A demolition in Kharian
Destruction of one’s home of worship is a propagation of hatred and intolerance. Of course, such abominable actions are nothing new in the history of Pakistan. Agitation against the Ahmadiyya community began in 1948 when the religio-political group, the Majlis-e-Ahrarul Islam, demanded that Ahmadi government officials be removed from their posts. Pakistan’s foreign minister at the time, Zafarullah Khan, was also an Ahmadi. In 1953, mass rioting and hate campaigns launched against Ahmadis led to Zafarullah Khan’s resignation in 1954. Surprising on the state’s part, an inquiry was launched into the rioting in order to understand the reason for the agitation and to potentially seek protection for the victims of intolerance. The analysis was titled ‘The Punjab Disturbances of 1953’, also known as the Munir Commission Report. Written by Justice Mohammad Munir, the report found the Ahrar guilty of injustice and concluded, “… it is our deep conviction that if the Ahrar had been treated as a pure question of law and order, without any political considerations, one district magistrate and one superintendent of police could have dealt with them”.
The report was ignored by the National Assembly in 1974 when an amendment to the Constitution declared Ahmadis non-Muslims, granting religious persecution, the protection of law. Further humiliation was brought to the Ahmadi community in 1984, when Ahmadis were prohibited to ‘pose’ as Muslims. Where does one begin to describe the irony?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Pakistan once committed, states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his [or her] religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. However, it appears that this does not apply in Pakistan.
While Pakistan’s majority is Sunni, it houses many minority sects and religions. The people belonging to those sects and religions, while they might be peace-loving, are automatically treated as inferior and as enemies. With Pakistan fighting multiple internal and external battles, how is the country ever supposed to unite in order to fend off opponents in those battles?
It is not for the police or the government of a country to decide what qualifies one as Muslim or non-Muslim. Religion is a subjective matter — one of the heart and the mind — and must not be objectified through the implementation of discriminatory laws. State interference in an individual’s personal beliefs is a frivolous pursuit that is only detrimental to the progress of Pakistan as it excludes significant portions of its already withering minority population.
The incident in Kharian will only encourage the police to act in a similar manner in the future. Minority laws must be revised and paid more heed to. The police force must be taught to be tolerant and fair in its dealings with and treatment of minorities.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (97)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
It seems that all the Anti Pakistan elements have gathered on ET ...
Rehmat
I will address points raised in your last para, since that is where the meat is.
(1) There is absolutely no objection to Ahmadis quietly and peacefully worshipping in their own house of worship if they take the basic precaution of ensuring that by design, signage or any other form of communication, their house of worship does not lead an average Pakistani to assume that people inside are Muslims.
Ahmadis do have a right to worship as they please. They do not have a right to publicly signify or claim that their form of worship represents Islam in any way.
(2) Allah is all powerful and can do everything. Yet he places great individual responsibilities upon the shoulders of those who believe in Him. To be a believer is to be an agent of Allah's will, an instrument of His plans. Allah will surely act, but only when Muslims act first. Afllah's infinite Power is no excuse for a believer's inaction.
Ibrahim
That is an unfair assumption. Ibn Sina was a man of multi-ffaceted talents and of great achievements. One can have no difficulty recognizing his contributions to human understanding in a variety of fields other than religious.
In matters of religion, he simply was not sharpest knife in the drawer. He was far too influenced by unIslamic philosophies, perhaps continuing the traditions of his Persian ancestors. To him Islam was a derivative to be fitted within pre-existing unIslamic frameworks - an endevour he did not much succeed in, given the revolutionary nature of Islamic Prophetic revelation. Al Ghazali had no trouble at all identifying Ibn Sina's departures from Islam and setting the later generations of Muslims on the right path.
@kaalchakra: "The fundamental legal prohibition is only about Ahmadis making sure that none of their individual or institutional claims, signage, or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication leads other Pakistanis of today into believing that Ahmadis speak for or are associated with Islam. What is not clear in that?"
What is unclear is where in either this law or Quran does it state t hat non-Muslims cannot worship in structures that have domes. Even if domes were reserved for mosques (which is clearly not the case), surely the law would apply to all places of worship built after the law came into effect - how can you retroactively apply the law to a place of worship that was built before the law came into being?
"But we learn to live with those ‘freedom-limiting’ laws because we know that other people have rights too – which may contradict our rights in specific cases. Muslims have a right to do whatever needed to protect Islam, as they understand it. "
First of all please explain how Ahmadis quietly and peacefully worshipping in their own house of worship endangers Islam? Secondly it is Allah that protects us. Allah does not need us to protect him. Finally you are saying that Muslim's right to destroy someone else's place of worship is higher than the other person's right to peacefully pray in their own place of worship? IT is people like you who give a bad name to Islam because your thought process is the complete opposite of what Islam stood for i.e. adl. In supporting such unjust laws you are acting against the will of Allah and the guidance in Quran.
Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un (إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّـا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ)
May God save Islam from the muslims. Ameen.
