Jump to content

Ahmadhis Killed In Pakistan


dalsingh101

Recommended Posts

These guys seem to be the Pak equivalent of Radha Soamis? Overall a sad state of affairs and textbook example of the worst aspects of religious intolerence/fascism.

Gunmen have launched simultaneous raids on two mosques of the minority Ahmadi Islamic sect in Lahore, killing more than 80 people, Pakistani police say.

The attackers fired guns and threw grenades at worshippers during Friday prayers. Three militants later blew themselves up with suicide vests.

Pakistani forces have secured both buildings, but are still searching for militants who fled the scene.

Lahore has been the scene of a string of brazen attacks.

It is unclear who carried out the attacks, but suspicion has fallen on the Pakistani Taliban, Ali Dayan Hassan of Human Rights Watch told the BBC.

Mr Hassan said the worshippers were "easy targets" for militant Sunni groups who consider the Ahmadis to be infidels.

Suicide vests

Police said several attackers held people hostage briefly inside the mosque in the heavily built-up Garhi Shahu area. Some took up positions on top of the minarets, and fired assault rifles at police engaged in gunfights with militants below.

Three of the attackers blew themselves up with suicide vests packed with explosives when police tried to enter the mosque, officials said. Police were searching for at least two militants who managed to flee the scene. Police took control of the other mosque in the nearby Model Town area after a two-hour gunfight. Gunmen opened fire indiscriminately at the mosque, before security forces managed to kill one militant and capture two others, eyewitnesses told the BBC. They were said to be armed with AK-47 rifles, shotguns and grenades.

Persecuted minority

Sectarian attacks have been carried out by various militant groups in Punjab province, and across Pakistan in the past.

While the Ahmadis consider themselves Muslim and follow all Islamic rituals, they were declared non-Muslim in Pakistan in 1973, and in 1984 they were legally barred from proselytising or identifying themselves as Muslims.

Members of the community have often been mobbed, or gunned down in targeted attacks, says the BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad.

But this is the first time their places of worship have suffered daring and well co-ordinated attacks that bear the mark of Taliban militants, our correspondent adds.

The London-based Ahmadi association said the attacks were the culmination of years of "unpoliced persecution" against the Ahmadis.

"Today's attack is the most cruel and barbaric," the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK said in a statement.

The Chief Minister of Pakistan's Punjab province, Shahbaz Sharif, expressed "heartfelt sorrow" over the killings.

"No condemnation, however strong, will be enough for these incidents," he said.

US state department spokesman Philip Crowley said Washington also condemned the "brutal violence against innocent people".

-- -----------------------------

Who are the Ahmadis?



  • A minority Islamic sect founded in 1889, Ahmadis believe their own founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who died in 1908, was a prophet
  • This is anathema to most Muslims who believe the last prophet was Muhammad, who died in 632
  • Most Ahmadi followers live in the Indian subcontinent
  • Ahmadis have been the subject of sectarian attacks and persecution in Pakistan and elsewhere
  • In 1974 the Pakistani government declared the sect non-Muslim

Mirza_ghulam_ahmad.jpg

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10181380.stm

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting bio on the movements founder:

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

mirza_ghulam_ahmad.jpg

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1839- May 26, 1908) was an Indian religious figure, who is the founder of the Ahmadi religious movement.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad remains a controversial figure to this day. This stems from his teachings, and the Islamic sect that is named after him.

Ahmad was born in Qadian, Punjab in India around 1839 to a well-off family. This allowed him to study Arabic and Persian, but did not lead him to fulfill his fathers wishes of his son becoming a lawyer or civil servant. Rather, Ahmad devoted himself to religious study. Still, Ahmad would be pulled into his father's preferred career path at times, but he would remain devoted to religious learning, and teaching. In his course of studying religious topics, he would often interact with many Muslims, and non-Muslims, even with Christian missionaries.

On his fourtieth birthday, Ahmad's father died. From here on out, Ahmad claimed that his life had changed, and that God had begun communicating with him, often through dreams (Ironically, Muhammad received his first revelation at the same age). Initially, Ahmad's writings from this time were intended to counter what he perceived to be anti-Islamic writings originating from various Christian missionary groups. He would also focus on countering the affects of various groups such as the Bramo-samaj, that he perceived to be Hindu dominated.

