A response to "The Apostates of Pakistan" by Aakar Patel

Aakar Patel's recently published article "The apostates of Pakistan" was penned a couple years ago, but did not see the light of day until now. He states the reason for this delay as reluctance of seemingly liberal Pakistani English language papers to publish some material. Reading through the piece, I could easy spot a number of problems that an editor may see with the article. It mentions the persecution of the Ahmadis in Pakistan, it also tries to explain Ahmadiyya beliefs, history and the bigotry of Pakistani society. The editors may have imagined a backlash from many of their conservative readers. An influential section of Pakistani society has always managed to keep this topic out of public eye for decades. But, as an Ahmadi, I would have sent the article back to Mr. Patel with red lines all over the text. For factual inaccuracies, incomplete research and almost slanderous accusations. 

Let me say that I admire Mr. Patel's attempt to look into the Ahmadiyya history to give a fresh perspective to his readers. I wish more people could go to the source materials and inform and educate their readers. I also hope that they make a better job of it.

Mr. Patel narrates a vision received by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which is recorded in in his own writings as follows;

 "I presented the document containing divine decrees for attestation and He, Who was manifesting Himself in the form of a Ruler, dipped His pen in red ink and first flicked it in my direction and with the rest of the red ink which remained at the point of the pen He put His signature to the document. Thereupon, the state of vision came to an end and when I opened my eyes to look at the material world around me, I witnessed several red drops falling on my clothes. 2 or 3 of the drops also fell on the cap of one ‘Abdullah of Sanaur (Patiala State) who was at the time sitting close to me. Thus, the red ink which was part of the vision materialized externally and became visible. Many other such manifestations have been witnessed which it would take too long to 

relate. "

According to the Mr. Patel 

" This message from God qualified Ahmad as a prophet."

The claim of Hadhrat Ahmad as being a prophet did not originate from this experience. In fact such spiritual experiences had started in 1870s when he was still an unknown man, immersed in worship and religious studies. He received many revelations confirming his status as a prophet from 1882. But he did not claim to be the "Promised Messiah" until 1891, when he also revealed that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) had passed away and he was appointed as the Promised Messiah by God. The status of Promised Messiah according to Quran and Hadith is that of a subordinate (Ummati) prophet. 

Continuing in the very next paragraph Mr. Patel contradicts himself by stating "Despite his visions, Mirza Ahmad personally did not claim prophethood." 

Hadhrat Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi (pbuh) wrote a book to remove any misconceptions about his claim to be an Ummati Prophet called "Aik Ghalti ka Izala". He writes 

"Wherever I have denied being a Prophet or Messenger, it has only been in the sense that I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet. I am a Messenger and Prophet only in the sense that I have received spiritual grace from the Messenger (pbuh) whom I follow, and, having received his name for myself, and through him, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God. But I have not come with a new law. I have never denied being called a Nabi (Prophet) in this sense. Indeed it is in this very sense that God has addressed me as  Nabi and Rasul; and it is in this sense that I do not deny being a Nabi or Rasul" (A misconception removed, page 10)

The above is just one example of how Aakar Patel has not done justice to his article by including opinions which could have benefited from some proper research. He also states that Hadhrat Ahmad (pbuh) denouced Judaism and Christianity as error. Islam considers both Judaism and Christianity as true faiths corrupted by their followers. Hadhrat Ahmad (as) made his claims at the time when Christian missionary effort in India was at its peak. He held debates with prominent Christian missionaries of his time and showed to the world that Islam was a perfect religion. He also challenged various Hindu revivalists of his time as they also attacked Islam. 

But this is only a minot problem with this piece, easily corrected by a letter to editor. My problem lies with what follows in the last part of the article. According to Mr. Patel, Ahmadis should share some blame for being persecuted in Pakistan. He states that Ahmadis supported the two-nation theory and Sir Zafrullah Khan Islamized Pakistan by supporting the Objectives resolution. 

Do Ahmadis do deserve to be punished for their support of Muslim league? There are many so-called revisionist liberals who may think that the creation of Pakistan was an accident brought about by a mixture of British and feudal Muslim interests. 