Yasin and Kaalchakra One greatest intellects that the Islamic world has produced Ibn Sina would not be considered a Muslim by many Sunnis in today's Pakistan. He would killed if were alive today in Pakistan. Just reading your comments makes me sure you will have little tolerance for his thinking. I hope others reading here will reflect that there must be something wrong with the current state of Islam.
observer
What is your objection against opportunism?
Umer
I will be glad to explain if something is not clear to you..
"Each one of us only can, and has an obligation, to act based on our perception of reality."
That is, we cannot escape our responsibilities, duties, and obligations with the claim that we do not have FULL and complete information ever. Only Allah has not that knowledge and understanding. Yet He does not excuse us our duties, responsibilities, and obligations.
Hope that is clearer now.
@Kaalchakra
Are there some limits on those rights? I think there are and these limits are decided by different societies in accordance with certain basic criteria explicitly or implicitly set by those societies.
A.Since the 'society' in question has decided,
i. That religious groups have the right to design their places of worship- Look at Faisal Mosque
ii. That the Ahmadis are a non-Muslim religious group.
It should not be too difficult to comprehend that Ahmadis have a right to design their own places of worship too.
B Implicitly??
As in opportunistically? When Ahmadi votes were required for making Pakistan they became Muslims and then they became Wajibul Qatl.
@kaalchakra:
I don’t know what this means in the context of current discussion except that you have run out of any genuine arguments.
@kaalchakra:
So it’s bad law which has no moral or religious basis as the discussion has shown. We should condemn the law instead of trying to defend the indefensible. What is so complicated about it?
@ kaalchakra A child acts on it its perception of reality which is often wrong. When we grow up we realize we were wrong. We will attack Ahamdis and totally change the character of Islam in Pakistan then we will realize in hundred years from now we were wrong. But it will be too late. I not as smart as you and Yasin to be certain that about the correctness of my beliefs.
Umer
Each one of us only can, and has an obligation, to act based on our perception of reality. That is the "practical truth" for the person in question. A Muslim must act based on his or her perception of reality and best understanding of Islam. He or she does so in good faith, with the recognition he or she may not understand or know EVERYTHING in time and space, or ALL of Islam, since, Islam clearly guides, only ALLAH know best.
gp65
Pakistani law is about Pakistan, of today. The fundamental legal prohibition is only about Ahmadis making sure that none of their individual or institutional claims, signage, or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication leads other Pakistanis of today into believing that Ahmadis speak for or are associated with Islam.
What is not clear in that?
Lala gee, thanks for joining the discussion, Now we can notch up the level of discussion a bit. The basis issue here relates to the very nature, scope and availability of human rights. Are there some limits on those rights? I think there are and these limits are decided by different societies in accordance with certain basic criteria explicitly or implicitly set by those societies.
@kaalchakra: "Dear friends We can split hairs as much as we like – with references to Romans to Chinese – but an average Pakistani associates minarets with Islam."
So the issue is not about Quran saying that minarets can only be used by Muslims, it is just a question of some Pakistanis thinking so. As Umer and I have pointed out several examples of structures with domes which are not mosques (Taj Mahal, St. BAsil's cathedral, Russia, St. Paul's cathedral , London). In fact domes and minaret like structures predate Islam. So by having a place of worship that has domes, the Ahmadis are neither non-compliant with Quran or the constitution because they are not representing themselves as Muslim.
Further this law came into effect in 1984. This place of worship was built prior to that, so you cannot say that it violated the law. For example if Swiss have said minarets cannot be built, it just refers to future buildings. They are not going around destroying all structures with minarets that were built before the law came into existence.
What I understand after reading all the comments and the op-ed can be summarized as below:
1- Everybody has the basic human right to decide which religion and a particular sect he wants to follow and he should be allowed to freely follow and propagate his beliefs. In the matters of belief, everybody is his own judge and hence answerable to God. That is why some people are Muslims and the others are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists etc. because they think they are following the right belief while the others may be not. Even in Muslims, there are different interpretations of the same Quran and Hadith, the only reason for the existence of various sects in Islam. In the end it is only God almighty who will decide who was right and who was wrong.
2- The followers of every religion decide what there places of worship should look like, not the other way round. In case of Ahmadies, they have the same right to build their mosques with or without domes and minarets as these are not copyrighted designs of Muslims are anybody else. Even every mosque has different shape, size and color combination of domes and minarets. One can instantly recognize Shiat mosque from Sunny mosque. The Faisal Mosque in Islamabad is entirely different in character and shape than the Badshahi Mosque of Lahore. The minarets of the Faisal Mosque are just like vertical columns with pointed ends and a curved roof instead of a proper dome. So what exactly makes it look like a mosque if the dome and the minarets are the only symbols of a mosque.
@kaalchakra: Major scholars of all sects are declaring each other kafir for last 1400 years. However we don’t need to go in history, as in Pakistan the kafir factory is in major swing right now and there is plenty of bloodshed among various sects who not only consider others kafir but also worthy of killing. These scholars obviously do not subscribe to your opinion that there is only one sect which they consider kafir. In fact all sects consider others kafir and if we take any one sect, then according to it only it is correct and all the rest are kafir. Just because you don’t accept it doesn’t change the reality.
