as we understand (as someone appointed by God Almighty) is that accepting the latter is a must and accepting everything that he says is a must. Accepting the former (per your understanding) is not a must and while you can agree with what he says, you can equally disagree to what he says.”

    Hence I was forced to refer to HMGA status as prophet (or not) and our belief in this matter. This may have sounded by implication that the Qadiani Ahmadis think it is ok for HMGA to contravene the boundaries of Quran, but that was not the case. My intention was to make our own reasoning clear with reference to the prophethood issue as the same was raised by SZ. You may not agree with our reasoning and that is fine, but to take offense to it is a bit presumptious. I think the difference of opinion here is not so much the position of HMGA and the Quran (both groups are on the same wavelength here) but what constitutes a prophet and if HMGA qualifies as a Prophet in light of his own writings and of course the Quran and Hadith You have alluded to this in a series of questions comparing HMGA to certain other Prohets. This issue Shah Zaman has said we can discuss later, so I guess whenever later comes. Since all else in your “rebuttal” post is based on your assumed and incorrect assessment of my post as criticism of Qadiani Ahmadis, it is not relevant to my post which actually was a statement of what I know to be Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement’s position on certain matters as asked by you and SZ.

    Secondly I did not “evade” your question but you have now changed your question by combining various questions into one. That is ok, at least this way you are being more direct as to exactly what you want to know, instead of going about it in a roundabout way. However, don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that you are deliberately putting me in the spotlight by posing questions and then drawing far-fetched conclusions based on my answer to make your own points or asking a further set of questions raising more issues which I am then asked to defend or respond to. I can of course demand to ask you one question for every one that you have asked me! And then one follow-up question for every follow-up question that you have asked me, and then it will be your turn again! Don’t you think that would be a waste of time? If you are eager to draw me into some sort of a debate here, why don’t you just mention the position or issue you want to discuss, and then we can just state our arguments. That would be simpler and more decent. However, there are still a number of follow-up questions that you have asked me. Would you rather that I first answer them one by one to the best of my knowledge on the condition that you then either agree or disagree with my position but refrain from prolonging everything by just asking more questions. Or just state the issue you want to discuss and we can make our arguments.

  195. Moosa

    @ OMLK

    I apologise and I think I’ve been unfair in my response, based on a genuine misunderstanding of what you were saying. I ask your forgiveness for that, and I retract my first and third points.

    Regarding my second point, I must stand by my statement that HMGA’s status as a prophet in no way detracts from Qadiani ahmadis’ absolute obedience and subjugation to the Holy Qur’an and to Prophet Muhammad (saw).

    Regarding my fourth point, I think it is best left to yourself and Zaman Shah to resolve that point.

    Regarding my fifth point, I personally feel you’re continuing to evade the question: what is the eemaan of those muslims who have declared kufr of HMGA, according to the declarations of Prophet Muhammad (saw):

    “If a man calls his Muslim brother kafir, it applies to one of the two.” [Sahih Bukhari]

    “Whenever a man accuses another of being a kafir or wrong-doer, this accusation will rebound on him if the one accused is not in reality a kafir or wrong-doer.” [Sahih Bukhari]

    “The man who calls another kafir or enemy of God, and the latter was not such, this charge will indeed turn back upon the accused.” [Sahih Muslim]

    “He who curses a believer, it is as if he has killed him. And he who accuses a believer of kufr, it is as if he has killed him.” [Sahih Bukhari]

    This probably makes uncomfortable reading for the many decent sunni muslims who hold pakistani passports, but takfir (attribution of kufr) is a serious issue. Did they think this was a joke, when they signed their passport applications?

  196. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    “The only bit that possibly could construed to be, I suppose, a veiled allegation on Qadiani Ahmadis was my remark that because the Lahori Ahmadis have not raised HMGA to the status of a Prophet, he is subject to the bounds established by the Quran and Prophet (saws). Here my intention was simply to state the reason and circumstances under which we may disagree with HMGA. His not being a Prophet one of the reasons and this I had to specifically mention because SZ in his question had directly raised the point of agreeing or disagreeing with a prophet:”

    No question on the above. Even the Holy Prophet (pbuh) could not say anything against the word of God. However, you would never expect that from the Holy Prophet (pbuh) – would you!

    Let us first concentrate on the citations. I have reproduced the full page of what I had quoted and have used the translation done by the Lahore Jama’at. Would you now please reproduce the whole page of your citation?

    Shukriya in advance!

  197. OMLK

    @ Moosa

    We are not debating your 2nd point. I did not directly say what your point is defending, but it dees contrdict, I think, the notion of a Prophet for Lahori Ahamdis. Any way, the point came as a response to your questions, but if you want to discuss it, I suppose we can.

    Your fourth point is differant from what SZ is saying. He wants to copy-paste portions of HMGA’s writings, without and accompanying arguments, which I think would be a waste of time. I will explain that later. Your fourth point was asking me to show the existence of certain words, within the book EGKI, more specifically within a specific section. I did not respond to that actually, because I am not comfortable with you continiously asking me one question after other, and me faithfully answering. Hence I made a proposal, which you have yet to respond to. Allow me to repeat part of the same:

    “However, there are still a number of follow-up questions that you have asked me. Would you rather that I first answer them one by one to the best of my knowledge on the condition that you then either agree or disagree with my position but refrain from prolonging everything by just asking more questions. Or just state the issue you want to discuss and we can make our arguments”

    Regarding your fifth point….well just please re-read what I have already said, and the question and questions that you have asked me each time. Is it my opinion, or the Lahore ahamdiyya Movemnet position or the view of the Prophet (saws) in light of Hadith(s) (the list of Hadith also just expanded in ur latest post) that you want to know? Also resond to my proposal before bombarding more questions…please!

  198. Shah Zaman

    @Moosa:

    Would you please STOP reaponding and leave this to me for a while, PLEASE!

    @OMLK:

    I think fairness demands that you copy-paste the entire page so that people can understand the plain language there. I obliged a similar request from you. I am sure everyone can understand the reason why are you avoiding to copy-paste the entire page. BTW, do you know Quran clearly asks Muslims not to pray, as it says: “Laa Taqrabus Salata” (Don’t even go near to praying)!!! I hope people are getting the point here.

    The truth stands exposed if one reads the statements of the leaders of the Lahori Jamaat (including Maulana Muhammad Ali, Amir Jamaat from 1914 to 1951) before March 1914. They were very clear and unambiguous in calling HMGA as a prophet appointed by God. The position changed after the demise of Maulana Hakim Noorud Din when none of the “well-educated” person was chosen by God Almighty to lead the Ahmadi Jamaat.

    Am I wrong, OMLK? If you wish, I can provide with references that you will not be able to deny. Do you dare to accept the challenge!!!

  199. OMLK

    @SZ

    “No question on the above. Even the Holy Prophet (pbuh) could not say anything against the word of God. However, you would never expect that from the Holy Prophet (pbuh) – would you!”

    Agreed! This is exactly the reason HMGA advised to reject Hadith that contradicted the Quran. Also in case of The Holy Prophet (pbuh), revelation to him was accepted as the final word of Allah. It did not have to be verified against any previous revelation or guidance sent to mankind. In other words the say of The Prophet (pbuh) in what constituted the word of Allah was absolute, final and binding on all Muslims.

    Are you assuming that copy pasting a certain paragraph will clarify the meaning of the same with reference to parts of its text being in context? My answer is a big NO. I think you know that a prolific writer like HMGA has written about certain issue not in always in totality in a single place, but more often than not in multiple places with varying degrees of detail. At times some concepts are used or mentioned in one place, and explained in detail or clarified in other places. To truly establish context one would have to then present all those occasions where a certain issue or issues used in a particular text have been discussed and related clarifications offered which have then significantly added to the meaning of the same. Hence if it is known that a certain citation is quoted out of context (that is the context does not support the meaning of the text being put forward by the citer) then the same should be explicitly explained with reference to the same text or even text from a separate writing of HMGA which explains the same issue in more detail or gives further clarifications. It is not appropriate not just say that you “feel” the citation is out of context so the full paragraph is needed, not least because the full paragraph may not clarify the issue anyway and to do so would require a much lengthier and comprehensive exercise. It is also fair that to ask anyone to take this undertaking, the burden of proof should first be discharged by the accuser. If you have actually read the particular passage and know that the citation is not correct, then explain it as such and present the alternate meaning of the citation as well to prove that first meaning offered was incorrect. Then allow me to defend myself by using not just the paragraph but other paragraphs from the same book as well as other books of HMGA throwing light on the same issue.
    Also note that I did not ask you to copy-paste a page from EGKI. You did it in on your own accord (with your own agenda in mind), and I do not think its meaning is clear (even now) without knowing its context within the same book as well as with reference to other places where HMGA has written in more detail about the same matter and clarified certain things which are not apparent here.
    As I said before, I am under no obligation to just keep obliging your queries and you can then throw out more (at time even ignoring what I have actually said). The way my answers were initially responded to has, rightly or wrongly, given me the impression that certain questions were asked to elicit certain answers which then were used to make certain pre-decided points. I don’t really want to play this game. At least not one sidedly. So either consider my proposal to make the rules even, or, preferably, do this in a more straight forward manner.

  200. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    You have said: “Also note that I did not ask you to copy-paste a page from EGKI. You did it in on your own accord (with your own agenda in mind),”

    I copy-paste your earlier posting to refresh your memory: “I could argue that your quotations from “aik ghalti..” are not in context until the full page is copy-pasted for the benefit of every one.”

    You have also stated: “I think you know that a prolific writer like HMGA has written about certain issue not in always in totality in a single place, but more often than not in multiple places with varying degrees of detail. At times some concepts are used or mentioned in one place, and explained in detail or clarified in other places.”

    Please feel free to copy paste ANY THREE PAGES where you think HMGA has dealt with this issue at length and clarified that he was not a prophet in the sense we (Ahmadis) take it, but was in the sense that Lahoris take it.

    Further to the above, I can see that my assertion re the change in stance of the Lahori jamaat leaders after May 1914 has probably escaped your attention. I copy-paste the relevant part of the posting again:

    QUOTE
    The truth stands exposed if one reads the statements of the leaders of the Lahori Jamaat (including Maulana Muhammad Ali, Amir Jamaat from 1914 to 1951) before March 1914. They were very clear and unambiguous in calling HMGA as a prophet appointed by God. The position changed after the demise of Maulana Hakim Noorud Din when none of the “well-educated” person was chosen by God Almighty to lead the Ahmadi Jamaat.

    Am I wrong, OMLK? If you wish, I can provide with references that you will not be able to deny. Do you dare to accept the challenge!!!
    UNQUOTE

    We are not discussing anything religious here. These are plain facts. While I am more than happy to discuss the religious aspect as well, I don’t think it will be needed as the facts alone can demolish your claim.

  201. OMLK

    @SZ

    “I think fairness demands that you copy-paste the entire page so that people can understand the plain language there”

    The language is certainly not plane! Well may be it is to you, but to a simpleton like me it needed some effort to fully understand the full implications of the writing.

    ” I obliged a similar request from you..”

    I made no such request!

    “I am sure everyone can understand the reason why are you avoiding to copy-paste the entire page. BTW, do you know Quran clearly asks Muslims not to pray, as it says: “Laa Taqrabus Salata” (Don’t even go near to praying)!!! I hope people are getting the point here”

    Well the decent thing to respond to any one using this quote to argue that Quran discourages praying. is to simply present the rest of the verse and give the correct meaning. Are you ready to do this for my citation? In fact I have already encouraged you t0 do do this. What is stopping you??????? Are you worried that I may start explaining my veiw in more detail in response? Or present more evidence from HMGA’s own writings further explaining this concept???

    “The truth stands exposed if one reads the statements of the leaders of the Lahori Jamaat (including Maulana Muhammad Ali, Amir Jamaat from 1914 to 1951) before March 1914. They were very clear and unambiguous in calling HMGA as a prophet appointed by God. The position changed after the demise of Maulana Hakim Noorud Din when none of the “well-educated” person was chosen by God Almighty to lead the Ahmadi Jamaat.”

    So now you want to call the Lahore Ahmadiyya Leaders as hypocrites? I can get nasty about your Caliphs as well, but I would rather not. It is distasteful and does not serve any purpose. Far better to state the issue and present your case, leaving the honesty and intent of each other’s leaders aside. Btw it is interesting you have implied that the Qadiani Ahmadi leaders are chosen by God Almighty . How does this work? I mean how do you guys know who Allah has chosen as the next Caliph?