As time progressed, his writings would begin to exhibit his claims of being the mujaddid or reformer of his era. These writings were compiled in one of his most well-known works: Barahin Ahmadiyya, a work consiting of a number of volumes that were published as time went on. In later volumes, he would essentially claim to be the messiah of Islam. This proved and continues to be very controversial, as traditional Islamic thought holds that Jesus is the Messiah, and will return at the end of times. Ahmad countered this by claiming that Jesus was dead, and the promised Mahdi was a spiritual, not military leader as is believed by most Muslims. With this proclamation, he also began to step away from the idea of Jihad, and focused on spiritual change rather than physical change. In addition to these controversial claims, he would later claim that Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru, was in fact a Muslim.

These writings began to turn the general ulema against him, and he was often branded as a heretic. Some of his followers would later claim him to be a prophet. Such a claim is especially contradictory to Islamic teachings, as Muhammad is termed the Last Prophet. However, those who believe Ahmad to be a prophet hold that Muhammad was the last prophet to establish a religion, and Ahmad was just a renewer. Something that he often called himself in his own writings.

Ahmad died in Lahore in 1908 due to cholera. His body was carried to, and buried at Qadian, where he was born.

Controversy

The teachings of Ahmad and the beliefs of his followers are a great source of controversy among Muslims, especially in Pakistan where most Ahmadis live. Many Islamic leaders have pushed the Pakistani government to label Ahmadis as non-Muslims, and have suceeded in recent years. Likewise, a good number of Islamic websites on the Internet are devoted to proving the Ahmadis as heretics.

Among the most troubling claims to Muslims are:

Any belief of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet

Believing that Ahmad was a messiah rather than Jesus

Believing that Ahmad was the Mahdi

Ahmad's reluctance towards Jihad

The last point has led some to claim that Ahmad was working for the British who were trying to use him to remove the concept of Jihad from Indian Muslims, in order to quell any desires that they may have had for fighting against the British Rule of India. Ahmad's father had a close relationship with the British and was awarded land and wealth by them due to his support of the colonial regime during the Indian Mutiny. However, defenders of Ahmad justify this by claiming that Ahmad's father saw the British as protectors of Muslims from the Sikh regime that had previously ruled Punjab.

Among Ahmadi groups, many claim that Ahmad did not claim to be a prophet, but do affirm that he was a reformer, and a messiah. Some groups do claim that Ahmad was a prophet, but differentiate him from Muhammad since Ahmad was seen to be reforming a religion, not creating a new one. However, this is troublesome to Muslims as Muhammad is seen as not only the last prophet, but not as founding a new religion, but restoring the religion of Abraham.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad/

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a friend who lost 6 family members in the attacks.

may the taliban rot in hell

That's the ironic thing. The people who do this type of thing from within the Muslims, do it because they actually believe it will get them to heaven.

I'm glad these types of days are over on our side of the border.

Going back to the founder of the movement, it is interesting to note he came up around the same time the Singh Sabhas did, and was reactive to Arya Samaj. Similar criticisms of being tools for the Brits are leveled towards him as towards the SS.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked to them once. They dont belive that prophethood has ended. They say a new cycle of prophets began with Muhammad and prophethood is everlasting. Though I dont belive in it, i think their interpretations of the Quran are very interesting.

Well, their founder believes Guru Nanak was a Muslim if that bio I posted earlier is correct.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this may be a translation of some of his writings on Guru Nanak. I got it from this site.

Similarly in the latter days, the Hindu community had had Baba Nanak, the universally respected and honoured saint of this country, whose followers known as Sikhs number at least two millions. Baba Nanak openly claimed to be the recipient of Divine revelation, evidence of this being in the Granths, as well as in the various Janam Sakhis. In one of his Janam Sakhis he says that he had it revealed to him by God that the religion of Islam is true. It was because of this that he went on pilgrimage to Makka, and adopted all the tenets of Islam. It is a proven fact that miracles and signs were witnessed at this hands, and there can be no doubt that he was one of those chosen and righteous servants of God whom God favours with the gift of His love. He was raised among the Hindus particularly to bear witness to the fact that Islam is a Divine religion. His sacred relics at Dera Baba Nanak bear the clearest testimony to his profession of the Islamic Kalima, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet", and those at Guru Har Sahai in the Ferozepore District, include a copy of the Holy Quran. Who can then doubt that Nanak, with his pure heart, pure nature, and sincere exertions in the way of God, had divined the secret which remained closed to the Pundits? By his claim to being a recipient of Divine revelation, and by the signs from God which he showed, Guru Nanak completely refuted the doctrine which holds that there is to be no revelation after the Vedas, nor any signs of God.

