'There should be no compulsion in religion'

Mariam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag is a Christian who is facing the death penalty in Sudan for the crime of apostasy. Mariam claims that she never was a Muslim, bur raised as a Christian from her childhood. I admire her courage for standing firm on her faith and refusing to bow to the immense pressure she has been put under by the Sudanese authorities. I also hope that the judicial system in Sudan sees some sense and drops all charges against her. Whoever she choses to marry regardless of her faith or that of her husband is no business of the state.

This judgment is inhumane, un-Islamic and beyond doubt, an insult to the Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

As always, such incidents generate a lot of media attention, and rightly so. Thankfully there are people in this world who give their time and energies for the sake of freedom and human rights. But sadly there are also those who take this as an opportunity to push ahead with their anti-Islam agenda under the cover of protest.

According to Elizabeth Kendal, a Canberra-based Christian rights activist, the death sentence for Mariam Yahya is in accordance with Islam and must be condemned as Islam's 'inherent inhumanity'. She further states that the real reason for the exponential growth of Islam is due to its apostasy laws.

The article in question also makes some fantastic assumptions about Islam.

Lets begin with her comment on the Quranic verse 13:15.

'And to Allah prostrates whoever is within the heavens and the earth, willingly or by compulsion, and their shadows [as well] in the mornings and the afternoons.'

According to Kendal, this verse is the evidence that Quran supports compulsion in the matter of faith.

The particular passage of Quran in question is describing the Majesty of God. i.e., everything in the universe follows the laws He has created, just like the shadows which submit to the movement of the sun in the mornings and in the evenings. There is no mention of apostasy here.

In fact, Quran does not deal with any worldly punishment for people who abandon their faith in Islam.

There is an unequivocal commandment in the Holy Quran 'There should be no compulsion in religion' (2:256) which should remove any doubts about the Islamic position on this matter.

But Kendal finds another concept in the Quran which proves that the Sudanese court is following the true Shariah.

She states that apostasy is equal to 'Fitnah' which according to the verse 2:217 is worse than killing. This surely means that apostates must be killed.

Lets start with the word 'Fitnah' first. According to this verse, Fitnah is

'but to hinder men from the way of Allah, and to be ungrateful to Him and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque, and to turn out its people therefrom..'

i.e., stopping Muslims from performing pilgrimage and declaring war on them is the 'Fitnah'.

Thus, Fitnah clearly means Persecution.

The verse further states that 'and persecution (Fitnah) is worse than killing.’

And what of the persecutors, the Meccan chiefs who had vowed to finish Islam and a handful of its followers? The verse continues,

'And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can.'

And what happens to any apostates?

'And whoso from among you turns back from his faith and dies while he is a disbeliever, it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next. These are the inmates of the Fire and therein shall they abide.'

i.e., their fate rests is with their Lord in the afterlife. No worldly punishment has been recommended for them whatsoever. In fact the verse guarantees them the freedom to live out their life in disbelief.

Kendal then tries to use the next source of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hadith, sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad to prove that he founded a totalitarian religion which should be feared by the world.

For example she quotes a Hadith, '

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him'

Firstly, the narration is highly dubious and has been rejected as weak or even fabricated by many scholars, and secondly the Hadith in question has been mistranslated by inserting the word 'Islamic' which doesn't exist in the original text. One argument which has been used to dismiss this narration as a fabrication is that if it the commandment was taken based on the actual text, no one would be allowed to change their faith. i.e., a person converting to Islam would deserve death as much as someone apostasizing from Islam.

There is no sound basis for any penalties for apostasy in Hadith literature. Many jurists and classical scholars have made the error of equating apostasy with treason and declaration of war; an error which should have been rectified long time ago. But thanks to the medievalist regimes that still exists in many Islamic countries, we find ourselves lamenting the plight of human rights there almost on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, the scattered and disconnected leadership of the orthodox sects of Islam is still busy pushing the Muslims back into the dark ages. Such judgements against religious freedom only expose their insecurities about their own faith and its place in the modern world. It is astonishing to see them openly contradicting the clear commandments of the Quran and the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him).

But people like Kendal are also guilty of misleading their readers about their own religious texts and the skeletons (often stoned to death) hidden in them. Unlike the Quran which allows complete religious freedom, the Bible is very clearly against such notions.