    “Am I wrong, OMLK? If you wish, I can provide with references that you will not be able to deny. Do you dare to accept the challenge!!!”

    Please enlighten me. But if this is the approach you want to take, then remember you started it!

  202. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    I forgot to respond to your last sentence: “So either consider my proposal to make the rules even, or, preferably, do this in a more straight forward manner.”

    My apologies if any of my statements gave the impression that we were playing a game without any rules. I thought I had clarified that in an earlier posting in the following words:

    QUOTE
    And after that we can also discuss other issues, such as, whether there can be a non-law bearing prophet (Ghayer-Sharai Nabi) under Quran and Hadith and what is the rationals behind a non-law bearing prophet (Ghayer-Sharai Nabi).

    We take one step at a time. Firstly, let us get clear on the citations. It is your turn now.

    As you will note, I have not added any commentary from my side on the citation. I hope you will also give the plain statement from the book of HMGA without adding any explanation to it.
    UNQUOTE

  203. OMLK

    @SZ

    “I copy-paste your earlier posting to refresh your memory: “I could argue that your quotations from “aik ghalti..” are not in context until the full page is copy-pasted for the benefit of every one.”

    Well………are you saying my quoted words were a demand on you? Please read them carefully.

    “Please feel free to copy paste ANY THREE PAGES where you think HMGA has dealt with this issue at length and clarified that he was not a prophet in the sense we (Ahmadis) take it, but was in the sense that Lahoris take it”

    Why three….why not two, or five, or as many as it takes or are available, or I feel are sufficent (or the lesser of the last three)?

    “We are not discussing anything religious here. These are plain facts. While I am more than happy to discuss the religious aspect as well, I don’t think it will be needed as the facts alone can demolish your claim.”

    Okay…..well further to what I have stated above, I would really like to know, exactly which of my “claim” are you proposing to “demolish?”?????

  204. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    I can sense the temperature building up here. Calm down and relax.

    I did not use the word “hypocrites”. All I said was a matter of fact. Prior to March 1914, they were very candid in their expression and would refer to HMGA as a prophet appointed by God. I am more than happy to provide you with references from the writings of the leaders of Lahore Jamaat.

    Re the election of the Khalifa, I can see from your statements that you have no clue about the process we have in place. However, this is not relevant to the point we are discussing which is the status of HMGA.

    You said: “I can get nasty about your Caliphs as well, but I would rather not. It is distasteful and does not serve any purpose. Far better to state the issue and present your case, leaving the honesty and intent of each other’s leaders aside.”

    I salute you for the above. That shows the strength of your character and I admire this trait of yours. Brother, I will be candid and honest in my communication and please forgive me if there is any feeling that I have not been respectful towards your elders. I was just trying to highlight the fact. I think now it is obligatory that I set out what I had in mind when I mentioned the change in stance of the Lahore Jamaat leaders.

    To begin with, I will give you just one reference. This is what was written by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in July 1904 edition of the “Review of Religions”. While you can find this on the website of Lahore Jamaat at: http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/articles/reviewofreligions/1904/reviewreligionsurdu190407.pdf (see page 248 of the original publication which turns out to be page 30 of 40 of the pdf document), I copy-paste the stuff in my own translation for ease of reference:

    QUOTE
    For example, drinking is such a vice, rather a mother of all vices, which is a stigma on the face of humanity. Thousands of people have tried to rid the world world of this evil, but to no avail, and thousands are trying even now but cannot do anything. This vice was in full swing in the island of Arabia at the time when the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was born. Ten thousands lecturers could not make that change that came with the holy words of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Once upon a time, in the city of Madina, news spread that alcohol had been banned for Muslims and that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had forbidden Muslims from drinking. This voice had such an effect that within minutes the containers of alcohol were broken and alcohol started flowing through the streets of Madina. How come this voice had such a miraculous effect. It was only because people had come to know that drinking was abhored by God Almighty Whose Messenger, they reckoned, was the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Such a prophet is needed in the world and not a priest who does not know anything but cursing the righteous. Such a prophet has now been appointed by God Almighty, but people have rejected him in the same fashion as they rejected the previous prophets. Wish, they considered that had he shown them the signs that were beyond the human power and does he not purify them of sins in the same way as the eralier profits did and does he not help them recognise the All-Knowing and the All-Powerful in the same way as the earlier Ummatis did! This prophet is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who has shown hundreds of thousands of signs in his support and whose followers today are more than two hundred thousands. Those who need spiritual comfort, they should come to him as he grants comfort to the tired ones. He has come at the time when he was due according to the earlier prophecies and the world was awaiting his arrival and all signs had been fulfilled. His truthfulness is like a sunshine in the middle of the day for those who open their eyes. He has brought the real cure for sins. If the priests have any consideration for their sins and if they know that they have infection, they should come to the doctor. So that instead of them making people go astray, they seek healing from him. After he heals them, they can then call people towards the right path.
    UNQUOTE

    I hope the above gives the full context of the discussion. You can read teh entire publication if there is any doubt.

    The above is just one out of many citations that you can find if you read the literature predating 1914.

    Wassalaam,

  205. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    Bro, I have just answered and my comment is awaiting moderation as it has an external link. I hope it will be cleared soon.

    Thank you again for remaining decent and my apologies if there was any offence caused which, trust me, was not intentional on my part.

    @Moderator:

    Can you please prioritise clearing my posting. I shall be very grateful.

  206. An ordinary man

    @Moderator:
    This is getting very interesting. Can you please release the post by Shah Zaman, as it has been a day since he made it. I am sure there are others as well who are anxious to read that.

  207. Shah Zaman

    @Moderator:
    Would you please let me know if there is an issue with my posting of yesterday which is “awaiting moderation” for almost 24 hours now!

  208. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    The moderator has cleared the link and my posting is now appearing above. Please go through this. I look forward to receiving your comments.

  209. OMLK

    @SZ

    Thanks for your post and the effort done in translating and all.

    “I can sense the temperature building up here. Calm down and relax. I did not use the word “hypocrites”.”

    Bro I will calm down just as soon as you do! You may not have used the word “hypocrite” but this is certainly what you implied. You also said you would “demolish” my claim and then dared me to accept the challenge. All this indicated a heightened sense of excitement on your part which I reflected in my response. That’s all! No offense meant.

    “Re the election of the Khalifa, I can see from your statements that you have no clue about the process we have in place. However, this is not relevant to the point we are discussing which is the status of HMGA.”

    Of course I have no clue. That is why I asked the question! To know how it is done. You should here give me the benefit of doubt as I did ask the question and did not make any absolute judgments. Your telling the asker of a question that he does not know the answer to it does not really add to the discussion. You are right however; this issue is not directly relevant to the status of HMGA. But then, tell me, is the allegedly changing stance of Maulana Muhammad Ali relevant to the status of HMGA (which really should be decided on HGMA’s own writings.)? I am only saying this to clarify that proving that MMA changed his stance should not automatically be considered a proof that HMGA claimed to be a prophet in the sense the Qadiani Ahmadis ascribe to him. As a matter of principle this particular issue should be decided on the strength of HMGA’s own writings.

    So before I respond, please decide and state what you are aiming to prove by analyzing the citation that you have quoted. Is it:

    1 – MMA changed his stance regarding the status of HMGA as a prophet round about 1914.

    OR

    2 – HMGA claimed to be a Prophet in the sense believed by the Qadiani Ahmadis and that the Lahori Ahmadi interpretation of his prophet status is wrong.

    3 – Any other, or perhaps all of the above????

    I have seen in the past that many times in a discussion the actual issue gets lost because the participants cannot resist the temptation to score points wherever they see the opportunity. In the end then the discussion evolves into something different from the original intention. Hence it is important to state exactly the objective of this exercise. This way I (and you) will have the right to refuse going in a certain direction if that direction is not focused on the stated objective. This will also close out any opportunity to wriggle out of the discussion by introducing irrelevant issues. Already I feel this has happened to an extent (as can be seen if one follows this discussion right from the beginning). From my first post here highlighting a key doctrinal difference between the Qadiani Ahmadis and mainstream Muslims (which btw was never denied or confirmed by anyone) I now find myself having to defend the integrity of the founder of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement! Whether this is an inadvertent result of the somewhat aggressive stance of some Qadiani Ahmadis against the Lahori Ahmadis, or careful maneuvering by the same, I cannot say. In any case, all this is past history now and not really relevant. So, let me just reiterate that I will be more than happy to discuss the issue of Maulana Muhammad Ali’s allegedly changing stance according to the citation quoted by SZ, just as long we first state and stick to exactly what we are trying to prove here.

  210. Moosa

    OMLK,

    For some reason, SZ has insisted that I don’t put any of my ideas forth in this discussion. However, I would like to make a small point. You’re discussing whether HMGA claimed to be a prophet or not. SZ has said that Muhammad Ali publicly declared HMGA to be a prophet before the death of Khalifa Nooruddeen. I think this is a relevant point to your discussion, there is no reason to respond emotionally that this is an allegation of hypocrisy. SZ’s allegation needs to be examined objectively. Instead, you have responded by threatening that you can say bad things about the Ahmadi khulafaa. But this has nothing to do with the question in hand. The Lahori allegations against the Ahmadi khulafaa (eg the second ahmadi khalifa declared non-ahmadis as kafirs) is irrelevant for the discussion at hand: whether HMGA declared he was a prophet or not. SZ’s allegation that Lahori leaders accepted him as a prophet during his own lifetime, is very relevant, and needs to be examined objectively.

  211. OMLK

    @Moosa

    Then my question to you is that why does SZ have to rely on supposedly MMA declaring HMGA to be a Prophet pre-1914 to prove that HMGA himself claimed Prophethood. If HMGA’s own writings can be presented to prove this (or disprove this according to the Lahore Ahamdiayya Movement) then why go about this in an indirect manner. This could either be that SZ does not want to discuss HMGA’s writings on this issue fearing perhaps that they could support the opposing point of view, or he is also aiming to discredit the elders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement by questioning their integrity. It is hardly an allegation on my part!

    And my “threat” should be seen as a fair request to also examine objectively what the Qadiani Ahamdi Caliphs have said reagarding prophethood of HMGA and status of non-Ahamdis, which fly in the face of HMGA’s own views. The issue of Kufr is directly linked to acceptance of HMGA as a Prophet, so actually is not that irrelevant. Please realise that so far you guys have been picking various topics and questions to pose and I have been mostly responding. In fairness we should stick to one issue at a time and then allow me to pose a question or two also after that.

    Whatever SZ’s allegation is regarding Lahori Ahmadi elders, it needs to be stated and agreed on very precisely and clearly along with any implications of it, so we know exactly what we are talking about here. This is important, let me give you a small example. You have said that..”SZ has said that Muhammad Ali publicly declared HMGA to be a prophet before the death of Khalifa Nooruddeen.” However I understood SZ actually saying that MMA changed his stance regarding HMGA being a prophet after 1914. And the given citation proves it. So the citation itself is not the end, the end is the proposition which SZ has put forth and which is to be proven by the given citation. So as soon as the proposition is stated, I will respond to the evidence (i.e the citation) given to prove it.

  212. Moosa

    Just to say that the allegation of kufr has nothing to do with HMGA being a prophet or not, the grounds for the allegation of kufr have been explained many times to yourself on this forum, please read them again. Most mainstream scholars agree that a muslim will commit kufr if he rejects the imam mahdi and jesus, even though they don’t believe that imam mahdi will be a prophet. This is because Prophet Muhammad (saw) has made it obligatory for muslims to accept the imam mahdi when he comes. What I don’t understand is how Lahoris believe that HMGA is the imam mahdi, and yet attach no spiritual consequences to his rejection by a muslim.

    My own strong impression is that the Lahori ahmadis put far more emphasis on discrediting the Ahmadi caliphs and their declarations of kufr, than the Qadiani ahmadis put on discrediting Muhammad Ali. On this forum, we’ve all read many vitriolic attacks by Lahoris on the Ahmadi caliphs, and you’ve not asked your Lahori brothers to refrain from their vitriole, yet suddenly when for the first time a Qadiani ahmadi says something which questions the integrity of Muhammad Ali, you’re full of indignant rage. This is not fair-minded, in my humble opinion.