Please also note here that the most conservative amongst the Muslims supported Indian National Congress. Same Muslim leaders saw opportunity in Pakistan and started agitations against Ahmadis in 1953. Ahmadis supported Pakistan because the ground realities of British India demanded Muslims to defend their rights. Qaid-e-Azam was right, but unfortunately, Pakistan also inherited the Ahrar, the spiritual forefathers of present day militant outfits. To add to our misery, Maulana Maudoodi also chose Pakistan despite his aversion to its very idea before 1947. The purpose of Ahmadiyya Movement has always been to cleanse Islam of the oppressive and suffocating ideology of such Mullahs. This "war" has been waged since the inception of the community and will carry on until the true Islam is made manifest to the world.

It is obvious that majority of the people who helped create Pakistan including the leadership, were tolerant, democratic and liberal. The very same people accepted Ahmadis in their ranks as their equals and even sought guidance from the Khalifatul Masih on important matters. Kashmir Committee (of 1930s) is one shining example of Ahmadiyya contributions to the Muslim cause in India.

Objectives resolution has also been blamed for Islamization of Pakistan. I can understand that in some circles it causes concerns because of its religious tone. I disagree with the critics. To me, objectives resolution was a document written by idealists who had high hopes for Pakistan. Their Islam was not the totalitarian oppressive Islam that Ahrar and Maudoodi had unleashed in the streets in 1950s. For an Ahmadi scholar and a secular Jurist of Sir Zafrullah's calibre, Islam can only "impose" a secular government which affords full freedom to its subjects. Please also note the emphasis of fundamental rights, freedom and democracy in the text of objectives resolution. 

That brings us finally to the matter of "Furqan Force". A battalion of Ahmadi volunteers which supported the Pakistan Army in 1948 Kashmir conflict. Mr. Patel thinks that this was a religiously motivated move and a betrayal of "Gandhian" non-violence that the Ahmadiyya community followed. First of all, our non-violence is Quranic non-violence. Mr. Gandhi was a respected politician and I admire his achievements and philosophy. But Ahmadi Muslims follow the teachings of Quran, as explained to us by Promised Messiah (pbuh). He also taught us that loyalty to our state is a religious duty. So if Pakistan was at war with India, Pakistani Ahmadis were duty bound to protect their country. Besides, Hindu rule of Kashmir was no Gandhian rule. It was probably the most oppressive and cruel rule in the history of subcontinent. 

I can also clarify here that Jihad as taught by Promised Messiah (pbuh) includes fulfilment of our duties to protect our faith. And loyalty to our homeland is part of our faith. 

Mr. Patel ends his article on a very harsh note. He started the piece with sympathetic statements, included examples of persecutions and his own dismay at the hatred he saw in Pakistan. He then moves to blame the Ahmadis for their own bad karma; for supporting Pakistan movement. Sir Zafrullah, a prominent defender of human rights and freedom of religion on the global stage, becomes the reason for Islamization of the country.  And the article then ends with a statement I can only call a fallacy. Aakar Patel writes;

 "Such bigotry against other faiths usually invites punishment against your own". 

i.e., Ahmadis opposed an oppressive cruel Hindu ruler; they supported equal rights for Indian Muslims etc etc; so they deserved to be punished in their own country for this. What twisted reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

I would request Mr. Patel to review his whole article, but in particular this last statement. He should go and read about the message of universal brotherhood that the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim community sent out to the whole subcontinent just days before his death. Ahmadis stand by every word our Mahdi and Messiah (pbuh) has said and this is apparent through our actions. In fact, it is our belief that all major religions are based on truth and we give great respect to their founders like Raam, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster and Baba Nanak (may peace be upon them all). You will see evidence of this respect throughout Ahmadiyya history. 

To Mr. Patel, I can also suggest humbly that having an influence on your readership is a big responsibility. I am sure he will correct the factual errors he has made. I hope his opinions are also altered after these corrections.

As an Ahmadi, I believe that the revival of true Islamic ideals has been ongoing for the past century and Indian subcontinent is its epicentre. It is also my belief that Islam as presented by Promised Messiah (pbuh) will be victorious in this struggle. 

Drawing Pictures: Since when has it become offensive?