For example Deuteronomy says;

'but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God'

Many Christians may object to this as not applicable to them anymore, but St. Paul wasn't so fond of apostates himself. He condemned them to death too, and the Church complied gladly for many centuries.

What the contemporary orthodox Islam is suffering from is the same malaise which the medieval Christianity suffered for a long time; a departure from the source of guidance and the politicization of religion. If anything, such punishments are only the artefacts of Judeo-Christian ideas which seeped into the Islamic thought during the early centuries of Muslim expansion.

I belong to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which has been striving to correct such errors for more than a century. Under the guidance of the Khalifatul Masih, Ahmadiyya Muslims are working tirelessly to educate not only their fellow Muslims, but other communities as well, about the true and peaceful message of Islam.

I advise Elizabeth Kendal to seek the correct information about the real message of the Quran and help the persecuted Christians like Mariam by putting forward a logical and forceful argument against those transgressors who claim to follow Islam. There is nothing more logical and forceful than the Word of God.

'There should be no compulsion in religion'.

Further Reading: Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, by Sir. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan

No reform please. We are Muslims.

Luton's 'Preservation of the Finality of Prophethood Forum' has finally published a rebuttal to the Ahmadiyya Muslim advert which had reportedly offended the Muslims of Luton. This is a paid advert published in this week's Luton on Sunday.

And the point is?

I was pleased to see that the writers of the advertisement have used civil language which is a remarkable achievement by itself. I am sure that the hate speech laws would have caused many edits before the piece was sent to the printers.

I say this because in my experience, all 'Khatme Nabuwwat' (Finality of Prophethood) organizations are known for their venomous language against the Ahmadiyya Muslims. This language often breeds violence against the community, the most recent example of which was in Hyderabad, India, where a drunken mob attacked the Ahmadiyya Mosque during the Friday prayers.

It is refreshing to see that Luton's anti-Ahmadiyya Mullahs are willing to share their beliefs with the community without inciting violence and hatred.

How does their definition of a Muslim help any of the readers is another matter.

When did the finality of prophethood become one of the central tenets if Islamic beliefs?

The committee of 22 Mosques in Luton would struggle to find a verse in Quran to justify this belief. They do present a verse in the advert

' Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets.' (33:40)

The term used here is 'Khataman Nabiyyeen', translated by the classical translators like Pickthal, Yusuf Ali and Arberry as the Seal of Prophets. This term has been understood by the commentators to mean the best of the prophets. But since the founder of the Ahamdiyya Muslim Community claimed to be a subservient prophet to Muhammad (peace be upon him), his opponents have rejected the more sublime understanding of the verse in favour of a pedestrian one.

Before the inception of Ahmadiyya Islam, classical Islamic scholars had no doubt about the coming of a prophet within Muslims who would reform them and teach them the true wisdom of the Quran. He has been referred to in the Hadith as 'Eesa Ibn Maryam', Jesus, Son of Mary. Muslims have been, and most are still waiting for the Promised Messiah.

Herein lies the great dilema for our friends at the Finality Forum. How can they declare an end to the institution of Prophethood when their own advert claims that 'Lord Almighty in His Grace, never left mankind without any religious guidance'?

What they don't share with their readers is the unanimous belief of all the 22 Luton mosques, and the Muslims around the world that Jesus will descend from the heavens and he will be a prophet for the Muslims. A hadith in Tabarani, quotes the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)

'And remember, there is no prophet between me and him (the Promised Messiah)'

There are many other prophetic sayings (Ahadith) which refer to the Promised Messiah as a prophet.

There is no difference of opinion between the Ahmadi Muslims and the rest about the absolute supremacy of the Quranic message until the end of days. i.e., Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Seal of Prophets. His era continues until the day of judgement. The hadith quoted in the advert 'there will be no prophet after me' only refers to a new prophet bringing a new book or a new law.

But what becomes of the Muslims when they lose their way? When some of them start using their distorted understanding of the Quran to usrup the rights of mankind? When the quest of scientific knowledge is deemed sinful and difference of opinion is met with fatwas of heresy? Don't they need reform? And a prophet is, as the advert points out ' a reformer and an orthodox humanitarian'.

Whether or not you accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim to be a prophet is not relevant here. The fact that you need to contradict yourselves to counter his claims reveals the stubbornness so symptomatic of a people in dire need of reform.