    In any case, I’d urge both yourself and SZ to refrain from attacking the integrity of each other’s leaders, and instead focus strictly on what exactly HMGA said on the issue of his own prophethood. SZ, I humbly ask that you don’t say anything which can be remotely interpreted as an attack on Muhammad Ali. Otherwise, I’m worried that people will start getting offended and angry, and then we will lose sight of the important issue: did HMGA claim to be a prophet?

  213. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:
    My dear brother, I am more than happy to discuss the claim in the light of HMGA’s own writings.

    My only objective behind highlighting the fact that Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib did change his stance after 1914 was only to underscore the point that, prior to 1914, it was a unanimous view of the Jamaat that HMGA was a prophet appointed by God. Of course those people were direct companions of HMGA they clearly understood his claim during his lifetime.

    I provided you with a detailed translation of HMGA’s writing from one of his books. On the other hand, you have provided one plain sentence and have asked me to substantiate my allegation that your citation is out of context. The only reason behind requesting you to copy-paste the entire page was that I live in Europe and do not have a copy of the book (Haqiqatul Wahi) from where you had quoted. Otherwise, I would have simply set out the translation of the entire page. Once again, may I request you please to copy-paste the entire page so that we know what is the context of the discussion there. Brother Moosa: Is there a chance that you can find the publication Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Dzamima, p. 65 (1907) and copy-paste the entire discussion?

    We can discuss other references as well as look at the claim in an objective manner. While I have many other references from HMGA’s writings on the issue of prophethood, I think it is important that we check the context of the Haqiqatul Wahi citation first.

    Logically speaking, if HMGA was not a prophet, he would not have abstained his followers from offering prayers behind non-Ahmadi Muslim Imams. However, the fact is: he did.

    I know that your abrupt reaction to the above will be a negation of the above that: “HMGA never said anything like that”, as I know Lahori Jamaat believes that it is perfectly in order to offer prayers behind non-Ahmadi Muslim Imams. In this regard, I would once again refer you to your own website and refer to only one document there which carries 3 such references. In order for my posting to go without queueing , I will guide you to the right publication, as follows:

    Please go to www dot aaiil dot org and then click on “Literature” appearing on top of the page (amongst 4 options).

    A click on the “Literature” link will take you to another page where you will have further options listed on your left. Select option 4 which is “Articles and Magazines”.

    The link “Articles and Magazines” will take you to the next page where you need to scroll down and come to “URDU” publications. Click on the first publication which is “Al-Hakam (1897 – 1912)”.

    The link “Al-Hakam (1897 – 1912)” will take you to the next page where you will find at the bottom of the page links to “Raw Pdfs”. Click on 1901. This should open up the original Al-Hakam publication for 1901 in a large pdf file.

    You need to go to page 237 of the pdf document (Edition dated 31 July 1901) and read what is written in column 3. In addition, also go to page 252 (Edition dated 10 August 1901) and read what is written in column 2. Furthermore, also check page 336 (Edition dated 24 September 1901) and read column 1.

    Let me know how you wish to proceed further.

  214. Moosa

    Shah Zaman,

    You can find the original urdu on the Alislam website. Just go to Alislam website, then click on Library, then click on Books, then click on Urdu Books under the name “The Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad”, then click on “Roohani Khazain”, then go to volume 22 [Haqiqatul Wahi is found in volume 22 of Roohani Khazain].

  215. Shah Zaman

    Thanks, bro Moosa.

    @OKLM:
    Bro, I copy paste your citation first:

    QUOTE
    and I have been called a prophet by God in a metaphorical sense, not in the real sense (Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Dzamima, p. 65 – 1907)
    UNQUOTE

    The referenced book is available online and the link is provided in bro Moosa’s posting above. The book comprises 739 pages and the Dzamima is not separatekly page numbered. I shall be grateful if you would kindly let me know what page should I check for the above citation. Page 65 of the Dzamima starts from page 499 of the pdf document (there is a reference on page 499 of the pdf document to page 65). I shall be grateful if you would let me know where should I look for the citation.

  216. OMLK

    @Moosa

    “Just to say that the allegation of kufr has nothing to do with HMGA being a prophet or not, the grounds for the allegation of kufr have been explained many times to yourself on this forum, please read them again.”

    In my opinion the allegation of Kufr and the status of HMGA being a prophet are directly linked as per the Qadiani Ahmadi beliefs as stated by the Qadiani Ahmadi Caliphs. If you disagree with this that is fine, but that cannot be grounds not to discuss the issue. And neither can your previous posts on this matter be made grounds because, if you read my post carefully, this is not about just providing an explanation, it is about, as you said, objectively analyzing the words; which has not been done even for the words of the Qadiani Ahmadi Caliphs. Again, if you read my post carefully, my point was simply to apply the same type of scrutiny to the words of the Qadiani Ahmadi Caliphs on this issue as you want to apply to the elders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. Remember, it was SZ who brought up the issue of analyzing the statements of each other’s leaders to, as per his words, “demolish” my claim (of course it was never specified what that claim is!). I have no hesitation in going down this road and as long as the language is kept decent. Perhaps this would clarify a few matters as well. But if you are going to say that what Maulana Muhammad Ali states is relevant and hence should be scrutinized, but whatever a Qadiani Ahmadi Caliph writes is irrelevant and hence off-limits, then that in my opinion that is very unfair. I am not saying to start on this right away, but at least after we have done analyzing the statements of MMA, perhaps we can also do the same for Qadiani Ahmadi Caliphs.

    “On this forum, we’ve all read many vitriolic attacks by Lahoris on the Ahmadi caliphs, and you’ve not asked your Lahori brothers to refrain from their vitriole, yet suddenly when for the first time a Qadiani ahmadi says something which questions the integrity of Muhammad Ali, you’re full of indignant rage. This is not fair-minded, in my humble opinion.”
    ___
    It is absolutely incorrect to say that I did not ask the one individual (posting under various pseudonyms whom you have chosen to call my “Lahori Brother”) to refrain from their vitriolic attacks. I explicitly did so and that is on record on this forum. If you do not want to take my word for it, I can do the effort of going through the archives and then copy pasting my statement on this matter. That should take care of your complaint that it was unfair of me to react the say that I did. Also I think your description of my reaction as “indignant rage” is a bit exaggerated. I have already expressed my opinion that what is actually unfair is to open up the statements of Lahore Ahmadiyya leaders to objective scrutiny but refuse to extend the same treatment to the Qadiani Caliphs under the pretext that their words are not relevant.

    “In any case, I’d urge both yourself and SZ to refrain from attacking the integrity of each other’s leaders,”

    A bit late in the day for this advice. I explicitly asked SZ to carefully consider the direction where this discussion is going. However, he still chose to lay the charge on Muhammad Ali and presented evidence to support his claim and you expressed your support for him. In return have expressed my willingness to present a defence (which now is necessary because the charge have been publicly placed), but also ask for a fair deal.

  217. OMLK

    @ShahZaman

    “My only objective behind highlighting the fact that Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib did change his stance after 1914 was only to underscore the point that, prior to 1914, it was a unanimous view of the Jamaat that HMGA was a prophet appointed by God.”

    This is a new twist to this issue. Anyway, one citation from one person certainly does not prove that there was a “unanimous view” that the concept of Prophet as applied to HMGA by the Jammat pre-1914 was as per what the Qadiani Ahmadis believe and not what the Lahori Ahmadis believe. All that you can concievably prove from using a citation by MMA is that he changed his stance on this issue post-1914 (which was your original contention). I am open to discussing this in a fair manner, but we must state exactly what we are trying to prove here. This you seem to keep changing with every post.

    “I provided you with a detailed translation of HMGA’s writing from one of his books. On the other hand, you have provided one plain sentence and have asked me to substantiate my allegation that your citation is out of context. “

    You really need to re-read this entire discussion from the start. If you do not, we will keep going around in circles as we are now. My one plain sentence was preceded by me saying that I have the intention to reply in detail later. However you guys just latched on that one sentence instead of waiting for me to give the full detail of my argument, accusing me of using it out of context. From then on the discussion has gone from one issue to the next.

    “The only reason behind requesting you to copy-paste the entire page was that I live in Europe and do not have a copy of the book (Haqiqatul Wahi) from where you had quoted”

    This contradicts your earlier statement which said the reason was that you believed I had quoted out of context. This proves that your allegation was totally unsubstantiated. Without even bothering to check with the original source you accused me of using the citation out of context. In any case now that Moosa has told you that the book is present on the al-Islam website, you can now read the citation first, then make up your mind if is not according to context or not, and then level any accusations at me if you must, and I will respond accordingly.

    “Logically speaking, if HMGA was not a prophet, he would not have abstained his followers from offering prayers behind non-Ahmadi Muslim Imams.”

    Oh boy, now you have opened up yet another argument. Let us settle one issue first and then move on the next.

    “I know that your abrupt reaction to the above will be a negation of the above that: “HMGA never said anything like that”, as I know Lahori Jamaat believes that it is perfectly in order to offer prayers behind non-Ahmadi Muslim Imams.”

    Look we can either have a focused, objective discussion or not. What is your point in pre-assuming my reactions, and that too wrongly? As I said, all this can be discussed later, but, just to clarify, the Lahori Ahmadis generally think (to the best of my knowledge) that it is ok to pray behind any Muslim as long as he does not consider us Kafirs.

    “Let me know how you wish to proceed further.”

    I already have in my previous posts. The latest outstanding issue is your charge on Maulana Muhammad Ali, which must be responded to now that the charge has been placed and evidence presented on a public forum. Pls. re-read what I had last said on this matter. I am willing to proceed if one, you make up your mind what this charge will prove and two, I am also allowed to pose questions to you now that so many questions have been posed to me.

  218. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    On the change of stance, I had told you that the citation that I had quoted was only one out of many. Only as you have stated that:

    “one citation from one person certainly does not prove that there was a “unanimous view””

    I would refer you to two other statements of two other persons of Lahori Jamaat from the website of the Lahori Jamaat. On the assumption that you are able to navigate through the website aaiil.org, I would request you to read the following two:

    Al-Hakam edition dated 14 May 1911 (page 159 of the pdf document – column 3). Here you willfind a reference to a speech of Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din Sahib referring to HMGA as a nabi and Rasul.

    Paigham-e-Sulah edition dated 16 September 1913 (page 117 of the pdf document – from column 1 in the lower half of the page). Here Munshi Umar Din Sahib is interpreting the Hadith “Laa Nabiyya Ba’adi” and is drawing a distinction between a law-bearing prophet (Sharai Nabi) and a non-law bearing (ghayer Sharai Nabi).

    Brother, the only point I am making here is that a new interpretation was coined after the death of Khalifa 1 in 1914.

    Having said the above, I am more than happy to look at the issue in the writings of HMGA himself and I appreciate this approach of yours.

    On your citation from Haqitatul Wahi, you have stated:

    “This contradicts your earlier statement which said the reason was that you believed I had quoted out of context. This proves that your allegation was totally unsubstantiated. Without even bothering to check with the original source you accused me of using the citation out of context.”

    You can scroll up and check that my earlier statement was:

    “Yes, I will be honest and blunt here. I do have a feeling that the citation you have referred to is incomplete and out of context.”

    I hope you will accept that I was clear in my expression and had categorically mentioned about my “feeling” and I did not say that I had read the reference. As mentioned, if I had read the statement and found it out of context, I would have happily reproduced the entire discussion myself (to discredit your view) and would not have used the expression: “I do have a feeling”.

    I raised the issue of prayers only to underscore the point that an ordinary saint cannot restrain you from offering prayers behind those who do not accept him his sainthood. Only a person who believes that his appointment has been made by God Almighty can give such an order, as rejecting such a person is an implied rejection of God Almighty. We need to understand the difference between a prophet appointed by God and a saint whom God Almighty has simply granted some privelege, such as a dream or an elham.

    You have stated:

    “just to clarify, the Lahori Ahmadis generally think (to the best of my knowledge) that it is ok to pray behind any Muslim as long as he does not consider us Kafirs.”

    I have provided you with the link from your own website where you can see that HMGA has restrained from praying behind non-Ahmadi Muslims. If you think he was appointed by Allah, then his orders should be considered as binding rulings. If you think he was not appointed by Allah, then I think we are wasting our time here between Ahmadis vs Lahoris debate. I leave it to your own judgment whether the approach of the Lahori Jamaat is in accordance with the teachings of HMGA.