Nanak undoubtedly came as a blessing to the Hindus. He was, as it were, the last Avatar of the Hindu religion who strove hard to rid Hindus of the hatred which they entertained towards Islam. But, to the great misfortune of this country, Hindus did not benefit much from the teaching of Baba Nanak. On the other hand, the Pundits persecuted him for no other reason than that he proclaimed the truth of Islam wherever he went. He had come to establish peace between Hinduism and Islam, but his voice fell on deaf ears. Had his teaching been heeded, Hindus and Muslims would today be one. How much it grieves me to think that a great soul came into the world, and passed away, but alas, ignorant men took nothing from his light. Nonetheless, he showed that the door to Divine revelation can never be closed, and that signs of God are manifested at all times at the hands of His chosen servants. He also proclaimed that enmity to Islam was enmity to the light that comes from heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The genocide of the Ahmadiyyas is state-sponsored by the Pakistan government, so any claims by Pakistani government officials about how sorry they are is completely hollow. The Ahmadiyyas were declared apostates by constitutional amendment by the Pakistanis in 1974, thus labelling them kafirs and subjecting them to the Sharia punishment for apostasy - death. They have their kafir status recorded on their Pakistani governments on their passports so that they are not allowed to enter pilgrimage in Mecca.

Even the Ahmadiyya Nobel laureate Dr Abdus Salam, who prior to 1974 was a member of Pakistan's Atomic Energy Commission, was sacked by the goverment after the amendment.

As to the Taliban rotting in hell, their Afghan homeland is already suffering the karmic backlash from the murder and hate of the Taliban. The country is a barren wasteland where even the children are now addicted to the opium that funds the Taliban's murder:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8687734.stm

yes, he also mentioned that all the Sikh Gurus after Pehla Pathsah committed a major mistake by promoting Sikh dharm as separate.

Yep, in this need of his to denigrate any religion that is not Islamic, he was following in the footsteps of his Muslim predecessors.

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this may be a translation of some of his writings on Guru Nanak. I got it from this site.

I love the bullshit about Guru Nanak Dev Ji being sent to relieve Hindus of their hatred towards Islam as if it was simply due to their stubborness and had nothing to do with the brutal tyranny of the Islamic invaders perpetrated on the Indian people in the name of Islam and its so-called prophet Mohammed.

Typical Islamic lies. Perhaps his people would be suffering less if their prophet was not just another ignorant Muslim moron spreading lies about other religions.

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting (from 1936). I don't know if it is written by a Sikh convert? Sardar Piara Singh aka Muhhamad Yusuf Granthi.

I get the feeling that the introduction and proliferation of the common medium of English and the printing press led to lively and contentious debate between faiths in the mid 30s of the 20th century.. There is an attempt to liken Sikh doctrine with that of the Quran. There is also a direct rebuttal of accusations of the supposed heresy that probably led to the attack in the OP on page 2.

http://aaiil.org/text/articles/aaiiltractseries/1936/05may/aaiiltractseries1936may.pdf

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the Ahmadiyya website about their beliefs:

http://www.alislam.org/topics/messiah/index.php

It's pretty clear from the above that their founder claimed that he was the Mahdi and the Messiah all rolled into one. To Indian audiences he was apparently fond of claiming that he was also Krishna. FRom his book Haqiqat-ul-Wahi:

"I am Krishna whose advent the Aryans are waiting for in these days. I do not make this claim on my own. God Almighty has conveyed to me repeatedly that I am Krishna, King of the Aryans, who was to appear in the latter days." (Appendix, p. 85)

Must be nice to be so special.

I feel sorry for the poor Ahmadiyya people who are being murdered by their Muslim brothers, but I don't think much of their leader's claims.

K.

Edited by Kaljug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting (from 1936). I don't know if it is written by a Sikh convert? Sardar Piara Singh aka Muhhamad Yusuf Granthi.

I get the feeling that the introduction and proliferation of the common medium of English and the printing press led to lively and contentious debate between faiths in the mid 30s of the 20th century.. There is an attempt to liken Sikh doctrine with that of the Quran. There is also a direct rebuttal of accusations of the supposed heresy that probably led to the attack in the OP on page 2.

http://aaiil.org/text/articles/aaiiltractseries/1936/05may/aaiiltractseries1936may.pdf

Book is a lie. I stopped at second page. It says that Ahmadi belief is 'God encompass all'.