Luton's 22 mosques belong primarily to the Barelvi (sufi) sect. Ibne Arabi, the great Sufi mystic, known as the Seal (Khatam) of Mystics by many, saw the coming of a prophet in Islam as an absolute necessity. He awaited the second coming of Jesus in a 'new body' who will follow the law of Quran.

But Ibne Arabi is considered a bit of a heretic himself by the more puritanical Wahabi Muslims. A great Indian scholar, Shah Waliullah of Delhi, highly regarded by the non-barelvi sects as an authority in Quran and Hadith states that only prophethood with a new law has come to an end. He also wrote that the Promised Messiah will be a true image of Muhammad himself.

For any Deobandi Mosques in Luton, I present the definitive statement of Qasim Nanotawi, the founder of Deoband sect in India, who said that the coming of a new prophet after the Holy Prophet does not break the 'Seal'. This has been a hotly debated issue between the Barelvi and Deobandi sects, each blaming the other for agreeing with the 'Qadianis'.

How unorthodox of the orthodoxy. A newfangled definition of a Muslim? That is the last thing one expects from them.

Despite the contradictions I have pointed out above, the advert is a step in the right direction.

By promoting their own cause and desisting from hate speech, the forum has taken a leaf out of the Ahmadiyya book. I urge them not to stop here. Please copy the whole book. Lets start by being more inclusive and less dogmatic. Lets remove any notions of a separatist, ghettoised interpretation of Islam from our minds and show more loyalty and commitment to the country we call our home. And above all, let us share the humanitarian, tolerant message of the Quran in our towns and cities.

My faith, My crime.

I remember clearly the moment when I realized for the first time that I was a criminal.

It was the autumn of 1993 in Rawalpindi, where I went to college. It was the living room of a friend of mine. We must have been having our usual contests of who can impress the other with the best trivia and unusual facts as teenager do, when my friend triumphantly stated

'If an Ahmadi says Azan (the Muslim call to prayers) he can be jailed for three years'.

I must have left a long gap between his trivia and whatever astonishing fact he expected me to return.

'Its in a book in my father's library'. He said. Obviously thinking that I didn't believe him. 'Its in the Pakistan Penal Code.'

I changed the subject. I must have thought of something to say. I can't remember much from that day, apart from a sense of anxiety that I usually felt in certain situations.

My friend did not know that I was an Ahmadi.

I told him about my faith a few months later. Surprisingly enough, he was OK with it. He was one of the rare few who remained my friends after knowing about my faith.

Such situations came way too often in my life. My family had to move from town to town due to my father's job. And each new move brought with it new classmates, new neighbours and new friends. All of whom would start wondering why I don't go to the nearest mosque for prayers. I suppose the grown-ups soon figured out the reason. It was however far too tricky for us children.

Most of my friend found out about my faith through gossip. I seldom had to volunteer the information and not many asked me directly. Being an Ahmadi in the post-Islamization Pakistan was dangerous. You could get beaten up or bullied in schools, by both the teachers and your classmates. I remember a classmate who would just casually walk up to me and punch me in the back saying that it was an act of 'sawab' (to be rewarded by God) to hit a 'kafir' (infidel). It was of course done as a crude joke, so I did my best to avoid him.

In another school, our science teacher would spend a whole hour explaining to us that Qadianis (Ahmadis) are kafirs. He knew fully well that there was a Qadiani 12 year old in his class. Fortunately, not many in my class knew that it was me. Funny thing is, that I liked that teacher because I like science and he was good at teaching it.

I knew that the dictator, General Zia had passed laws against us Ahmadis, and due to these laws, our 'Huzoor', the Khalifatul Masih had to leave Pakistan. We used to listen to his sermons through audio-tapes which were played at various prayer centers and Mosques that we used to attend for our Friday prayers.

But I was not aware of the real implications of these laws until I heard my friend pronounce the three year jail term for reciting the Azan.

I must have recited the call to prayers hundreds of times in my childhood. It is one of the first things we Ahmadis are taught as children. A Muslim must know the words as without the Azan, a congregation cannot offer any of their five daily prayers. I also learnt how to read the Quran, even memorizing some long passages. I offered my prayers in the manner no different to my Sunni friends. I went to the Ahmadiyya Mosque which looked no different than the Sunni Mosques. Our Imams read the same Arabic prayers before and after their sermons. We had two Eid celebrations, a month of fasting which started and finished with all the other Muslim sects.