    On how to proceed further, as mentioned, I am more than happy to discuss the issue re status of HMGA in light of his own writings. I agree with you that what our Khalifa 2 or your MMA have written in this regard becomes meaningless if it is contradictory to HMGA’s own writings and / or Quran and / or Hadith. I don’t know about the protocol in Lahore Jamaat, but we Ahmadis take a promise that we will only follow “Maroof” decisions of our Khalifa. A “Maroof decision” has been clarified at length and in summary everything that is against the Quran and / or Hadith is not a Maroof decision and we can reject that.

    Are you happy to proceed now?

    Will you please check the book at the link provided by Moosa and let me know the exact reference?

    Allah Hafiz

  219. OMLK

    @Shah Zaman

    Brother I have already asid that we should discuss one issue at a time. The various issues that you keep bringing up may be relevant, but cannot all be dealt with at the same time. Whether praying behind a non-Ahmadi who considers Ahmadis Muslims is against HMGA’s views or not can be discussed later (I am presuming the Qadiani position is that it is forbidden to pray behind a non-Ahmadi even if he does not consider Ahamadis as Kafirs).

    Right now my main concern is the charge that you have laid against MMA. So let us get done with that. So as I understand it, basically you have said:

    1 – MMA changed his stance on HMGA’a status as a Prophet after 1914.

    2 – The citation you have quoted proves this charge because it shows MMA calling HMGA a Prophet, a position he changed after 1914.

    And the objective behind proving this charge is to show that the elders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement professed a differant belief regarding HGMA’s status as a Prophet before 1914 and a differant belief after 1914.

    Now please confirm if this what we are discussing. Please feel free to change or amend this ONE TIME, so we can lock down the issue and mutually agree not to take away from or add to it during the discussion. Any additions, related issues etc, may be discussed later (inculding other pending issues that have already been brought up but not closed out).

    p.s. I am sorry for not taking proper note of you declaring that it was only your feeling that I had quoted out of context.

  220. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    Brother,

    If you are to follow my suggestion, I would say that we discuss the status of HMGA in light of his own writings (that is what you had previously suggested).

    However, if your “main concern” (as you say) is the status of HMGA in light of the writings of the elders of Lahori Jamaat prior to 1914 and the change in stance afterwards, I am equally comfortable to discuss that as well.

    My personal preference is the first approach, i.e. to evaluate the status of HMGA in the words of the man himself. Having said this, I will follow your preference.

    Let me reiterate the beliefs of us Ahmadis:

    We believe that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is Khatimmun Nabiyyeen and that there can be no prophet after him (whether old or new) who can change or cancel his Shariat.

    We also believe that Allah Almighty continues to communicate with His noble men including HMGA and the earlier Aulia Ikram.

    We believe that HMGA was the Promissed Messiah (Masihay Maohood) and Imam Mehdi. We also believe that HMGA was referred to as Prophet (Nabi and Rasul) by Allah Almighty in the Divine revelations received by him and that the status of Nabuwwat for Imam Mehdi is also confirmed in Hadith and by the Islamic scholars of earlier centuries. We also believe that HMGA is the same person whose arrival is referred to in the Quran (Surah Jumma – The Friday or The Congragation).

    We finally believe that it is obligatory upon every Muslim to accept the status of HMGA and to fully accept his interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah as final and to accept whichever Hadith he says as correct or incorrect. Any person rejecting HMGA will be answerable before Allah for such rejection.

  221. Bin Ismail

    @ Bin Ismail (July 10, 2010 at 4:48 pm)

    “…in line with the mainstream interpretation, if a historian were to write a biography of the “last prophet to have walked the earth”, the biography would most certainly be of Jesus of Nazareth (Esa)…”

    Now this paints an extremely interesting scenario. Let’s say Hazrat Esa (Jesus) descends from the heavens tomorrow. Obviously he would appear as a prophet because a prophet is never deprived of his colours and credentials. The moment he announces to the world that “I am Esa, the Promised Messiah, prophet of Allah…”, the Muslim ulema would declare him kafir, on the grounds that no prophet, law-bearing or non law-bearing, old or new. independent or subordinate, can appear chronologically after Muhammad the messenger of God. The other rejection he would have to face would be from the Government of Pakistan, who would inform the new arrival of the august Second Amendment, something that happened while he was in the heavens. In all likelihood, the Messiah would argue that he has been sent by God, but our government would inform him that he is “not Muslim for the purposes of constitution and law”.

    An interesting scenario, I must say.

  222. Shah Zaman

    @Bin Ismail:

    Sir, please check the context of the discussion by reading the last few (say 20) posts. Bro OMLK is from Lahore Jamaat and we are discussing the claim of HMGA in light of the view of the Ahmadis and the Lahori Jamaat.

  223. Mubarak

    @Shah Zaman (July 18, 2010 at 3:49 am)

    Prior to my previous comment, there were, to be precise, 27 posts exchanged on a debate over the claim of prophethood of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Acknowledged. Now if you would care to go back, say about 234 comments, you are likely to appreciate that the original topic was “Can you declare anyone non-Muslim through legislation?”. I assure you, my most recent comment was not meant to derail your 27-post old debate, but to restore the original 234-post old discussion.

    The point I’m trying to make is that by subjecting the question of who is Muslim and who is not, to legislation, our ulema and government both, have rendered their own age old belief that Esa would indeed reappear as a “Subordinate Prophet”, chronologically after the Prophet Muhammad, incompatible with this novel legislation.

    Lesson learnt: Keep legislation out of religion and religion out of legislation.

  224. Bin Ismail

    @Mubarak (July 18, 2010 at 7:25 am)

    Thank you for accepting my request and posting on my behalf.

  225. Bin Ismail

    @Mubarak (July 18, 2010 at 7:25 am)

    “…..Lesson learnt: Keep legislation out of religion and religion out of legislation…..”

    While fully endorsing your comment, that you so kindly submitted upon my request and on my behalf, may I add to the “lesson learnt”. We have to keep all elements of statecraft – legislation being one of them – out of religion and religion out of all elements of statecraft.

  226. Mubarak

    @Shah Zaman:

    My comment of July 18, 2010 at 7:25 am to you, was on behalf of Bin Ismail, submitted on his request.

    @Bin Ismail:

    Most welcome.

    Regards.

  227. Mr Sunni Mullah

    the following are facts
    1- sunnis kilL more muslims IN A MONTH then the USA does in 10 years.
    2- The pakistani mind set of mullahs is equivelent to dog shit
    3- Although sami the sandwhich was caught with female prostitutes he IS also very fond of boys (Mr Bin Ismail you are still in there with a chance🙂
    4- the Mullah of Pakistan originally said it was Paleedistan (land of Piss) – check your history if you think im joking
    5- well off and educated Pakistanis in Europe and USA do not mention they are from Pakistan out of embarrasment they say kenyan or even Indian – beacuse Pakis are now thought of as dog shits and terrorists in civilised countries
    6 the mullahs are crying about the burkha ban in France and want equal rights but they are not willing to offer it in their own country – (i think we should have a column on every paki passport declaring them terrorists)

    Finally please watch “the kite runner” TO SEE how these bastards are running Kabul

  228. Habibi

    Dear all ,
    Only Allah HAS the right and knows who is a Muslim and who is not.

    In Saudi Arabia we whabbis will tell you Pakistani sunni muslims are NOT muslim because they pray to graves and wrap black stings with duas around their neck as well as a whole range of other innovations

    the bottom line is – judge not yet ye be judged

  229. nasir jan

    Both opportunists Bhutto and Zia mixed politics with religion – the question is where are they now!

  230. nasir jan

    kashifiat I have just read your post you are a sad excuse for a human being

  231. Bin Ismail

    @Mr Sunni Mullah (July 18, 2010 at 8:23 pm)

    Going by your good name, and if I may ask, was that a confession, an allegation or an analysis? Pray do enlighten us. Again going by your good name, you may like to try your own luck with the sandwich you mentioned and later inform us of what happens when birds of a feather flock together.

  232. Mubarak

    @Mr Sunni Mullah
    July 18, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Your Eminence,

    You seem to be not so content with your own lot, Sir. The Sunni Mullah appears to be displeased with the Sunni Mullah – bewildering. By the way, you mentioned something about a sandwich. Was that experience or hearsay? Forgive me for being inquisitive.

  233. Bin Ismail

    For the sake of hypothesis, let us imagine that per chance, the overwhelming majority elected to the Assembly happens to be Shia. Assuming, a motion is moved to constitutionally declare the Sunni majority of the country non-Muslim. The Shia-majority Assembly votes in favour of this bill and through another constitutional amendment the Sunnis are declared non-Muslim. Although the status of the Sunni population would now have altered from Muslim to non-Muslim, still they would form the majority of Pakistan’s population. Hence, a unique situation would arise wherein the Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan would have declared the Sunnis a “non-Muslim majority”, through legislation. Thus, Pakistan would simultaneously be an “Islamic Republic” and a “Non-Muslim State”.

    Bring religion into politics and there’s no end to surprises.

  234. OMLK

    @ShahZaman

    “If you are to follow my suggestion, I would say that we discuss the status of HMGA in light of his own writings (that is what you had previously suggested).”

    That was my suggestion yes…but you guys insisted on laying a charge against MMA to prove a point. Now that the charge has been publicly laid and evidence presented it must be answered before we move further.

    “However, if your “main concern” (as you say) is the status of HMGA in light of the writings of the elders of Lahori Jamaat prior to 1914 and the change in stance afterwards, I am equally comfortable to discuss that as well.”

    My main concern at this point is to properly answer the charge on MMA. Please read my previous post and respond accordingly so we can move forward.

    Thanks for posting your set of beliefs. If you wish to discuss these, we can discuss one issue at a time as soon as we are finished with the current one.

  235. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    “My main concern at this point is to properly answer the charge on MMA. Please read my previous post and respond accordingly so we can move forward.”

    Sure. Your previous post read as follows:

    QUOTE
    1 – MMA changed his stance on HMGA’a status as a Prophet after 1914.

    2 – The citation you have quoted proves this charge because it shows MMA calling HMGA a Prophet, a position he changed after 1914.
    UNQUOTE

    Agreed with a small modification. My point is not restricted to MMA, but also extends to the other members of the Lahori Jamaat. Moreover, the quote provided by me is not the only citaion you will find in MMA’s writings / speeches prior to 1914. There are others as well.

    May I request you please to give your side of the story now.

    JazaakAllah

  236. OMLK

    @SZ

    Well I can only respond to what I have been given, which is one citation from one person. However, I suppose if the other citations are more or less similar, this discussion can apply to them as well. But that decision can come later.

    First of all please note that the mere use of the word Prophet by any one does not prove or even indicate a change in stance. This is because there is no dispute whatsoever between the Qadiani and Lahori Jamaat and by extension the pre and post 1914 position of Lahoris regarding the use of the word Prophet. The difference has always been the meaning ascribed to the word “Prophet” or the sense in which it was used, never, per se, the use of the word itself. In this context your citation must show that MMA used this word in a sense that contradicted his post-1914 stand on the matter. Or, at a minimum, you need to explicitly state that such and such was the stand of MMA post-1914 and then show that the given citation clearly contradicts it. In my opinion it does not, because it uses the word Prophet but does not do so in a manner that places it in contradiction with the post-1914 stand of MMA. In fact in certain places (much before 1914) where MMA has explained the use of the word “Prophet” as applied to a person after Prophet Muhammad (saws), the usage and the explanation clearly conform to his stand on the matter post-1914, showing that his stance was consistent throughout and never changed. This I know, but for exact references give me a day or two to confirm and post the same. Meanwhile if you feel that your given citation itself shows that MMA used the word “Prophet” in a sense which goes against his stand on the matter post-1914, please do point it out.

  237. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    Would you please elaborate in what sense Lahoris take HMGA as a prophet and how is that different to us Ahmadis?

  238. skarlok

    @OMLK

    “The difference has always been the meaning ascribed to the word “Prophet” or the sense in which it was used, never, per se, the use of the word itself”

    Lets observe the following dialogue:

    person A: I am a human being

    person B: person A is a human being

    person C: Person A is a human being but when he calls himself human he’s not really “human” it has a different connotation. A human being can be a human being or “human” being where “human” is liable to interpretation of being used in different senses such as “neanderthal” or “homo erectus”.

  239. OMLK

    @SZ

    Lets just focus on the issue please. The Lahori Ahmadi position on HMGA’s status as a Prophet is the same as MMA’s position on the matter. Now surely you are well aware of MMA’s position because you have just accused him of changing his position after 1914.

