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.

A photographic journey through Jalsa Salana UK 2013, #JalsaUK

Wikileaks and 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya Agitations

 US Diplomatic Cables, now declassified (or released) via wiki leaks, give an interesting insight into the Spring and Summer of 1974. United States has always enjoyed great influence in Pakistani establishment and certain details present in the diplomatic correspondence of that time show a government under threat.

It appears that Bhutto maintained a neutral stance to avoid any embarrassment on the humanitarian front, but hid behind the parliament to make his decisions. Also, the US diplomats reported on the agitations as 'generally under control' and ignored the human cost of the violence. 

Here are a few excerpts I found to be of interest. 

'VIRTUALLY ALL OUR CONTACTS MAINTAIN THAT MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICES ARE "FULL" OF AHMADIYAS,  WHEN PINNED DOWN, ONLY NAME WHICH GENERALLY COMES TO MIND IS RECENTLY RETIRED AIR MARSHAL CHAUDHRY. ACCORDING TO ONE SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT, GOP HAS LOOKED INTO MATTER AND FOUND THAT SENIOR-MOST AHMADIYA IS (UNNAMED) PROVINCIAL SECRETARY IN SIND.'

(1974 June 7, 12:31 (Friday), Lahore)

 JAMAAT-I-ISLAMI LEADER MIAN TUFAIL MOHAMMAD REPORTEDLY SENT TELEGRAM TO SAUDI ARABIA OVER WEEKEND REQUESTING KING FAISAL'S INTERVENTION TO HELP SOLVE SECTARIAN QUESTION. IN TELEGRAM, MOHAMMAD REPORTEDLY REMINDED MONARCH THAT ISSUES SHOULD BE VIEWED IN LIGHT OF DECISIONS TAKEN DURING RABITA-E-ALAM-E-ISLAMI CONFERENCE HELD LAST APRIL IN JIDDA. (ACCORDING TO LOCAL SOURCE, CONFERENCE DECIDED TO CONDEMN AHMADIYAS AS AGENTS OF ISRAEL AND INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM, AND TO DECLARE AHMADIYAS AS NON-MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT ISLAMIC WORLD.)

1974 June 17, 11:46 (Monday) Lahore)

TEHRIK ISTIQLAL LEADER ASGHAR KHAN HELD PRESS CONFERENCE IN LAYRE JUNE 14, WHICH FOR FIRST TIME IN MONTHS GOT HIM CONSIDERABLE (ADVERSE) PUBLICITY. APPARENTLY, NO JOURNALIST OF ANY PERSUASION WAS SATISFIED WITH AIR MARSHAL'S COMMENT THAT AHMADIYA COMMUNITY WAS "ALREADY A TINY MINORITY," ALTHOUGH HE DID STATE THAT HE FIRMLY BELIEVED IN FINALITY OF PROPHET MOHAMMAD (KHATM-E-NABUWWAT).

1974 June 17, 11:46 (Monday) Lahore)

PRESS CONTINUED TO CARRY INFLAMATORY STORIES DURING WEEK, INCLUDING ONE ARTICLE IN JAMHOOR JUNE 21 DATELINED CHINIOT, IN WHICH CORRESPONDENT CLAIMED HE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM KARACHI THAT AHMADIYAS WERE PURCHASING GOLD IN LOCAL MARKET WHICH WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO NEW AHMADIYA HEAD-QUARTERS OUTSIDE PAKISTAN VIA BRITISH OR AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC MISSION.

(1974 June 28, 11:46 (Friday), Lahore)

MAJLIS- E- AHRAR ANNOUNCED INTENTION TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING OUTSIDE LAHORE' S DELHI GATE TO PAY TRIBUTE TO ACTION OF AZAD KASHMIR ASSEMBLY, TO FEATURE NOTED OPPOSITION FIGURES SUCH AS AGHA SHORISH KASHMIRI AND NAWABZADA NASRULLAH KHAN, AS WELL AS SOME PROMINENT LEADERS OF JAMIAT ULEMA, JAMIAT ULSUA PAKISTAN AND JAMIAT ULEMA ISLAM, AND SIMILAR MEETINGS WERE SCHEDULED FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE PUNJAB.