But according to the Pakistan Penal Code, I was a criminal since April, 1984. I was a non-Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution by birth, thanks to Bhutto's 2nd amendment in 1974.

It would only require one police report to ensure I was thrown in Jail. At 17 years of age, I was a habitual criminal. I broke the Pakistani law on a daily basis. This realization dawned upon me on an autumn day while I was having a cup of tea in my friend's living room. This realization did not leave my mind for the next decade or so. I finally got free of its burden by leaving Pakistan.

You can understand that I was never a fan of General Zia, The architect of Afghan 'jihad' and the benefactor of the monstrosity that we now call the Taliban. He took it upon himself to rid the country of this 'cancer' of Qadianiyat which was a threat to both his version of Islam and his idea of Pakistan. The 2nd amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan had already paved the way for his ordinance XX. His aim was to decapitate the Ahmadiyya organization by going after the office of the Khalifatul Masih, the worldwide spiritual leader of the Ahmadi Muslims. The verbage used in the law was obviously aimed to target the Khalifatul Masih. His plans were foiled when Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IV, Mirza Tahir Ahmad left the country before a reason could be created for his arrest.

Zia died in a plane crash in 1988. But his laws survived the plane crash and the democracy which followed. No one dared touch any Islamic laws that Zia had enacted, including the notorious blasphemy and the Hudood laws. Even the liberal dictator, General Musharraf left these laws well alone. A dictator can suspend the constitution as many times as he likes, but its Islamic clauses remain valid at all times.




Some so-called liberal Pakistanis think that these laws have no real impact on the majority of the Ahmadis living in Pakistan. How wrong they are!





Since 1984, no new Mosques have been allowed to be built by the Ahmadis, hundreds of criminal cases brought against them for using the Islamic greetings or other Quranic texts in speech or in writing. Many more cases have been registered against Ahmadis for 'hurting the feelings' of the Muslims. Hundreds of Ahmadis have been murdered and their murderers walk free in most cases. These laws have made it impossible for Ahmadis to seek or even expect Justice in the courts of law.



In addition to this, Ahmadis are fair game for the notorious blasphemy laws too. An Ahmadi, just by being an Ahmadi is automatically guilty of blasphemy. How dare they believe in a prophet after the Last Prophet? How dare they believe in revelation after the Quran?

 Ordinance XX bars me from defending myself when such allegations were thrown at me. Any attempt to explain my beliefs were to be taken as proselytisation, which is a crime.

We cannot print books or sell and distribute them to non-Ahmadis. We cannot hold debates or seminars to share our ideas with others. We cannot print advertisements in newspapers or even expect them to print unbiased news regarding us. Even when we are massacred in our hundreds, the press struggles to report it as a human tragedy. But all care is taken to ensure that our mosques are not referred to as mosques in their reports.

Ahmadis have been relegated to a sub-human category of creatures in Pakistan.

I often think what will it take for Pakistanis to take a decisive step in correcting this grave injustice in their name? I think of all my non-Ahmadi friends I left behind in Pakistan and wonder what they thought about these laws really. Not many had the courage to condemn these laws. They thought that this was a religious matter and should never be discussed between good friends.

But this is not a religious matter at all. These laws were the menifestation of demagoguery of the clergy and arrogance of a ruthless dictator. If anything, these laws are an insult to the religion of Islam.


To help repeal these unjust laws, I urge you to sign this petition.

Tony Blair, Middle East and the Doomsday Cults

Tony Blair says that we should get ready for a battle between the open-minded West and the closed-minded Middle East. Its the same-old modern day cursades narrative which has claimed millions of lives so far and counting. Not long ago, he participated in the worst military adventure the west has ever embarked upon in its history. Thanks to a misguided, malicious and greed-driven war in the Middle East, we are on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe. But, Mr. Blair refuses to learn a lesson. He wants more!


He says that the Muslim societies have been over-run by a supremicist ideology which have put them in direct conflict with the West. But it takes two to tango, so there must be a supremicist mindset at work in the West too which encourages the hubris of military conquest of the Middle East.