    @sharlok

    Pls. be specific as to how your example relates to the issue under discussion, perhaps by assigning persons A-C to the actual players. It would be a waste of time for me to first decipher your analogy, then answer it, only to find out you meant some thing else!

  240. OMLK

    @SZ

    btw I should mention (because this is now being repeated again and again), it is not proper to call urself “Ahmadis” and us “Lahoris”. It would be like me calling you “Qadianis” and ourselves “Ahmadis”.

  241. Shah Zaman

    OMLK:

    You have stated:

    “Lets just focus on the issue please. The Lahori Ahmadi position on HMGA’s status as a Prophet is the same as MMA’s position on the matter. Now surely you are well aware of MMA’s position because you have just accused him of changing his position after 1914.”

    My question is very relevant in light of your post (reproduced below) that you can find by scrolling above.

    QUOTE
    July 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    @Nusrat Pasha

    Ref: Questions # 6.

    Keeping in mind that many non-Ahmadi Muslims have begun to reject the notion that Isa (AS) is alive in Heaven, I think the primary doctrinal differance between the Non-Ahmadis and (Qadiani) Ahmadis would be that the Qadiani Ahmadis believe that Prophets can continue to come after Muhammad (saws) subordinated to Muhammad (saws); and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was such a Prophet. Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer.
    UNQUOTE

    Reading your post dated 5 July 2010, it occured to me that the Lahori Jama’at had changed its view as you stated: “not a prophet but a religious reformer”.

    Now again there is a visible shift as you are saying in your post dated today (20 July 2010) that: “The Lahori Ahmadi position on HMGA’s status as a Prophet is the same as MMA’s position on the matter”. This to me implies that you take HMGA as a prophet.

    I am not sure which position of yours to take as the correct position. I therefore would like to understand your stance clearly as to whether you consider HMGA as a prophet or not. If you consider him as a prophet, then how can you say that your view is different to that of ours?

  242. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    Apologies, I will be addressing you onwards as Lahori Ahmadis.

  243. OMLK

    @SZ

    Both my statements are consistent. But if I now start a lengthy explanation of how so, then that would be moving away from the topic.

    I can understand that you are a bit confused. I have a simle solution for that given the context of the discussion. As the discussion is on your accusation that MMA changed his stance, it is obvious you have a very clear idea of what that stance is (lets say post 1914 for the time being and with no further implications). You could not possibly have accused MMA of changing his stance after 1914 without knowing what that stance is. My solution is that you simply take that stance as the correct stance of the Lahori Ahamdis. Infact I would urge to atleast once state your understanding of it so I can correct you if I feel that you have misunderstood. This would be the fairest, quickest, and “cleanest” way of moving forward. If we start analysing my personal past statments now, it would just be getting distracted from the issue which is based on the statements of MMA which are absolutely independent of any of my statements on the matter.

  244. Bin Ismail

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian made four claims, which essentially amalgamate into one:

    1. Mujaddid: A reformer of Islam

    2. Masih Mau’ood: Promised Messiah – the prophesied reformer whose advent was foretold by Muhammad the Holy Prophet – prophesied as Esa, Ibn Maryam and Masih.

    3. Imam Mahdi: The guided leader whose advent was foretold by the Holy Prophet.

    4. Ummati Nabi: A non-law bearing prophet, subordinate to the Holy Prophet and his follower.

  245. OMLK

    @ SZ

    “Now again there is a visible shift as you are saying in your post dated today (20 July 2010) that: “The Lahori Ahmadi position on HMGA’s status as a Prophet is the same as MMA’s position on the matter”. This to me implies that you take HMGA as a prophet.”

    Just add the words “after 1914” in front of “MMA’s position” in my statement and then read in light of my previous post and you will see that there is no shift in stance. If you think there is still a shift, then logically speaking you admit that MMA did not change his stance post 1914! However my reccomendation to add “after 1914” is only to clear the confusion you seem to be having and should not be seen as self incriminating evidence that MMA did change his stance after 1914!

  246. OMLK

    @Bin Ismail

    The Ummati-Nabi part is where the disagreement with the Lahori Ahmadis starts. In short Lahori Ahmadis believe that HMGA called himself an ummati and a nabi with a particular significance attached to the word nabi which is in-correctly elevated to the station of a non-law bearing Prophet by the Qadiani Ahmadis. Now I am just plainly stating what we believe here and not arguing that it is necessarily the correct belief. After the current discussion with Shah Zaman reaches a conslusion this issue can be discussed if you so wish.

  247. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    My apologies if my comments have caused confusion.

    My point was (and is) that prior to March 1914 the Lahori Ahmadi leaders were unambiguous in their statements in accepting the status of HMGA as a prophet appointed by God. I presented 3 references (out of many others that I have), one of Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib, another of Khawaj Kamal ud Din sahib and the third of Maulana Umar Munshi sahib.

    The above position has changed subsequent to March 1914 and the original belief is not propagated by Lahori Ahmadis anymore when they are out for preaching. Instead, they refer to HMGA as a reformer. Not just that, it has now come to a stage where the opening statement by a Lahori Ahmadi comprises of a complete denial of the prophethood claim by HMGA and is somewhat along the lines that: “HMGA was not a prophet but a religious reformer”.

    The above is what I refer to as change in position by Lahori Ahmadis. Now, one has to drill down to find out what a Lahori Ahmadi believes in when he makes this statement. Of course this shift is because of the worldly pressure and for no love of Allah or of the Holy Prophet or of HMGA. We Ahmadis, on the other hand, are not budged by any fears and we take the pressure and keep our faith categoric and clear, as we deem it is for the love of Allah and that of the Holy Prophet and that of HMGA.

    I think you would want to rephrase your sentence – “Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer” – the next time you are explaining your belief to a non-Ahmadi Muslim, as this is not what your elders believed in and this is not what HMGA believed in. If you read the book “Aik Ghalti Ka Azala”, HMGA states this in the opening paragraph that a plain rejection of his prophethood is an incorrect description of the belief of an Ahmadi. Anyone believing in the claims of HMGA should be avoiding that. However, this is not what Lahori Ahmadis do.

    Do you want to discuss this point further or want to move on to HMGA’s claim of prophethood in the light of his own writings.

    If you wish to proceed furtehr, I think it will require a clear understanding of what does prophethood mean to you and what does it mean to us. Would you mind setting out your belief. My bvelief is set out in my post of 17 July 2010 at 11:43pm.

  248. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK

    Re your response to Bin Ismail:

    “The Ummati-Nabi part is where the disagreement with the Lahori Ahmadis starts. In short Lahori Ahmadis believe that HMGA called himself an ummati and a nabi with a particular significance attached to the word nabi which is in-correctly elevated to the station of a non-law bearing Prophet by the Qadiani Ahmadis.”

    Fuirstly, a small correction. HMGA did not call himself a Nabi. He said that God Almighty time and again referred to him as Nabi in the Divine revelations received by him. I guess there is a small difference between: (a) HMGA calling himself something; and (b) HMGA claiming that God Almighty referred to him as something in Divine revelations. Would you not agree here?

    Secondly, if I am not wrong, the Lahori Ahmadis have a problem with the concept of an Ummati Nabi as they are of the view that a Nabi can only be a law bearing (Sharai) Nabi and that there can be no non-law bearing (ghayer Sharai) Nabi. Am I correct?

  249. OMLK

    @SZ

    I will reply to you previous posts only once because now we are totally going off on a tangent from the current discussion. So first my response, and then a reminder to return to the issue under discussion (one issue at a time).

    You accusation (yet another!) that Lahori Ahmadis are motivated by worldly reasons and Qadiani Ahmadis by purely spiritual reasons is a totally baseless, and may I add a rather self righteous, allegation. I could very well argue otherwise, but that would mean going off the current topic which I do not want to do. In fact if we discuss the current topic through, it would itself indicate if your latest accusation is correct or not. So why don’t we just do that and properly analyze your accusation and evidence against MMA, instead of just throwing out more allegations.

    “the next time you are explaining your belief to a non-Ahmadi Muslim, as this is not what your elders believed in and this is not what HMGA believed in.”

    I totally disagree. Again we can discuss this in the light of both my elders and HMGA’s writings after finishing the current discussion.

    “If you read the book “Aik Ghalti Ka Azala”, HMGA states this in the opening paragraph that a plain rejection of his prophethood is an incorrect description of the belief of an Ahmadi. Anyone believing in the claims of HMGA should be avoiding that. However, this is not what Lahori Ahmadis do. ”

    If you read the same book carefully you will see it is not the rejection of prophethood but the plain denial of the usage of the word Prophet by HGMA that is deemed as an incorrect position. Hence the Lahori Ahmadis are sticking fast to the position of HMGA. Again we can discuss this later.

    “Fuirstly, a small correction. HMGA did not call himself a Nabi. He said that God Almighty time and again referred to him as Nabi in the Divine revelations received by him. I guess there is a small difference between: (a) HMGA calling himself something; and (b) HMGA claiming that God Almighty referred to him as something in Divine revelations. Would you not agree here?”

    I agree absolutely. However, HMGA did call himself a Nabi, and did so on the basis of him being called the same in Divine revelation and also on the basis of the linguistic or dictionary meaning of the word Nabi. And yes he did claim to being called Nabi by God. I think you totally misunderstood my statement which was certainly not a denial of HGMA being called a Nabi by God. The significance of being called a Nabi is of course something we can discuss later.

    “Secondly, if I am not wrong, the Lahori Ahmadis have a problem with the concept of an Ummati Nabi as they are of the view that a Nabi can only be a law bearing (Sharai) Nabi and that there can be no non-law bearing (ghayer Sharai) Nabi. Am I correct?”

    No you are not correct. There can be non-law bearing Prophets. Again would be happy to discuss this later.

    So now that I have answered your queries, can we please get back to the topic at hand? Please refer to my post of July 2oth, 2010 at 6:21 PM.

  250. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK

    I guess I have clarified that my point is not directed towards any specific individual (say Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib). I gave you citations of two other people as well. It is the general behaviour of the Lahori Ahmadi community at large that I was referring to. Please show me a publication of Lahori Jama’at post 1914 where they have said something similar to the citations referred to by me.

    I guess the bone of contention appears to be the prophethood or the word “prophet” and we need to tease that out in order to fully understand who has deviated from the path.

  251. Bin Ismail

    Gentlemen, forgive me for intruding. Wouldn’t it be more rational to examine the original prophecy before we examine its fulfillment? The prophecy of the advent of a latter reformer, whom the Holy Prophet refers to as Masih / Esa / Ibn Maryam should best be examined with reference to the words of the prophecy. Let us examine two relevant quotations regarding the Promised Esa:

    1. Transliteration: “…fa yarghabu nabiyyullaahi eesa wa as’haabuhu ilallaahi ta’aala…” (Sahih Muslm)
    Translation: Thus Esa the prophet of Allah alongwith his companions would turn to Allah the Exalted.

    2. Transliteration: “…imaamukum minkum…” (Sahih Bukhari)
    Translation: (the Promised Messiah) would be your Imam from amongst yourselves.

    The first hadees clearly defines the Promised Messiah as “nabiyyullah” which means prophet of God. The second hadees classifies him as someone from among the Ummah, for which there is an alternative term “Ummati”. Put both sayings of the Holy Prophet together, and what you get is an “ummati nabi”.

    Whether one awaits the fulfillment of the prophecy about the Promised Messiah in the person of the very same Esa (Jesus) who lived six centuries prior to Muhammad, or one interprets its fulfillment through someone appearing in the spirit of Jesus; in either case the status of the Promised Messiah, as determined by the Holy Prophet would have to be that of an “ummati nabi” or “subservient non-law bearing prophet”.

    Ragards.

  252. MusaJ

    @SZ
    “Bone of contention … word Prophet” is indeed high on priority & interesting. So please withdraw your accusation of post-pre 1914 change of heart on MMA.
    So far you are both, winners(!) in a consistantly improving, civilized, focused debate & an example to follow for the kangaroo court of Pak parliment. Btw If there is a link to that ’73 debate itself or of it’s “Re-Enactment” with fake/real beards, fake/real brass and snoozes would be enlightening.
    For withdrawing the sideline barnacles of -Permutations of: AC, AB, BC and currency play of word association: Ahmedi, Lahori, Quadiani;
    Thank You, May Allah Bless you and All for nice analysis you are showing. Thanks!