(1973 May 11, 09:15 (Friday), Lahore)

And one strange one. Regarding a Group Captain Sajjad Haider who wanted a diplomatic post in Washington. It is interesting to see him being labelled as anti-Ahmadiyya and his own claims of being one.

ALTHOUGH HAIDER HAS APPARENTLY BEEN REHABILITATED, IT LOOKS AS IF HE IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED FIT FOR FIRST-LINE OPERATIONAL DUTY IN PAKISTAN. HE IS ANTI-AHMADIYA, AND CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN REMOVING FORMER AIR MARSHAL CHAUDHRY.

(1974 July 24, 09:01 (Wednesday), Lahore)


Previous: 1974 VI: Kufr and Islam; Circles and Boundaries
Next: 1974: In response to Nadeem F. Paracha

1974 -VI Kufr and Islam - Circles and Boundaries

A popular slogan of Takfiris. 'Shia are Kafir-whoever disgarees with it is also a Kafir'.

Yahya Bakhtiyar, Mufti Mahmood and many others maintained that the Ahmadis were declared Non-Muslims because their Khalifa accepted in the Parliament that they consider all others Muslims as Kafir.

Mr. Bakhtiyar confirmed this in an interview with Aatish Fishan, Lahore in their May 1994 publication. He thought that during the cross-examination, Mirza Nasir Ahmad was forced to accept that Non-Ahmadis cannot be true Muslims.

A famous Barelvi Fatwa against M. A. Jinnah. The founder of Pakistan.

This matter was settled by a comprehensive response in the Mahzarnama by the Khalifatul Mashi III, which not only quoted fatwas (edicts) of heresy, apostasy and worst by all major sects of Islam against each other, but also gave a detailed description of the Ahmadiyya opinion on Kufr , Eeman and Islam.

It all boils down to..

The Ahmadiyya point of view on this matter can be summed up by two phrases used by Imam Raghib in his Mufridaat.

Doon-ul-Eeman: Those Muslims who are at a lower standard of faith; i.e., they are Muslims because they profess to be Muslims.

Fawq-ul-Eeman: Those Muslims who are at a distinguished standard of faith. i.e., they try to fulfill all of the criteria set in the Quran to attain spiritual distinction in the eyes of God.

During the cross-examination, the Attorney General kept discussing the labels of Kufr and Islam as a corporation would use it for copyrights purposes. Something that all the Mullahs present in the house could easily relate to. But the fact is, that Quran does not treat the subject of faith as a copyright issue.

Kufr (denial) has many degrees. A person can commit kufr though their actions while still professing to be a Muslim. For example, someone who does not offer his daily prayers becomes a Kafir. Sahih Muslim, the second most authentic book of Hadith has a chapter on this topic. But does this mean that all those who miss a single prayer in their life become Non-Muslims?

Imam Ibn-e-Taimiyyah, a famous Jurist who is held in high esteem by the more orthodox Sunni sects, also held the same belief. The following statement from his book was quoted by the Khalifatul Masih III in his statement.

"One type of Kufr causes the person to be removed from the Millat (Nation/Ummah) whereas the other type of Kufr does not." (Kitab-ul-Eeman, page 171).

Fawq-ul-Eeman and a Joke:

While discussing the 'True Islam' or the faith which entitles someone to be on Fawq-ul-Eeman, Khalifatul Masih III read a quote from the book of the founder of the community (page 820). This quote outlines the view of Hadhrat Ahmad on what he considered to be the pristine form of faith. Yahya Bakhtiya responded with a joke about a simpleton who responds to a Mullah's description of the razor thin bridge leading to the gardens of paradise;

'Why don't you say I can't go to paradise, Maulvi sahib'. Asked the poor soul.

The proceedings do not record if the house was amused by the joke. But one member did not like the passage being quoted and objected by saying that its just an effort to show how pious the Ahmadis are.

But it becomes abundantly clear from reading the Ahmadiyya responses, that Ahmadis consider all those who delcare and consider themselves to be Muslims as Muslims.