Blair must be very aware of his role in psychologically mauling a whole generation of young Muslims who grew up in the post 9/11 world. Social media has awakened this generation to the horrific attrocities of war. Those images and video clips, real or fakes, are constantly making the rounds on the internet, adding fuel to fire already lit by their local hate preachers.


You simply cannot force this genie back in the bottle by more war. This will not only compromise the already struggling moderate voices in the Muslim countries but also embolden the extremists even more.


There is a growing network of various groups, increasingly inter-connecting and unifying across the Islamic world calling for a global caliphate/Khilafah. Some groups are more open about the idea of a global Jihad to bring about this revolution. Many agree with each other on principle and are increasing their influence among the young Sunni men and women living in the west. The traditional strands of Sufi, riualistic Islam focused on persoanl piety have been sidelined as weak and unambitious.


Although various Khilafah movements may pose a threat to the Arab royals, the transition from a non-political Sunni/Wahabi to a political one seems to be very easy and frequent. It is very difficult to contain or control this phenomenon through policing, even if you are Saudi Arabia.



Doomsday cults are thought to be fringe groups of conspiracy theorists, but think again. The state of Israel and its Zionist zealots are a doomsday cult. There are countless Christians who believe that the US and its allies must protect the Holy Land as it is the promised site for the return of Jesus. Sunni preachers have been warming up their congregations for the imminent appearance of the Mahdi, and the latest interpretations of hadith literature promises Syria to be of vital import in this respect. Then there are those skeptics who feel that Mahdi has to be created through war and consensus of Muslims, and to add to the mix, there seems to be unlimited hatred for the Shia by thousands of Jihadis converging in Syria. Shia Muslims themselves are being told about the re-emergence of the Mahdi is a certainty and the present day conflict was foretold in many prophecies before.


This may sound far-fetched for some of you. But American diplomats were advising their government not to enter into any negotiations with a 'Messianic' regime in Iran, a leaked diplomatic cable (via Wikileaks) reveals. How come eschatological beliefs of some are causing so much suffering in this day and age? This is after all, the age of reason and science. Many clergymen, Christians, Jewish and Muslims alike, seem to have resigned to the fact that Messiah's do not float down from the heavens. But consider how Ahmedinijad started his speech at the UN General Assembly a few years ago. He prayed for the immediate appearance of the Mahdi, a warrior leader who will rid the world of all evil. Think again about why Bush and Blair consulted God before launching an attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. Behind the seemingly secular political rhetoric, humanitarian concerns and an agenda for democracy, the west is turning a blind eye to the absurdities of literalistic religious zealots in all camps.


Mr. Blair has said one thing that I agree with. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are nurturing a venomous generation of violent preachers which needs to be checked. While Saudi royals are happy to preach peaceful interpretations of Islam to their own citizens, they are recruiting anti-shia paramilitary forces from Pakistan and Jihadi fighters from other Sunni nations to fight in Syria. Saudi puritanical influence of the Muslim youth living in the UK is also increasingly visible.


Exclusion of the moderates and the reformists through 'Takfir' (Edicts of heresy) is the most potent instrument in the hands of these hate preachers. Takfir means exclusion, and according to some puritans, loss of right to life. This is exactly what is driving the Jihadi machine in Syria at the moment. Bashar and his allies are kafirs, worthy of death. Glimpses of this takfir are also visible in the UK, which only shows how easy it can be to recruit fighters from this country. Muslims have to combat this menace themselves first.



It is also essential for the Muslims living in the UK to create their own identity, free of the burdens and strains of dictatorships and theocracies of their ancestral countries. In fact, Muslims in the West are closer to the real Islamic ideals of logic, reason and sciences then their brethren in the Middle East. We must export our new, enlightened and rational worldview to them instead of importing antiquated, literalistic and medievalist ideas to us. Currently we are only exporting gap-year Jihadis and openly partisan statesmanship in the form of Tony Blair.



I suggest that Mr. Blair should seriously consider education, both at home and in the Muslim world as his top priority, not war. I will leave his religious views alone. Afterall, It is a matter between a megalomaniac and his own ego.

Fatwa on Sunday: The unlikely Ayatollah of Luton

'Luton on Sunday' is a free newspaper like hundreds of other weekly papers printed in all towns and cities.