Every weekend next to my work, Ahmadiyas set up a flea market style shop with literature written by Mirza and others. A scholar of Ahmadiyas debated me for an hour saying that God is separate from creation and it is not 'Khalak khalk, khalk mhe khalak'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View of fellow Muslim

When Mirza Saheb was about 38 years old his father died and Inspirations and revelations started showering on him like rain. Were these really inspirations or an indication of mental illness? He sustained the first attack of hysteria when his son, Basheer I, dies. When he undertook second marriage, he was IMPOTENT. Then upon divine inspiration he prepared a potion, 'DIVINE CURE', its main constituent was OPIUM. During his correspondence with Hakeem Nuruddin, he admitted to be suffering from following sicknesses. Here you must remember that Mirza was taught medicine by his father. :

* Melancholia

* Hypochondriasis

* Insomnia

* Diabetes

* Amnesia

* Urinating 100 times a day

* Attacks of hysteria

* Attacks of fits of heart

* Attacks of unconciousness

And on top of all these sicknesses, use of OPIUM and ALCOHOL!!

In other words MENTAL SICKNESS + OPIUM = HALLUCINATIONS which he misinterpreted as INSPIRATIONS.

Perhaps you might think that previous Messengers were also accused of being mental case by their opponents, so it is no big deal if we also call Mirza Saheb the same. BUT let me clear the confusion. NO PROPHET of Allah has ever labelled himself as a mental case, a lunatic. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the only claimant of prophethood who had admitted in his writings being mentally sick.

It was the sequel of his Mental Sickness + Opium that when Britihsers decided to create an Imposter 'Apostolic' Prophet to eliminate t

he spirit of Jehad from the hearts of Muslims, they searched for a proper person. Finally they chose the mentally defected son, an opium/alcohol user and pusher, of their ancestral servant, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, who had proven his loyalty by supplying 50 armed horsemen to fight against the Muslims in the freedom struggle of 1857.

http://alhafeez.org/rashid/ishq/ishq.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good one.

THE FINAL INSULT:

The Grave of Holy Prophet Muhammad is a source of blessing and light and has been revered by generations after generations sinc the time of Sahaba till this day. No Muslim has ever dared to violate the sanctity of this Holiest of the Holy Shrines. But this so-called Aashiq-e-Rasool and Fana fir Rasool did not even spare that. May Allah forgive me for quoting such profanity:

"And God chose such an ignominious place to hide/bury the Holy Prophet that is awfully stinking and dark and cramped and the place of excreta of insects..." (Roohani Khazain vol.17 p.205)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too bothered by the movements parchaar/vichaar [?], or what orthodox Muslay think about them. The founder's attitude to Guru Nanak is (to me) akin to Hindus claiming Guru Nanak was one of them in terms of ideological position. Their (Ahmadiyas) relationship with the mainline sullay really is equivalent to that between the majority Sikhs and say the Namdharias or Radha Soamis.

I can understand if people want to protect their dharam (or perceived dharam) but how does that spill over into doing stuff like this? They never deserved this.

One key question this brings forth is what is the correct position/posture to adopt towards dissenting groups? I guess it goes back to question of plurality versus centrality of doctrine? Obviously, many Muslims feel strongly enough about the importance of a unified central doctrine that they are willing to die and kill to enforce it. Even if this is the result of a particular interpretation of doctrine amongst more than one option. Really, isn't this like a bunch of Singhs going to some pro-Darshan Ragi Gurdwaras in Panjab and spraying the place with Ak 47s, throwing grenades and doing 'sooside bomb'.

I have to relate this to the Khalistan movement. How would have the more hardheaded kharkoos have dealt with an equivalent 'Sikh' group? Was centrality of doctrine a key concern of theirs? How would they have reconciled differences of a more theological nature? Is the above the inevitable conclusion to a rigid, dogmatic approach to religion? Did something similar but on a smaller scale than this happen in Vienna?

And before anyone jumps on my back for saying the wrong thing, just chill. I am just exploring and asking questions here.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ahmadis are great people. Very friendly and interested in dialog with the sorrounding community.

I couldn't disagree more. Their status in Islam is similar to the Sant Nirankaris are to Sikhism. Their modus operandi is to pretend to be interested in the beliefs of non-Muslims but their agenda is to find out how knowledgable that person is in their own religion. If the person has a good grounding and is able to defend their religion to the questioning of the Ahmedi then they give up but if the person is not knowldegable then the Ahmedi will start to question more and more. He/She will also introduce another few of their Ahmedi friends into the debate as well as giving their propaganda books. I have seen this many times online and although mainstream Muslims do this nowadays as well but this type of dawa was invented by the Ahmedis.