Over the last many decades, a large majority of the western Christian world has in practice stopped being Christian, thus reactions to insults and blasphemies have dimmed down to solitary voices here and there. Atheism is the fashion. No one wants to declare openly that they revere a person or deity because of their religious faith.


But this is not a question of existence of God. The question here is.. Can you force a group of people to change their values that you do not agree with? Aggressive atheists these days are happy to shout at every forum how religion has caused intolerance and bigotry in the society. But here is a test case.. UCL's atheist society publishing cartoons of Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) and expecting this to go unnoticed!

Muslims do not draw human form; they do not build statues for religious purposes. Yes, there are Muslim artists who paint and draw human form, and there is nothing wrong with it. But this has to be kept strictly outside of religious sphere because of the express command of the founder of Islam (peace be upon him). This is a strong value that all practicing Muslims adhere to. No pictures are to be found in any Mosque around the world. A Billion Muslims hold this belief which safeguards the monotheistic basis of Islam. Yet a handful of atheists think that drawing a picture of Muhammad (peace be upon him) for whatever reason should be acceptable?

Atheists, born and brought up in the West (or influenced by European values) may think that drawing pictures is what humans have always done. What is wrong with that? European art galleries are full of depictions of religious figures on canvas and in stone and in metal. But Islam is not a European faith. Neither was Christianity. Regardless of what Greek and Roman art did to Christianity, Islam has not “traded in” its values for the sake of gaining adherents.

This is despite the fact that Islamic scholars re-discovered Greek philosophy and had decades of conflict with the Romans. Usually such interactions results in softening of certain closely held values, and they did. Early rationalist movement in Islam (Mu’tazillites) had deep roots in Greek logic. Yet, no Muslim ever thought of painting or sculpting a Holy figure or a saint. Enough proof that depiction of religious figures was an absolute taboo for Muslims.There are some very rare depictions of Holy personalities in Iranian Shia culture, but it has never been accepted by the wider Muslim world. Those paintings in which the prophet has been depicted can only be described as only limited to a particular era and was largely unknown by the Muslim majority. Most other depictions in Islamic minature arts show the prophet as a halo or a veiled figure.

All reasonable Humanists and Atheists will understand why Muslims take offense when someone tries to depict the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him). It is because drawing of a picture has never been an Islamic tradition. Yes, it has been a tradition in the conquered lands and Islam has not forbidden artistic representations of human form, but only as a secular art. It has become a Christian tradition, which is why even many Christians do not take offense when Jesus has been mocked at by cartoonists and comedians. People at this atheist society at UCL want practicing Muslims to “tolerate” their attempts at mocking Muslim values? Where is the sense in that?

Why should we not allow BNP and EDL to mock and vilify Islam and Muslims too? What is the difference? And what is wrong with a bit of holocaust denial and some “good-natured” anti-Semitism? Some "fact based" scientific racism.. anyone? Let us accept all this in the name of tolerance!! Updated: 28Jan2014

Why British Muslims should wear a Poppy?

War is the greatest injustice mankind can inflict on itself. Unfortunately, not a day has passed for centuries when somewhere and somehow one nation was not at war with the other. It appears that war is a natural state of being for our species. And as we are still learning to attain peace in our world, we sometimes have to take sides in such wars. Especially when our country, nation or way of life is under threat. It also becomes necessary to use moral judgement when taking sides in war. For example, one must not initiate a conflict or show aggression without a just cause. A just cause according to the principles of Islam is to defend one’s life, property, territory and freedom.

90 years ago, the Royal British Legion started to commemorate the war dead of the WW1. The poppy appeal, which collects funds to support war veterans and serving personnel of the British armed forces is in the noble tradition of being grateful for the “sacrifices of a few”. In essence, it is a very Islamic idea fulfilling our duties to be charitable, thankful and loyal to our country.