Another fake reference:

The questioning committee comprised of representatives from all religious parties. One of their tasks was to support their questions with appropriate references and quotes. The Attorney General appears to be caught short at numerous occasions where a carefully crafted question was sabotaged themselves by a bogus reference. Mr. Bakhtiyar read a sentence from a speech delivered by Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih II in conference in London.

"Ahmadis to form a separate community from outside (the) Musalman(s)." (page 843)

This sentence does not exist in the speech.

Yahya Bakhtiyar's confusion:

What the Attorney General understood as his triumph was actually an indication of his poor grasp of the matters of faith and spirituality. In his concluding remarks he said

'According to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, he (anyone who does not accept the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) remains within the Millat-e-Muhmmadia, but he is ouside the Dairah or circle of Islam. This was all lost to me.' (page 3037-3038)

Circles and Boundries:

Mr. Bakhtiyar's questions on this issue will give the reader a good indication of his (and the house's) malicious intentions. He pretended not to understand the simple and logical explanation being given by the Khalifatul Masih.

'I thought if he (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) said that we all Muslims and we will said that they (Ahmadis) are Muslims, and ignore these fatwas that have been going on for a long time, but he bluntly said that there were not Haqeeqi Muslims among Non-Ahmadis. It was impossible for a Non-Ahmadi to be a Haqeeqi (True) Muslim.' (page 3039)

One can only express sympathy for the Attorney General's mental capabilities and that of his helpers that they refuse to accept what Quran has made so clear. A verse in Surah Hujrat (49:15) tells the Bedouins that they should not say that are Mo'mins (people of faith), but they are only Muslims.

Even Maudoodi has to accept that certain people

May be counted among the Muslims in the world, may even be treated as Muslims in society, but they cannot be counted as believers in the sight of Allah.

If I understand correctly, Maudoodi's deputies in the Parliament and their friends were trying to play God by their own admission.

Famous Barelvi Fatwa against Shia Muslims. If these are the moderates, imagine the hardliners!

This brings us back to the original objection raised by the Ahmadiyya delegation in the Mahzarnama, that

And most serious of all: it (deliberating and legislating upon such manners) clearly runs counter to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Ahadith of the Holy Prophet, and can prove to be a harbinger of many ills and disorders in the society. (pages 8-9)

If Ahmadis consider others as Muslims, why don't they pray behind them.

This probably has become the most repeated argument against the Pakistani Ahmadi Muslims that they don't pray behind a Non-Ahmadi Imam and also they do not participate in funeral prayers of any other sect. In fact, this arises because two facts are ignored.

a. All leaders/Ulema of other sects have strictly forbidden their followers to pray behind Ahmadis becuase they are Kafirs and according to them they are the followers of an impostor.

b. Why pray behind a person who considers you an apostate, worthy of death etc?. Prayers are acts of worship, not a social occasion.

Shia Fatwa against Wahabis. 'Wahabis bound for the lowest level of hell!'.

Deobandi leaders are Mushrik and Kafir.

 

After quoting miscellaneous fatwas of all sects agains Ahmadis and against each other (page 147-164) this heartfelt plea follows, which obviously fell on deaf ears;

For God's sake, do some justice! Have a modicum of fear of God. Have some sense of obligation to being the followers of our lord and master Hadhrat Muhammad, the chosen one (saw), who was the personification of justice. Tell us, how far are the atrocities and injustices being perpetrated against Ahmadis by the ulema of the majority of the aforementioned sects, justified? How far such conduct is becoming of a Muslim; how far does it behove any humble follower of the one who was "Mercy for the Universe"? If one does offer prayers behind them, one is branded as kaafir; if one does not offer prayers behind them, one is still branded as kaafir! It is a no-win situation. What is one supposed to do? Is the only way left for one to retain Islam as his faith is to abstain altogether from offering prayer in congregation—as the majority among the generality of Muslim has already done? (page 164)

A link to the fatwa delivered by Rabita-e-Alam-e-Islami against Ahmadiyya Muslims in 1974.


Previous: 1974 and Shia genocide
Next: WikiLeaks and 1974 anti-Ahmadiyya agitation