 

In this week's edition, the newspaper printed an apology for any "offence caused to the members of the 'Muslim' community in Luton" due to an advert published in the previous week's edition.

 

Offending Muslims is a nightmare for any media group. Why would they want to see copies of their newspapers and effigies being burnt on their doorstep? And death threats in such controversies are almost as certain as death itself. One can imagine the extreme distress (to both the newspaper and 'Muslims of Luton') which may have caused such an apology to be printed.

 

What prompted such an emergency response by Luton on Sunday to "completely dissociate themselves from the content" of an advertisement from the 'Ahmadiyya'? It was a visit by the local Muslim leaders who explained to the editors how the content was offensive to Muslims. The editors must have had a faith inspiring meeting with the Mullahs as their apology contained a 'fatwa' against the offending 'Ahmadiyya', who prefer to be known as the Ahmadiyya Muslims. But Luton on Sunday, like a seasoned Mullah, declared them outside the fold.

 

Their apology referred to the sponsors of the advertisement as just 'Ahmadiyya', pointedly omitting the word 'Muslim' from their title. God forbid if someone associated them with Islam, especially after the Mullahs had delivered a timely education in Islamic theology and Arabic lexicon to the learned staff at the newspaper!

 

Luton on Sunday accepts that Ahmadi Muslims have no right to be referred to as Muslims!

 

 

The advertisement itself has appeared on dozens of local newspapers across the UK in the past week. It contains an introduction to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a reformist sect of Islam, which preaches peace and tolerance. They have been declared heretics by the religious orthodoxy since their inception in 1889. Their offending belief is their acceptance of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the Mahdi, a Messiah who has been awaited for centuries by the Muslims. Establishing a community of believers in India, Ahmad taught them the true meanings of Jihad as a struggle to reform oneself and to establish peace in the world.

 

The advertisement was printed to celebrate 125th anniversary of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

 

 

Since then, the Ahmadiyya Muslims have spread in all parts of the world as a progressive, tolerant and educated community who are valued as good neighbours and model citizens.

 

Indeed, all reformist movements are seen as a threat by the establishment and the orthodoxy. Pakistan has such laws in place to bar Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims. Even a suspicion that an Ahmadi is behaving like a Muslim may land him in jail. Recently a British Ahmadi Muslim was caught 'red-handed' reading the Quran while on a visit to Pakistan. He spent many weeks in jail before being bailed out and escaping from further prosecution by leaving the country.

The community leaders who met with the newspaper editors would love to have similar laws in this country as well. Luckily, we live in a secular democracy where all are free to express themselves as they like.

 

If the editors of the newspaper had a chance to meet Ahmadis and then asked to describe them in one word, MUSLIM will be their answer. They pray five times a day, read the Quran, follow the modest dress-code, go to the Mosques and celebrate two Eid's every year. How easy was it to drop the word 'Muslim' from their name? One wonders.

 

Was it a threat of boycott or more serious action by the clergy?

 

Free newspapers are businesses and expecting journalistic integrity from them is maybe asking for a bit too much. But even businesses should have some morals. Why dissociate yourself from the message on an advert? A newspaper isn't under any obligation to agree with all the ads it prints. And those who chose to take offense from a message of peace and tolerance are free to do so without infringing upon the rights of free speech and expression of others.

 

The UN Charter of Human Rights states;

 

'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

 

I understand that any business has a right to refuse entering into a transaction, but do they have the right to impart their opinions and issue fatwas on an advertisement they have already printed?

 

The critics of Ahmadiyya Muslims are too quick to mention numerous countries which have passed legislation against the Ahmadi Muslims. But they forget to mention that all such legislations are in direct contravention of the international laws and are universally condemned by all secular and democratic countries.

A letter from a 'concerned' group.

The newspaper should also be aware that this Talibanized attitude towards minority groups is a worrying trend in the British society. Ahmadi Muslims have been targeted through hate material on private TV stations which have had to be penalized by Ofcom on numerous occasions. There are extremist groups which have issued death threats against the community in the UK.

 

Many such organizations using the name 'Khatme Nabuwwat' (finality of prophethood) have deep rooted ideological and financial links with outfits sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban elsewhere. In countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, these groups have committed murders of Ahmadi Muslims and other minorities.