Many British Muslims do not feel obliged to participate in the appeal. One reason for this could be the fact that NATO contributes to so much misery in the Islamic world. I do not disagree with this criticism of our opportunistic foreign policy based on greed and make-belief sense of moral duty. But Poppy appeal is not to support our politicians or their allies in Brussels and Washington. This fund is to pay our respect to the courage which saved our country and the countries of our fathers twice. These red plastic flowers are not to show the world who was the victor; but to show that we respect our soldiers who risk their life and limb to serve our country. If these poppies are to be taken as a symbol of something more than this, then these are a symbol of defiance against aggression and totalitarian and fascist ideologies.

British Muslims should wear the poppy with pride to show their non-Muslim countrymen that close to 80,000 Muslim soldiers laid down their lives in both world wars. These soldiers were all volunteers who left their homeland to fight in the battlefields of Europe and Africa and died along with their comrades from the commonwealth.

We should wear the poppy with a renewed sense of duty to remind our fellow countrymen about the idea of sacrifice. That one must look for ways to contribute to the peace we have in today’s Britain.

We should wear the poppy with a feeling of gratitude for all the freedoms we have in this country. Freedom to worship, practice and preach our faith; and live without the fear of persecution and discrimination.

We should wear the poppy with a prayer for peace. Ameen

Pakistani Integrity and Self-respect Omelette:

I don’t think much about music. I enjoy it for what it is. A collection of pleasant sounding notes with some meaningful, decent lyrics usually does the trick. Music, like any other activity in human life should be meaningful and for the betterment of human condition.

Among this huge, ever growing, heap of rubbish that we call modern Pop/Rock music, sometimes you can spot real gems. A new Pakistani band called Begayrat Brigade, have released a new song, Aalu Anday. There is some guitar, a catchy tune, and three kids dancing like idiots in the video. My first impression after watching such videos is that rich kids in Lahore have nothing better to do. But then I hear the words “Mullah”, “Qadri”, and “Ajmal Kasab”.

There are many placards with various statements shown during the video. Most of them are humorous and liberal observations on Pakistani political scene. But these boys are challenging the very core of Pakistani reigio-fascist right-wing through a stupid song and dance. They are not happy that Qadri has been made a celebrity, Ajmal Kasab a hero. They also remind the listener that Mullah is an opportunist creature. A blasphemy of sorts. And on top of that, they mention the name of Abdus Salam, the Pakistani Ahmadi Nobel Laureate. And how fitting it was that his name was placed opposite the symbols of bigotry and hatred in modern day Pakistan.

Right.. Why would you invite the wrath of a very influential segment of Pakistani society while in pursuit of your showbiz dreams? The video ends with the lead singer holding up a placard displaying the words ”if you want a bullet through my head, like this video”. I admire their courage and hope that this song is only the start of a new wave of popular liberal expression in Pakistan.

Seal of Prophets (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him)

Finally, one the best books on Seerah (Biography) of Holy Prophet (saw) written in Urdu language has been translated into English. The first urdu volume was published in 1920.

http://www.alislam.org/holyprophet/Seal-of-Prophets-Vol-1.pdf

Written by Hadhrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad M. A. (r.a), son of the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi (a.s.), this book reviews the historical accounts of Holy Prophet's (saw) life in the light of Quranic revelations. It also answers the criticisms raised by various orientalists whose opinions unfortunately still prevail among the western minds.

Idiots!

Here is an example of complete and utter idiotic behaviour. A bunch of EDL yobs, vandalizing a mosque.

Yes, I hear you say.. All these bigotted and racist wastrels need to get a life. They have to accept the truth about modern Britain.


This is a country of many colors and creeds, and Muslims are part of the fabric of British society.


Yes, and I also agree with you that these sad people, motivated not by any higher purpose, but by a sense of loss, can cause a lot of grief to their victims.


But here is the best bit about this story..The mosque they vandalized was not a mosque. The people who use this building aren't even Muslims.


Ask any muslim organization in Britain.. they will categorically confirm that Ahmadiyya community has nothing to do with Islam.


But those who burnt the poppies in London were true believers.

Ahmadiyya Muslim community, on the other hand, collected tens of thousands of pounds for the poppy appeal in the same year.


What a waste of paint and 12 months of your lives.. You Idiots!!

But you may still consider Ahmadiyya Muslims to be a threat to your national identity. In that case, you can still ask for help.