  253. Shah Zaman

    @MusaJ

    Thanks for your kind comment.

    “So please withdraw your accusation of post-pre 1914 change of heart on MMA.”

    Sir, I have already clarified that my point is on the change of heart (change of stance) by members of AAIIL. I will be very happy to see if AAIIL has published anything similar to what was published prior to 1914, referred to in my earlier postings.

    I am more than happy to discuss the bone of contention, i.e. prophethood or the word “prophet”.

  254. MusaJ

    Onus or burden of proof lies with the accuser though? Or (exclusive-or; in mathematical logic notation XOR) XOR accept accusees current position as has been and work with it?

    Any takers for references on ’73 debate in Pak parliment? If any one has any info please document it so it may be reconstructed to see its flaws or otherwise in that discussion? Also see how it’s quality compare with this discussion underway here.

  255. skarlok

    how did an article titled “Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?” lead to the current debate ensuing between shah zaman and OMLK

  256. OMLK

    @SZ

    The mere absence of a certain proclamation after a certain date does not necessarily mean that the one not proclaiming has changed his beliefs. To prove that you need to produce proclamations from either side of the date and show the contradiction; which you have failed to do so far. It is like someone says that “stealing is a crime” in 2007 and then dies in 2009, and today a person accuses him of changing his stance on stealing after 2008 because he never said “stealing is a crime” again after 2008 and challenges any one to show such a statement to prove the innocence. This may not be an exact example, but does drive home the point that that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. So you need to show that the citation you have given contradicts the post-1914 stand of MMA, and I have no obligation to fish out any post-1914 statements to show that he did not change his stance. Although I do have the intention of doing just that; but for the time being would first like you to actually make a valid case before I present the defense. If you do not understand what MMA’s exact position on the matter was, then withdraw your accusation on grounds of insufficient lack of knowledge regarding the accused on your part.
    After we are done with MMA, if you wish, we can also examine the statements of other persons as well and analyse if they changed their beliefs after 1914 or not.

    @Bin Ismail

    It may very well be more rational to do what you are suggesting. In fact I was initially reluctant to enter the debate that is currently going on. But, SZ and Moosa insisted that the issue currently under discussion was a relevant point and that it would “demolish” my claims. Of course now that a specific charge on Maluana Muhmmad Ali (and others) has been publicly laid and evidence (incomplete so far) presented, it must be answered properly before we move to the many other topics and points intermittently raised by SZ, Moosa and yourself. As I keep on saying, one issue at a time…please!

  257. Raza Raja

    @
    skarlok

    It is interesting debate though.

  258. MusaJ

    Evolving ideas are commendable in an open market, and personal freedom for themselves! As long as this change does not cost any loss of anothers life or property. Else it is a crime and can/should be debated in the Greatest Equalizer, the Internet, so we make best of our lives and all evolve. Until we encounter another intelligent life, these debates are next best thing to evolve.. Pls do take up the topic at hand, how the Legislature slipped into a block hole? Thanks.

  259. Shah Zaman

    @sharlok
    OMLK’s comment on 5 July 2010, discussed below, triggered the debate.

    @OMLK:
    Brother, it is frustrating that I have to emphasis on the same point a few times. I re-emphasise my point again as follows:

    My charge was not against a specific person and that is why I provided statements from 3 scholars of Lahori Ahmadi community dating pre 1914 where they had categorically and unequivocally referred to and accepted that HMGA was a non-law bearing prophet (ghayer shara’i Nabi) appointed by God Almighty.

    As to the contradictory statement post 1914, the following statement by yourself (OMLK) on 5 July 2010 is the evidence:

    QUOTE
    OMLK
    July 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    @Nusrat Pasha

    Ref: Questions # 6.

    Keeping in mind that many non-Ahmadi Muslims have begun to reject the notion that Isa (AS) is alive in Heaven, I think the primary doctrinal differance between the Non-Ahmadis and (Qadiani) Ahmadis would be that the Qadiani Ahmadis believe that Prophets can continue to come after Muhammad (saws) subordinated to Muhammad (saws); and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was such a Prophet. Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer.
    UNQUOTE

    And this is not the first or the only statement made by a Lahori Ahmadi. You will hear this view from most Lahori Ahmadis. How is this in line with the pre 1914 position?

    And it was precisely the above claim (i.e.: “Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer.”) that stands demolished in light of the writings of Lahori Ahmadi leaders dating back prior to 1914. This is the change in stance.

    Brother, I know that you will now want to get into the anatomy of “prophethood” and the word “prophet”. And sensing that I had voluntarily offered you to discuss this point.

    I hope this clarifies.

  260. MusaJ

    Natural scientist Newton with his Gravitation Inverse Square law united heaven & earth, still limited his theories to move a planet only. Newton ever demnanded to be worshiped, though we all do, when building wind-turbines, electric cars, generators from bikes. While Religious scientists with total disrespect for billions in China, billions of non God believers, 400 exoplanets and life forms, for everyone else, with ?questionable knowledge of nature, offering to define or Re-define God & God’s Prophets, might be trivial arrogance? Not! Only one watching seems to be Freud. One Freudian slip bares it all: “demolish”, “Demolish..”

    Dopamine effect of domination, u did dooke out ur smaller brother, Aha! 4urself. Greed is a self-righteous, judicious maximizer of self interest, no different, here, than Pak parliment. Not what I wanted but I get it. We need Big evolution in our thinking, and reasonings, don’t we?

  261. Shah Zaman

    @MusaJ

    Brother, I will be extremely grateful if you would write things in simple English, for the benefit of people like myself who are not mentally as refined as you are. I always struggle to follow you.

  262. Abdullah

    We dont need human made law when we have Qur’an and Sunnah telling us who is and who is not Muslim. Its important to know and to differentiate between the two. Secularists, democrats, hindus, sikhs, qadianis, ismailis are not Muslim, by compromising and not declaring them as such makes confusion, when there is none.

  263. Shah Zaman

    @Abdullah,
    Would you please cite the Quranic / Hadith source which defines Muslim and makes you believe that Ahmadis are non-Muslim?

  264. Shah Zaman

    Erratum….. *which defines a Muslim*

  265. Iqbal

    @ Abdulla

    Do you propose another amendment to the constitution to declare secularists,democrats and Ismailis as non Muslims?

  266. Abdullah

    @Iqbal, I don’t believe in the constitution of Pakistan, they already are disbelievers from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

  267. Shah Zaman

    @Abdullah,
    No one is interested in your crap unless you bring something from the Quran and / or Hadith.

    It is such a shame that bigots like you have no knowledge of Islam and they start distributing certificates of Mussalmani…

  268. OMLK

    SZ

    Ok, so now you have changed the nature your accusation. From discussing if Maulana Muhammad Ali and two others changed their stance after 1914 or not, now you want to discuss if a statement by OMLK made in 2010 contradicts a statement made by Maulana Muhammad Ali in 1904, and then you want to use this comparison to make a sweeping indictment of the Lahori Ahmadis. I do not have a problem with that per se, but please realize that a sweeping generalized perception of the Lahori Ahmadis can never be debated for precisely the reason it is so generalized. The only way to come to a conclusion is to nail the issue down, which I tried to do by saying:

    “Well I can only respond to what I have been given, which is one citation from one person. However, I suppose if the other citations are more or less similar, this discussion can apply to them as well. But that decision can come later.”

    Notwithstanding the fact that weblinks to two other citations are also present, the point still remains that only by analyzing each citation one by one can we come to a conclusion (and we got the ball rolling by identifying MMA’s statment to begin with). Just saying that your accusation is not against a specific individual and is generalized to an entire community does not in itself carry any weight, as I can simply answer this by saying that you are wrong! To prove your accusation you must be open to analyzing the specific instances that you have quoted. If the specific instances are proven, only then can you begin to make the case against the whole community. Are you ready to do that?

    If you are, then please inform if you:

    1 – Want to compare the pre and post 1914 positions of the cited individuals (namely Maulana Muhammad Ali) to see if they changed their stance or not.

    2 – Want to compare the statement made by OMLK in 2010 (as quoted by you) and the statement by MMA (and others) in 1904.

    If you take option 1 then please stick to statements of MMA himself and ignore what I may have or may have not said.

    If you take option 2, then keep in mind that this, at best, can only be argued (assuming without prejudice that such an argument can be made) to show that current Lahori Ahmadis have beliefs at odds with what their leaders used to say pre-1914. However, this will not necessarily prove that MMA himself changed his beliefs after 1914. To do that you need to revert to option 1. If you still want to discuss Option 2 (i.e. current Lahore Ahmadiyya beliefs vs. pre-1914 statements of MMA and others), then first you must withdraw your accusation against MMA (that he changed his stance) and admit the accusation was wrong on account of being based on incomplete information. If you want your accusation to stand, then let us stick to statements of the actual individuals being accused (i.e. pick option 1).

    Keep in mind that I am open to discussing all options, but am not open to abandoning the defense of MMA (because you have already laid a charge publicly and presented evidence) unless you withdraw the accusation as stated above. So what do you want to do? My suggestion would be to stick to option 1 (which we have already started to discuss before getting side tracked) and after you have proven your case then move on to option 2 which would actually be proven then almost by default presuming that the current Lahori Ahmadi beliefs = MMA beliefs post-1914.

  269. Amna

    No we can’t declare anyone non muslim who accepts and follows islamic faith.

  270. Bin Ismail

    @ Shah Zaman (July 24, 2010 at 4:42 pm)

    “…..they start distributing certificates of ‘Mussalmani’…..”

    You may like to be more cautious with that word in future. “Mussalmani” is a term used also for “circumscission”, in our part of the world.

    Regards.

  271. OMLK

    for enabling notification.

  272. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    Apologies, as I am traveling these days with intermittent access to the internet.

    Firstly, as stated many a times, my charge is against all Lahori Ahmadis as a Jama’at and not against any person in particular. You are not the first one giving a sweeping statement that HMGA was not a prophet. I have relatives and friends who are Lahori Ahmadis and they also give such statements while projecting their belief.

    If you think my “sweeping indictment” of the Lahori Ahmadis is too generalised, will you please answer the following question a simple “YES” or “NO”: WHETHER HMGA WAS A PROPHET APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY? Please reply plainly in either a “YES” or a “NO”.

    In my posting of July 12, 2010 (at 4:27 pm), appearing above, I had provided you with a complete quotation from one of the writings of Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib that appeared in July 1904 edition of the “Review of Religions” which included the following:

    QUOTE
    It was only because people had come to know that drinking was abhored by God Almighty Whose Messenger, they reckoned, was the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Such a prophet is needed in the world and not a priest who does not know anything but cursing the righteous. Such a prophet has now been appointed by God Almighty, but people have rejected him in the same fashion as they rejected the previous prophets….This prophet is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who has shown hundreds of thousands of signs in his support and whose followers today are more than two hundred thousands.
    UNQUOTE

    Now you should check what was published in “Paigham-e-Sulah” edition of 12 April 1914 (after the death of Khalifa 1) with Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib as its editor. I reproduce the relevant excerpts in my own translation for ease of reference. You can find the original pdf document in Urdu by navigating the website of aaiil dot org. It said and I quote:

    QUOTE
    Al-Fazl says: “According to Curzon Gazette HMGA was not a prophet, therefore his son should be his successor. This is its mistake. Mirza Sahib was a prophet and his successorship should be settled in the same manner as it was settled for earlier prophets.”

    We wanted to write about this issue in detail, but will confine ourselves to a short note for the sake of brevity. It is surprising that Al-Fazl in its earlier issue had accepted that Mirza sahib was a zilli Nabi but now it regards him to be a prophet similar earlier prophets. Were all earlier prophets of the same nature as Mirza sahib; were they all zilli Nabi?

    Zilli Nabi is only a term for saints. None of the earlier prophets claimed to be a zilli Nabi or clarified his prophethood with explanations and neither has anyone claimed incomplete or partial prophethood

    Zilli Nabi is only a term used by saints. They have also differentiated in Shara’i Nabuwwat. In the Quran or Hadith or in any book of any earlier prophet is a reference to this term.
    UNQUOTE

    You can see the twist in view. In the Review of Religions in 1904, HMGA was directly compared against other prophets by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib. In April 1914, a similar comparison by Al-Fazl was attacked and labelled as an incorrect view and the status of HMGA was simply reduced to that of earlier saints.