 

Should a newspaper based in Luton, Bedfordshire, align itself with such groups?
 

Majid Nawaz's Misjudgment

Why should we not take offence of someone mocking the person you hold most dear to your heart? I have discussed the matter of cartoons in a previous post here.

 Majid Nawaz, the founding member of Quilliam, a think-tank of sorts, found himself is a muddle after posting a cartoon from an atheist website depicting Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). His intentions were innocent enough, but sadly, Mr. Nawaz has learnt that the reform he has been striving for did not bear fruit.

Making friends with Tony Robinson and then hoping to enter Parliament would have been a great success for Quilliam, but they forgot to notice the general cynicism about Robinson's damascene conversion to tolerance and reason. Also, they are seen as a tool for the establishment to 'reform' and educate the Muslim population of Great Britain.

While I support anyone who speaks against violence and intolerance, Quilliam foundation have been very unclear on their religious ideology. As an organization which claims to have the ultimate answer to religious extremism among Muslims, they have little to show about it in their publications. There are booklets available challenging the notions of violent Jihad and issues of blasphemy and apostasy, but there has to be a deeper, much needed debate to be had about the role of the clergy in the modern Islamic world. Quilliam has to challenge the Mullah, the source of all that is wrong with the 'Ummah'. 

But before they can do that, they have to come clean themselves. Do they feel that Quran has to be revised because just like Bible it has commandments no longer applicable? Also, they seem to be very dubious about Hadith literature and want to interpret Islamic values and practices based on how the western minds would want them. Yes, they will cite 'scholars' from Islamic history to support one idea or another, but when it comes to defending the validity of early Islamic history, they beat a hasty retreat.

Why would any Muslim want them on their side?

I know Majid did not mean to offend his fellow Muslims by sharing the cartoon. He wanted to make a point that these cartoons do not threaten his faith.

He wanted everyone to know that he is not offended by a cartoon which was created solely to offend. At one level, I do understand Mr. Nawaz's predicament. Why should we Muslims waste our time getting offended by a bunch of small-minded atheist bigots who have nothing better to do?

Indifference is the best response. Just as the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) advised his companions to leave such gatherings where his opponents abused or ridiculed him. But at the same time, he also advised his companions to deliver the message of Islam by taking every opportunity to engage with such people.

But by sharing the cartoon, Mr. Nawaz not only engaged with the offenders on their own terms, he also alienated many Muslims who for the right or wrong reasons took offence yet again.

If Quilliam foundation had any sense of duty towards Islam, they will correct their error and avoid taking part in the atheist mockery of all faiths.

We should only engage with them when they are serious about talking, not playing street jesters to please themselves.

And also, Quilliam foundation is not a grass-roots movement. It is a working party to find a solution for the government.

Sadly, it is destined to fail because it is trying to find political solutions to a spiritual problem.

1974: In response to Nadeem F. Paracha

Nadeem F. Paracha is a respected columnist of the left-wing variety, a rare species in Pakistan these days. He is a keen observer of the modern history of a nation in the process of self-combusting into oblivion. I understand and share his pain at this hopeless, prolonged and soul destroying state of affairs in Pakistan.



In his attempt to understand and explain the reasons behind Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's 'compromise' over the Ahmadiyya issue in 1974, NFP has made a few factual errors. Errors which almost seem like an attempt to shift some blame for the 2nd constitutional amendment to its victims, the Ahmadi Muslims. NFP calls this a 'theological issue' and excuses himself from giving any opinions on its religious aspects. Ironically, at the same time he blames the myopia and laziness of the secular intelligentsia to blame Bhutto alone for this whole debacle. The matter of deciding on someone's faith is nothing but a theological issue.


It is laziness and myopia indeed if an opinion is given without considering the religious motives which caused it. NFP then gives an opinion which is rather theological in nature:

"The Qadianis claimed that Mirza was a prophet, and accused all Muslims who did not accept him as being non-Muslims"

.


The above opinion is based on the false allegations raised by the Anti-Ahmadiyya clergy which was thoroughly discussed and refuted during the In-Camera proceedings held in 1974. Why was this question even taken to the parliament? A parliament of a secularist, socialist majority should have known better!