Contact any mainstream Islamic organization and they will be happy to support you. As some of them did in Walsall a couple of years ago.

Diveristy in EDL ranks!!

Who would have thought?

False prophets and a misplaced sense of history

Another common symptom of the cultist group's lack of wisdom is their misplaced sense of history; rather their weird interpretation of history. This also puts them in the same bracket as our common-place medievalist mullahs.

A seriers of articles on the cultist website have appeared regarding the four false prophets in early Islam. i.e., Mussaylimh, Sajjah, Aswad-al-Ansi and Tullayha.

It is my understanding that the author of these articles had no intention of educating the readers about early Islamic history and the wave of rebellion among Arab tribes soon after the demise of Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

The purpose of these articles was to

i) Use the misplaced sense of history to draw parallels between these false claimants and the claims of Promised Messiah (as) and

ii) To show that the main motive of these wars fought by Hadhrat Abu Bakr's (ra) armies were the claims of these people as prophets.

I have seen how throughout the history of Ahmadiyyat, from the early enemies of Promised Messiah (as) to the modern day religious organizations, references have been made to these early Islamic events to justify the murder of Ahmadis. A large number of Muslims also believe that apostates should be killed. I am not sure if the cultist bloggers think the same, but if they don't they will be going against the opinions of their patrons and role models.

Interspersed in these cultist articles are statements like

"Azaad is reported to have said, “Allah has not created any human being more hated to me than al-Aswad Al-’Ansi. I never hated anyone in my life than I hated this man. He does not do any good, and all of his actions are evil.” That flies in the face of “Love for All, Hatred for None” slogan, doesn’t it? Maybe she was influenced by the “Mullahs”…? But I digress."

The above is another good specimen on how one can drag into a discussion, a completely unrelated and illogical remark to feel good about themselves. A woman whose husband was killed by a man, can not harbour any positive feelings about this person. The motto of "love for all, hatred for none" is principle inspired by the love of humanity taught to us in Allah and his messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم). It is not a personal mantra replacing all other human emotions. Islam does not force people to feel contrary to what their natural instincts lead them to feel. Islam teaches us to harness these instincts and not be overcome by negative emtions like anger, hatred, jealousy etc.

We aspire to follow the Sunnah of Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم), who forgave Hind, Wahshi and countless others who tormeneted him, caused deaths of his family members and persecuted his followers. We do not aspire to follow "Azaad", a random woman in history who had the misfortune of being widowed by Al-Anasi. But I will not stop any cultist to follow her.. whatever works for them!

There are yet other examples of misinterpreting history in these articles. I have notices that the writer has been careful enough not to declare an open fatwa of murder against the false prophets and their followers. But I am concerned when the author finishes the final "the most interesting" entry regarding Mussaylimah Kazzab like this..

"And with that, the last of the false prophets of Arabia was exterminated. Arabia became a launchpad for the rapid expansion of Islam over Persia, Rome and the rest is history… May Allah save us from the corruption of following a false prophet, and keep us upon the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, the Sahaba, and those who followed them, and save us from joining fringe movements and false prophets. Ameen."

So it is all boiled down to the fact that Islam was in danger due to false prophets. Another blatant misinterpreation of history! Islam has never been, and will never be damaged by the lies and deceptions of any false prophet, because Allah has taken it upon Himself to terminate the life of such people.

Wars against Mussaylimah were fought because he was a political rebel. Hadhrat Chaudhary Zafrulla Khan (ra) has written a brilliant book on this subject. That neither apostasy nor claiming to be a prophet is a cause for war according to Islam.

It is worth noting here that both Mussaylimah and Aswad al-Anasi made their claims during the life time of Hoy Prophet (saw). Neither of them recieved a fatwa of being worthy of death. War was declared on them only when they caused rebellion and mischief.

So if history is to be interpreted correctly, the modern day equivalents of Mussaylimah and Al-Anasi are the relgious extremists who have killed countless civilians due to their words and actions. It is the Mullah cult!

Further reading:

For those interested in Ahmadiyya interpretation of early Islamic history, please read these books:

 Life of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم), by Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra)

Khilafate Rashida by Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra)

Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, by Sir Zafrulla Khan (ra)