    If the above is not, then what else would you call a twist in view?

    I will be very happy to see if the views appearing in April 1914 had been expressed prior to the demise of Khalifa 1 in March 1914?

  273. Shah Zaman

    @ Bin Ismail

    Bro, the incorrect use of a word in a particular section of the society should not change its meaning in the real sense. I was once in an east asian country where in the local language our Urdu word “nahee” (No) stood for vagina and our Urdu word “hum” (us) stood for testicles! Would you stop using these words? It was a funny time we had there as the use of these words could not be fully avoided🙂

  274. Bin Ismail

    @Shah Zaman (July 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm)

    Good one.

  275. OMLK

    @SZ

    As it so happens I am also due to travel today and all next week…I will only give a prelimenary reply now, and then more detailed response when I can find the time, so please just bear with me for the next 9 days or so.

    First a few calrifications:

    “my charge is against all Lahori Ahmadis as a Jama’at and not against any person in particular. You are not the first one giving a sweeping statement that HMGA was not a prophet”

    Well we already know what your charge against the Lahori Ahamdis is. In fact this is where we started out from! But you yourself later laid a differant and more sepcific charge against specific persons, a charge which you said would demolish the claims of the Lahori Ahmadis; and that specific charge is what we are currently discussing. There is a big differance in saying that a community’s beliefs are at odds with that of its founder, and saying that one of the elders changed his beliefs at a point in time due to wordly interests.

    “If you think my “sweeping indictment” of the Lahori Ahmadis is too generalised, will you please answer the following question a simple “YES” or “NO”: WHETHER HMGA WAS A PROPHET APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY? Please reply plainly in either a “YES” or a “NO”.”

    I think you misunderstood what I said. The Lahori Ahamdi position is well known, and is right there, spelled out clearly, in our numerous literature and on the website, so I don’t see the point of your question. Nevertheless, the (forced) one word answer to your question would have to be a big and resounding “NO”. Now I would be happy to discuss wheather this is a correct understanding of HMGA or not, in HMGA’s own writings, but after we finish discussing the very specific charge laid on Maulana Muhamamd Ali of changing his beliefs post-1914.

    Now your basic contention here is that the two cited quotes of MMA show a change in his beliefs. However, a careful reading of the two quotes in context actually shows that this is not the case.

    I will write in more detail on this, but for now, in summary, the post 1914 quote is not attacking al-fazl for comparing HMGA to a Prophet (as you are saying), but is attacking al-fazl for saying he WAS a prophet. In fact MMA points out that al-fazl itself accepted HMGA as zilli nabi earlier….so interestingly it appears that the Qadiani Jammat changed its beliefs. This should be discussed when the current discussion is over.

    In short, there is no contradiction beteween MMA comparing HMGA to a prophet and him attacking al-fazl for saying he WAS a prophet, because being compared to something, and in reality actually being that thing, are two seperate issues altogether and are not mutually exclusive. As for MMA’s use of the word Prophet for HMGA, he himself explained many times, that just like HMGA used this word, it is used in a metaphorical sense or in the dictionary meaning of the word in Arabic. This can be seen clearly from how MMA used the word Prophet before 1914 and after 1914.

    I will be giving references next to show this, and will also be making clear the context of the given quotes to remove the confusion on MMA’s use of the word Prophet and in what sense it was used; basically proving that he used it in always the same sense both (much) before and after 1914. Once again as I do intend to elaborate and explain every thing in due course, I ask you to allow me to complete my disussion.

  276. Tariq

    The anti-Ahmadi legislation was enacted and passed basically and perhaps solely to cool down the “Islamic” opposition to Z.A. Bhutto, as was the declaration of Friday as the weekly holiday. It has resulted in many violations of human rights and has given the so-called Islamists just another cause to exploit the feelings of the largely illiterate masses for personal and political gains. It has been of little service to Islam.Please note that Jame Azhar has yet to excommunicate the Qadianis as kafirs.

  277. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    While I am more than happy to wait for you to complete your argument, I just have a couple of observations on your comment above.

    Firstly, my charge was always against the Lahori Ahmadi Jamaat and your own categoric reply to my question proves that. It was solely because of your insistence that I started looking for the change in stance in the words of Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in specific and AlhamdoLillah I found and reported that in my last posting addressed to you.

    In response, you have stated:

    QUOTE
    In short, there is no contradiction beteween MMA comparing HMGA to a prophet and him attacking al-fazl for saying he WAS a prophet, because being compared to something, and in reality actually being that thing, are two seperate issues altogether and are not mutually exclusive.
    UNQUOTE

    I think I need to refresh your memory here. What was said in 1904 was NOT a comparison of HMGA to earlier prophets. It was a categoric statement that HMGA was (is, then) a prophet appointed by God who had (has, then) been rejected in the same way as were earlier prophets. Only the rejection of his claim of prophethood was compared to the rejection of the prophethood of earlier prophets. I once again reproduce the quotation from July 1904 edition of the Review of Religions for the benefit of readers:

    QUOTE
    Such a PROPHET has now been APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY, but people have rejected him in the same fashion as they rejected the previous prophets….This prophet is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who has shown hundreds of thousands of signs in his support and whose followers today are more than two hundred thousands.
    UNQUOTE (emphasis is mine)

    I don’t thing there is any copmparison being drawn here. The only comparison is between the traits of prophets and the treatment meted out to them by their opponents

    You have also stated that:

    QUOTE
    As for MMA’s use of the word Prophet for HMGA, he himself explained many times, that just like HMGA used this word, it is used in a metaphorical sense or in the dictionary meaning of the word in Arabic.
    UNQUOTE

    Unfortunately, the statement of July 1904 by Maulana sahib is way too clear on the subject and does not leave any room for a misunderstanding.

    In any case, as mentioned, I will be happy to know if Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib or any of the elders of the Lahori Ahmadis had issued a similar explanation prior to the demise of Khalifa 1!

    While I am happy for you to complete your answer, I know the debate is going to end at the dissection of the word prophet. Sensing this, I had already suggested that we focus on that point.

  278. Shah Zaman

    Bro Moosa, are you following this or have you left us? Please accept my sincere apologies for requesting you not to write posts. I just did not want the discussion to get distracted. I hope you understand that there was nothing against you. Please confirm your existence! You are more than welcome to contribute🙂

  279. Bin Ismail

    Since in all likelihood, the absorbing debate between SZ and OMLK will last till God-knows-when, I thought I might make an interlude. Essentially, there are three questions in this debate, that need to be examined:

    1. What status was assigned to the Promised Messiah by the Holy Prophet himself?
    2. How does Ahmad of Qadian himself define the term “nabi”?
    3. What kind of a nabi (prophet) does Ahmad of Qadian claim to be?

    Q#1: What status was assigned to the Promised Messiah by the Holy Prophet himself?

    As quoted in an earlier comment by me, two very pertinent sayings of the Holy Prophet must be taken into account. One is from Sahih Bukhari and the other from Sahih Muslim, both very authentic sources, collectively known as “Sahihain” meaning ‘the two authentic sources’. Both these sayings of the Holy Prophet pertain to the status of the Messiah whose advent was foretold by the Holy Prophet.

    a) “…imaamukum minkum…” (Sahih Bukhari). Translation: “(The Promised Messiah would be) your leader from among yourselves”. The Holy Prophet was addressing his ummah. Therefore “minkum” meaning “from among yourselves” would imply “from among the ummah”. A shorter expression for “from among the ummah” is “ummati”.

    b) “…fa yarghabu nabiyyullahi Esa wa as-haabuhu ilallahi ta’aala…” (Sahih Muslim). Translation: “Thus Esa the prophet of God and his companions would turn to Allah the Exalted”. “Nabiyyullah” means “prophet of Allah”. In this particular hadees, the Holy Prophet has spoken of the Promised Messiah as “nabiyyullah” not just once, but four times in a row. A single testimony from God’s Messenger would have sufficed, but he made sure to proclaim this four times.

    In the first hadees, quoted from Bukhari, the Holy Prophet declares the Promised Messiah an “ummati”. In the second hadees, quoted from Muslim, the Holy Prophet declares the Promised Messiah a “nabi”. If you put the two sayings together, what emerges is an “Ummati Nabi” or “Follower Prophet”. Hence, the status assigned to the Promised Messiah by the Holy Prophet is that of an “Ummati Nabi” or “Follower Prophet”.

    Q#2: How does Ahmad of Qadian himself define the term “nabi”?

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian defines the term “nabi” or prophet as: “someone blessed with an abundance of Divine Discourse and to whom knowledge of the unseen is frequently revealed”.

    Q#3. What kind of a nabi (prophet) does Ahmad of Qadian claim to be?

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be:

    a) an “Ummati Nabi” – someone who is simultaneously a follower of the Holy Prophet and a recipient of Divine Revelation.

    b) a “Ghair-shaari’ Nabi” or a non-law bearing prophet – a prophet sent not with a new law/book but only to serve and revive the law revealed to an earlier prophet – in this case his leader, mentor and master – Muhammad the Holy Prophet.

    c) a “Zilli Nabi”. The term “Zill”, in Arabic means shadow. Just as a shadow does not exist of its own accord, but owes its existence to the real object, a “Zilli Nabi” is not an independent prophet, but owes his spiritual status to the fact that he has immersed himself in the love and obedience of the Holy Prophet, attaining the status of “fana-fir-Rasool” or effacing oneself in devotion towards the Holy Prophet.

  280. Shah Zaman

    @Bin Ismail:

    I from the very beginning knew that my discussion with OMLK would end up on the anatomy of the word prophet and the claim of prophethood. However, my learned brother has chosen to first defend the indefensible, i.e. the change of stance by Lahori Ahmadis.

    Do you or anyone else following this discussion has a comment to make on my discussion with OMLK. That might help cut short the discussion and take us to the root!

  281. OMLK

    @SZ

    I am still traveling and had intended to reply, as stated earlier, in detail (with references) to elaborate and establish my points; but you have raised a number of points which need to be addressed to set the record straight:

    You said:

    “I from the very beginning knew that my discussion with OMLK would end up on the anatomy of the word prophet and the claim of prophethood. However, my learned brother has chosen to first defend the indefensible, i.e. the change of stance by Lahori Ahmadis.”

    This is quite interesting. I don’t know what you are trying to prove here, but if you knew “from the very begining” where this discussion would go, then why did you insist on focusing the debate on the alleged change of stance by elders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement? A discussion on the meaning of the word Prophet as found in the writings of HMGA would have been the direct route to a debate, but it was you, despite my early reservation on going down this route, who wanted to focus the discussion on the change of stance; some thing which you thought would demolish my claim. Now you seem to be of the opinion that in the end the claim would have to be decided on a dissection of the word Prophet. I actually agree with you here, and wish we could cut to the chase. But since you have chosen to publicly lay a false charge on the intergrity of Maulana Muhammad Ali, I have no option but to set the record stright here before proceeding further. The choice was made by you, not me!

    You said:

    “I think I need to refresh your memory here. What was said in 1904 was NOT a comparison of HMGA to earlier prophets.”

    This is quite interesting. The 1904 statement was most definitely a comparison. Also please keep in mind that if I see a statement differently than you, you should allow me the time to explain the reasons, instead of jumping to conclusions and blaming it on my faulty memory. In fact with reference to the 1904 statement let me refresh your memory; you said:

    “In the Review of Religions in 1904, HMGA was directly compared against other prophets by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib”

    So first you said MMA compared HMGA to prophets in 1904, and now you are saying the opposite.

    “What was said in 1904 was NOT a comparison of HMGA to earlier prophets.”

    Perhaps you made the first statement by “mistake”! But if it was a mistake, all I can say is you erred on the right side!!! I will not accuse you of changing your stance!!!!!! Now if you give me some time, I will show from the context of the quotes given by you, and other writings of Maulana Muhammad Ali (before 1914) that explain his use of the word Prophet (as we are now discussing, as per your insistence, MMA’s change of stance), and will prove that his stance on the issue was same before 1914 and after 1914.

  282. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    My dear bro, I think we can leave it to the readers to decide as to whether the statement in 1904 was an umbrella comparison or only a comparison in terms of rejection of the claim of prophethood. As the text of the statement is available, there is no point in me and you arguing over the interpretation of this statement.

    I am certainly interested in other pre 1914 statements of Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib where he explained HMGA’s claim of prophethood in a similar way as he and other leaders of lahore Ahmadiyya movement did after 1914….