Like the Sant Nirankaris they also have a line of leader who claim to be divinely inspired. Their leader before the present one was a bit of a joker whose forte seems to have been telling jokes to the 'sisters'. The wally even told a Sikh joke. Maybe if he wasn't joking around with his women followers he might have taken steps to protect his followers in Pakistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony

When you say Sant Nirankaris are you referring to those people that clashed with the AKJ jatha in 78?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too bothered by the movements parchaar/vichaar [?], or what orthodox Muslay think about them. The founder's attitude to Guru Nanak is (to me) akin to Hindus claiming Guru Nanak was one of them in terms of ideological position. Their (Ahmadiyas) relationship with the mainline sullay really is equivalent to that between the majority Sikhs and say the Namdharias or Radha Soamis.

I can understand if people want to protect their dharam (or perceived dharam) but how does that spill over into doing stuff like this? They never deserved this.

One key question this brings forth is what is the correct position/posture to adopt towards dissenting groups? I guess it goes back to question of plurality versus centrality of doctrine?

Of course innocent people do not deserve to be murdered in this way.

The Sikh course of action in such cases can be gauged from the rehat regarding Ram Raiyas and Dhirmalias. Sikhs didn't go in and murder them, they simply cut off contact with them and countered their false parchaar. Such cults invariably disappear into nothingness sooner or later because they lack any real connection with Divine Truth.

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't disagree more. Their status in Islam is similar to the Sant Nirankaris are to Sikhism. Their modus operandi is to pretend to be interested in the beliefs of non-Muslims but their agenda is to find out how knowledgable that person is in their own religion. If the person has a good grounding and is able to defend their religion to the questioning of the Ahmedi then they give up but if the person is not knowldegable then the Ahmedi will start to question more and more. He/She will also introduce another few of their Ahmedi friends into the debate as well as giving their propaganda books. I have seen this many times online and although mainstream Muslims do this nowadays as well but this type of dawa was invented by the Ahmedis.

Like the Sant Nirankaris they also have a line of leader who claim to be divinely inspired. Their leader before the present one was a bit of a joker whose forte seems to have been telling jokes to the 'sisters'. The wally even told a Sikh joke. Maybe if he wasn't joking around with his women followers he might have taken steps to protect his followers in Pakistan.

Tony is right. It is not just the way they do Prachar. They are the ones who invented the annoying “in your face” type of prachar so many Muslims now days seem to do. Very few people know this, but they were also very big advocates of the Pakistani movement in pre partition India, in fact they were one of the first advocates of Pakistan some saying even inspiring Iqbal who in turn inspired Jinnah for a separate homeland for Muslims.

Since their leaders were very close to the British, they firmly believed that the British would reward them with Gurdaspur going to Pakistan, but that did not happen and they had to flee Gurdaspur towards Pakistan. It’s ironic that now they are so persecuted by the same Pakistan. They were also the first amongst Muslims to start trouble in Kashmir leading to protests and riots way back during the British Raaj in the pretext of “Muslim rights” and ever since Kashmir has been a hot topic for the Muslims.

They also twist and misinterpret Gurbani. They take the tukh “Waqt naa paiyo qaadiyaa(n) ji likhan lekh Quran” in Japji Sahib to mean that Guru Nanak Sahib Jee made a prophecy saying: “Do not disturb Mirzaa Ghulam Ahmad of Qadiyaan when he is writing the Quran”. Ahmadis themselves are good people and should not be killed. But their first spiritual leader Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was no different from Gurmit Raam Rahim of Sacha Sauda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sikh course of action in such cases can be gauged from the rehat regarding Ram Raiyas and Dhirmalias. Sikhs didn't go in and murder them, they simply cut off contact with them and countered their false parchaar. Such cults invariably disappear into nothingness sooner or later because they lack any real connection with Divine Truth.

That is my view also. So when you hear of incidents like the recent Vienna one and you get those sikhsangat.com type nutjobs, 'bigging it up', I have to lower and shake my head (slowly). It's like we mess up our own panthic 'karam' with kartootan like that.

Plus our more powerful vairees know exactly what to do when we foolishly highlight dissenters with a disproportionate/needlessly conspicuous response - fund and strengthen them!

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting Pakistani article on Pakistani minorities. Tells it like it is.

I never really cared for Ahmadis

The writer is a columnist and TV and radio anchor (fasi.zaka@tribune.com.pk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth is the bulk of this country doesn’t like Ahmadis. They are Pakistan’s Palestinians. Their humane treatment and acceptance

will decide whether we are a people who can move forward in the future, or if we will become a fragmented warlord state divided on sectarian lines.

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

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

http://tribune.com.pk/story/21267/i-never-really-cared-for-ahmadis/

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...