Ahmadis DO NOT consider anyone who claims to be a Muslim to be Non-Muslim, even if they reject the claims of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian as the Promised Messiah. In Ahmadiyya theology, this 'Kufr' or rejection of a Divinely appointed Imam (Mamur) is considered a sin, which makes the rejecter answerable in the eyes of God. It has to be understood that Ahmadiyya Muslims interpret the word 'Kufr' in a Quranic context and not as an absolute term of exclusion and hatred commonly used by the Mullahs against each other.


So my dear Nadeem F. Paracha, you have to understand the theology to understand the Ahmadiyya viewpoint. It is nothing but laziness and myopia if you don't even try.


Now to the events of 1974 which culminated in that constitutional amendment. I find it rather amusing that NFP would defend Islami Jamiat Tulaba (IJT) like this. Even if a bunch of hooligans shouting profanities at Rabwah railway station got away with 13 minor injuries (as Samdani commission report confirmed) as a result of a brawl, does that mean that the whole community should be punished for the actions of a few?


And where did you get the idea that some 'Ahmadiyya leaders' were involved in planning a violent response. Ahmadiyya Jamaat's leaders do not resort to violence. Our 130 years history is a witness to that. The fact is, that some Ahmadiyya youths were involved in this brawl which took place on 29th of May because the IJT students, while shouting abuse from the outbound train a week before had also threatened violence on their way back on the 29th. The head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad had condemned the actions of those misguided Ahmadis in his Friday sermon on 31st of May.


I also believe that the Rabwah Railway incident was a pre-planned event, used as a pretext to start a violent street agitation against the Ahmadiyya Jamaat. A year before this incident, in spring 1973, an extraordinary session of Ahmadiyya Jamaat's Majlise Shoora was called in which the Khalifatul Masih (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) had informed delegates from all over Pakistan that a grand conspriacy was being hatched against the Jamaat. He had even outlined the methods likely to be used including using hypocritics within the community. Rabwah railway station incident was not a random event. On the day of the brawl, Faisalabad Mullah rags had published fictitious accounts of mutilations of the innocent 'Muslim youths' at the hands of Qadiani 'goons'. JI leadership was in cahoots with the Petro-Dollar funded Rabita Alam e Islami who had issued an edict to boycott Ahmadis and remove them from key posts only a year ago. It is no surprise that the student wing of the same organization then gets the ball rolling at Rabwah.


Agha Shorish Kashmiri was fawning over King Faisal at the OIC conference and praying for his speedy ascendency to the office of Khalifa for all Muslims. Mr. Bhutto was not blind to the immense wealth and prestige which came with the Saudi patronage. It only made sense for a person of his ambition to sacrifice the Ahmadiyya Muslims to gain popularity among the religious minded masses of Pakistan. Maulana Kausar Niazi wrote in his book “The last days of premier Bhutto”;


"He was referring to the Constitutional Amendment regarding the Ahmadis, which has prompted country wide celebrations. Mr. Bhutto felt that the credit which should have gone to his government had not been accorded. “The maulvis are claiming all credit for the Amendment,” he complained, “we must portray the true picture before the people."


Here is another interesting observation. PPP of early days was branded a communist party by the religious right. With such a toxic label, Mr Bhutto had no hope to win many seats in Punjab in 1971 elections. It was Mirza Tahir Ahmad, who later became the 4th head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community who helped PPP leadership to choose the appropriate candidates in Punjab which then ensured a very unlikely PPP victory. Ahmadis were helping the country to follow more progressive path and they supported the only party which was serious in its secular and enlightened vision for the country’s future.


Bhutto then stabbed his benefactors in the back, and while in his jail cell five years later, equated the Ahmadiyya Muslim community to the 'Jewish Lobby' in USA. He had tears in his eyes when he had to insist that he was a Muslim because a high court judge had called him a 'Muslim in name only' during his murder trial.


He died believing that maybe his act of declaring Ahmadis Non-Muslims will become the cause of his forgiveness.


Whether he will be forgiven or not, God is the only Judge of that. But Mr. Bhutto left the country firmly in hands of religious bigots for a long time to come. Even people like Nadeem F. Paracha cannot bring themselves to accept that their beloved leader sacrificed the soul of Pakistan 40 years ago.


How can we hope for things to change?
Here is the Ahmadiyya response to the declassified In-Camera proceedings and the historic background to the 2nd amendment.