    If you want to remain stuck on this point, I can provide you with other statements of Maulana sahib dating back to pre 1914 era and relating to the claim of prophethood of HMGA, should you so desire.

    On a totally separate note, Bro Bin Ismail has set out a good summary of HMGA’s claim…

  283. OMLK

    @SZ

    “As the text of the statement is available, there is no point in me and you arguing over the interpretation of this statement.”

    So you can quote a text to level an accusation, but do not want me to present arguments to show that the accusation is not correct. If the presence of a text in enough for readers, then why argue over any thing at all; I mean the writng of HMG are also present for any one to read and draw their own conclusions without us arguing; or atleast that is what your logic suggests. Well it is up to you if want to actually discuss this further.

    “If you want to remain stuck on this point, I can provide you with other statements of Maulana sahib dating back to pre 1914 era and relating to the claim of prophethood of HMGA, should you so desire.”

    As long as you keep leveling accusations against Maulana Muhammad Ali, I will continue to provide counter arguments and prove your allegations incorrect. Remember you started this point, in fact insisted on starting it; I ofcourse had no choice but to respond as the allegation was a most serious one. It is actually up to you if you want to remain stuck on this point or not!

  284. Shah Zaman

    @OMLK:

    “So you can quote a text to level an accusation, but do not want me to present arguments to show that the accusation is not correct. If the presence of a text in enough for readers, then why argue over any thing at all”

    Brother, neither we are discussing Mirza Ghalib’s poetry nor are these the verses of the Holy Quran. What we have before us is simple statements in plain Urdu which are self explanatory.

    I doubt if our readers here have read much about HMGA or his claim. Accordingly, it is only fair if we present before them the relevant statements. They will require clarification when the statements will probe their minds and they will feel (and I am sure they can feel) that the claim of HMGA is against what they have been taught since childhood. That is then the point where we need to educate them about what is taught in text books and what is actually there in the Holy Quran and in Ahadith that has also been clarified by Aulia Ikram (saints) of the earlier centuries. Our references on the death of Hazrat Isa (AS) can also include the Quranic reference that all prophets prior to the Holy Prophet (pbuh) have passed away, particularly verse 144 of Sura Al-Imran that was recited by Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique (RA) on the demise of the Holy Prophet. On Imam Mehdi, we again can provide detailed references including verses 2 to 4 of Sura Juma’ – the Congregation. We can then tell them what is written in Ahadith about Imam Mehdi and provide references, including that set out by bro Bin Ismail in his posting.

    The above is where explanations come into play. I don’t thinkk simple statements made in plain language require any interpretation.

    *Notwithstanding the above*, if you wish to dissect the statement made by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in 1904 and then the other statement in April 1914 (in which he attacked what was published in Al-Fazl), I think it would be appropriate to first compare the statement made by Maulana sahib in 1904 to that published in Al-Fazl (which was attacked by Maulana sahib in April 1914). This is important as I believe that the statement published in Al-Fazl was *consistent* with what Maulana mihammad Ali sahib had himself written in 1904.

    In July 1904, Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib says and I quote (again):

    QUOTE
    Such a PROPHET has now been APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY, but people have rejected him in the same fashion as they rejected the previous prophets….This prophet is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who has shown hundreds of thousands of signs in his support and whose followers today are more than two hundred thousands.
    UNQUOTE (emphasis is mine)

    The gist of the above statement is that HMGA was a prophet appointed by Almighty God and his claim has been rejected in the same way as the claim of earlier prophets was rejected.

    What was puibliched in Al-Fazl in 1914 was as I quote below (again):

    QUOTE
    According to Curzon Gazette HMGA was not a prophet, therefore his son should be his successor. This is its mistake. Mirza Sahib was a prophet and his successorship should be settled in the same manner as it was settled for earlier prophets.
    UNQUOTE

    The gist of the above is that HMGA was a prophet and the matter of his successorship should be dealt with in the same way as it was settled for the earlier prophets.

    In both the statements quoted above, HMGA has been referred to as a prophet. So what is the difference in the two statements?

    The only difference is that in the first statement, Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib is comparing HMGA’s rejection to that of earlier prophets, while in the other statement Al-Fazl is comparing HMGA’s successorship to that of earlier prophets. Anyone reading the two statements together will vouch for me that the comparisons made in both the statements are in fact identical and they point to the same direction, i.e. the acceptance of HMGA as a prophet.

    Accordingly, I think the attack by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in April 1914 on what was published in Al-Fazl is essentially an attack on Maulana sahib’s own position that he had stated in July 1904.

    I have set out my understanding of the statements made by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib. It will be fair if now you put up your defence on the above and prove my understanding as incorrect🙂

  285. OMLK

    @SZ

    You are basically repeating the same thing you did earlier, to which I have begun to reply and will complete it next week once I get back home.

    However, as usual you have (unnecessarily in my opinion) raised a number of new issues which need clarification.

    “Brother, neither we are discussing Mirza Ghalib’s poetry nor are these the verses of the Holy Quran. What we have before us is simple statements in plain Urdu which are self explanatory.”

    I don’t think it is only poetry or the Quran that can be cited without context to the topic and the authors own submission on the matter at other places. You deem it fit to quote and explain to support your point, but appear to be reluctant to let me have the opportunity to show you where you are mistaken in doing so by saying the quote is “self-explanatory”; well it may or may not be so, but your explanation of it is decidedly wrong and I will show that as soon as I get back (next week).

    “if you wish to dissect the statement made by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in 1904 and then the other statement in April 1914 (in which he attacked what was published in Al-Fazl), I think it would be appropriate to first compare the statement made by Maulana sahib in 1904 to that published in Al-Fazl (which was attacked by Maulana sahib in April 1914). This is important as I believe that the statement published in Al-Fazl was *consistent* with what Maulana mihammad Ali sahib had himself written in 1904”

    Nothing can be farther from the truth. In any case I am not going to dissect MMA’a statement any more than you have. Establishing context and the authors intended meaning, actually does not take a lot of dissection when the author has been clear and cosnsitent on the matter before and after 1914; as I will soon show. If you want to change the angle of discussion now that I have started to reply to your particular argument, then I beg to differ as I think it is only fair to finish one point first and then move on to the next.

  286. Bin Ismail

    Dear Gentlemen Shah Zaman & OMLK,

    May I very humbly suggest that your debate has indeed reached its climax, beyond which both participants would begin to sound repetitive. The pinnacle one can aim at, in the course of an academic debate, is to clearly put across one’s viewpoint, which in my humble estimation, you both have successfully done, with courtesy and civility. In discussion and dialogue, the Quran lays little responsibility on its followers beyond conveying and delivering the message – a task both of you have already carried out. Man is only responsible for delivering his honest opinion. None of us could conceivably be more accountable than the Messenger of God himself. We read in the Quran:

    1: “And We have not made thee a keeper over them, nor art thou over them a guardian.” [Quran 6:107]

    2: “Admonish therefore, for thou art merely an admonisher. Thou art not a magistrate over them.” [Quran 88:21-22]

    3: “On Our Messenger lies only the clear conveyance of the Message.” [Quran 5:92]

    Well done, both of you for setting an example in how to pursue an intellectual discourse without being swept away by ego and emotions.

    Regards.

  287. Nusrat Pasha

    With reference to the original question, “Can you declare anyone non-Muslim through legislation?”, the Quran, very lucidly, lays down a very simple principle:

    “And do not say to anyone, who even says ‘salam’ to you, ‘you are not a believer’ ” [Quran 4:94]

    A beautiful principle, isn’t it.

  288. Raza Raja

    Finally Nusrat you have hit the nail on its head. I wrote this article to point out that it is not parliament’s job to declare someone as non muslim. of course since we were in majority, we did it but it was simply misuse of the numerical majority.
    Let Allah decide who is Muslim and who is not.

  289. MusaJ

    Simply proves people want more control in Life, first through improving definitions of God easy uh!, if that pulls Clergy’s leg then through Legislation as it comes handy for a majority, -still that does not help the country’s lot; -then blame America, till realizing one has to -learn to swim, , harness -wind & -solar energy, rooftop -soil-less gardening, -internet commerce & save life, solve -natural science problems or as they ultimately say: “its the economy stupid”!

  290. OMLK

    @Bin Ismail

    Sir, may I respectully disaree with you and humbly state that the debate will reach its climax once I have had the opportunity to completely present my side of the argument (i.e the defence against the charges laid on Maulana Muhammad Ali). Now that I am back from my trip, I will do this (as promised earlier) in this week; Inshallah. May I also take this opportunity to wish you, Shah Zaman, Musa and ever one else reading this a most blessed Ramadan.

  291. MusaJ

    Agree, IA likely may save lives for a few decades; Set precedence to resolve differences between Uma, and if carried through with good quality research and logic bring an understanding between Islam, Christianity and other religions. Long shot? but worth an effort as long as there are people giving it their quality time for the long run.

    Ramazan blessing to you OMLK and all. Am sure SM, BI, Raza Raja are joining..

    Meanwhile if you have names, availability tips on some fast growing flood resistant, hardy trees please post’em ?Bamboo can grow a foot a day, Mango, Mulberry, Palm-Cannary, Palm-Fan & Palm-Date tips will help save some lives too?

  292. Shah Zaman

    Ramadan Kareem to everyone reading this post.

    May the Almighty save the Muslim Ummah and help Pakistan in particular during these challenging times, Amen.

  293. OMLK

    @SZ

    Sorry for the delay!

    Regarding the first cited statement by MMA, if we fully read the article from which the quotation is being cited, it becomes very clear that MMA is actually responding to a Christian publication which, while discussing ways to make their missionaries more effective, says that the missionaries should be “Prophets.” Now it is quite apparent that the said publication is not saying that the missionaries should become prophets (I think that much is obvious) but by saying that the missionaries should be “Prophets” it is saying that they should be “like Prophets”, by referring to a certain attribute of Prophets, i.e., awakening a sense of sin and punishment. MMA basically replies by saying that it is not enough to have this particular attribute to be effective, but to be truly effective prophets (in this context meaning having attributes similar to Prophets to achieve the goal of calling people to God), the most important attribute to posses is the ability to instill the certainty of God’s existence in people’s hearts. It is this attribute which MMA argues was possessed by Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and also by HMGA; and it is in this context that HMGA is called “such a Prophet.” From the context of the whole discussion it is very clear that keeping a certain attribute of Prophets in mind, HMGA was compared to Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).

    Just to make things even clearer we can turn to an earlier issue of the same magazine (April, 1904), where we can find an article on a similar topic (see pages 122-131). Towards the end of this article (pg 131) MMA categorically denies the presence of Prophets and Messangers in the Ummat of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). He says that “although this ummat are not Prophets, yet they communicate with Allah like Prophets, and although they are not messengers, yet the clear signs of Allah are manifested at their hands like messengers.” Earlier in the same magazine (page 117) he says that ““The sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad indicate that a muhaddas is potentially a prophet and if the door of prophethood had not been closed, every muhaddas possessed in himself the power and capability to become a prophet. It is according to this power and capability that it is allowable to apply the word nabi to a muhaddas. That is, we can say: the muhaddas is a prophet.” (p. 117). This is precisely the position that MMA had post 1914.

    Thus by reading the cited text in context of the whole discussion in which the text appears, as well as the authors other writings around the same time on the subject, it is very clear that in the quoted articles, MMA certainly did not call HMGA a Prophet in a sense that contradicts his post 1914 view on the topic.

    Regarding MMA’s criticism of Al-Fazl, I do not think that proves anything, as here is objecting not on comparing an attribute of HMGA to a similar attribute of Prophets (which he had himself done in the ROR 1904 article), but is actually objecting to Al-Fazl using the false notion that HMGA is a Prophet as a basis of adopting a procedure of establishing successors for HMGA; basing his own objection on the argument that Prophet is not the same as Zilli Prophet. Thus the two statements of MMA are not contradictory in any way whatsoever.

  294. MusaJ

    @SZ
    Are we happy for a great resolution?

    @all
    can we resolve the next issue with- in/out Uma,
    Please?

    To Rescue from drowing throw them a Rope or wooden object or tyre or empty air tight container even an empty water bottle.

    Needless to say but? it was painful to see images of children drowing in Nowshera while Hundreds of Muslims stood a few yards away wispering prayers and not rescuing, while in China every one jumped in to help.