There is a complete misunderstanding of Islam among non-Muslims.
No believer, least of all a Muslim, needs direct certificates signed by God Almighty to have full and complete faith. And then, based on that faith, to ACT. A Muslim who does not act based on his or her faith is not a Muslim.
In real populations, there would always be many people who 'have faith' yet, for all kinds of reasons, fail to act. But there would also be many who have faith and do decide to act. That is their right and obligation.
Now, to the question of 'other sects'. We may well disagree with many of the aspects of other sects. Yet, overall, we may find that they do not cross the threshold (decided individually) of unacceptability that calls for action.
The fact of the matter is that it is not mere 'sunnis' who have never accepted Ahmadism as any valid 'form' of Islam - as many non-Muslims believe. Shia scholars and leaders, sufi saints - ALL have disagreeed among themselves but have joined hands against Ahmadism, which they see as a clear negation of Islam.
@Yasin:
Everybody is already doing it for the last 1400 years haven’t you noticed? What about all those sects and sub-sect who do their own interpretations? The numerous Imam's whom some accept and others reject. The numerous scholars over centuries, who disagree among themselves, and called each other kafir for their interpretations of scripters. All this is going on for the best part of 1400 years.
I am afraid you have not researched the subject at hand enough before commenting on it.
@Yasin:
Certainly in 1400 years a lot of disagreement has crept up about the meanings of the scriptures and there are numerous sects disagreeing to the point of killing each other blatantly. You can’t white wash all these differences by a stroke of pen. If you are so sure that you have understood religion so well to know the exact truth then name the sect that is correct among all those sects? Then what about the rest of sects who disagree? What about their opinion? After all they read the same Quran as you do. What makes your understanding correct and theirs wrong? In the end nothing short of a direct certificate signed by God Almighty will prove that you are the correct one as there are just too many opinions and killings over meanings of scriptures otherwise.
Excellent posts, Yasin.
@Ibrahim: you don't have to live 1400 years ago if you have to understand the religion. Quran is free of any impurity and it will stay so forever as Allah has ordained in his book. Similarly, sunnah is protected in the form of saheeh ahadith and people have dedicated their lives to scrutinize and verify the ahadiths. That is how we have documented ahadith and fiqh to understand the religion. If we take your argument, then everyone has the license to interpret religion according to his own will, needs and favor and simply say that this is a personal matter which is between him and Allah. I suggest that we should study the religion without going into the controversies of sects i.e. book of sahih ahadiths like Bukhari, Muslim etc, which are equally respected by all sects and Holy Quran with translation. Only then we can have a better understanding of religion ourselves and distinguish between petty issues and bigger issues.
@observer: My friend, none of the points you have raised belongs to the basic principles of islam and whether or not someone practices any of these doesn't make him non-muslim. As I mentioned, the differences among various sects are not of the extent that term another sect non-muslim. Khatm e nabuwwat is for sure one of the basic principles of islam and one who believes that there was a prophet after Hazrat Muhammad SAW, is out of circle of Islam. If you can coem up with a different viewpoint of any of the muslim sects, I will be curious to know about it.
@Yasin Did you live 1400 years ago ? Were you there as an witness ? Was the language the same 1000 years ago ? A Urdu or a English or a French or a Persian speaker or an Arabic speaker will not understand his language if taken back 1000 years . The meaning of words change with time ? Peoples memories are not 100 %. There many disputes over a thousand years ago. Why do you make rash statements when there are so many uncertainties ?
@Yasin
All the sects agree on the basic set of belief is Islam and that if a person or a group of persons negates one of the basic principles of Islam, he ceases to be muslim.
A. Do all the 'Sects' agree on erecting Dargahs?
B. Do all the sects believe in praying at Dargahs?
C. How do all the 'Sects' view Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Hussain?
And does it have an impact on being a 'Muslim'?
Don't be shy,say it, since you know what 'all the sects agree on'.
@Yasin:
What is the logic here? If any building can have minarets, mosque or otherwise, then why can’t Ahmadis have minarets? Even churches have minarets and dome.
@Atif S. Ahmad:
"The Laws of 1984 (Ordinance XX, Blasphemy Laws) and Second Amendment to the constitution of Pakistan must go!! The influence of Mullah on our society since 1974 is increasing day by day and we have almost reached the age of total disaster and bloodshed. If we want/need to save Pakistan we should make Pakistan a secular state, else the future is RED!"
Pakistan can never be a secular state. It was created based on Islam and the Objectives Resolutions cast it in stone. The problem, thus, started with the founding ethos of Pakistan. Now you are stuck with it. You can't blame the mullahs on this one.
Dear friends
We can split hairs as much as we like - with references to Romans to Chinese - but an average Pakistani associates minarets with Islam.
Allah Himself authorizes, in fact, expects, every Muslim to be an agent of local and global action. When He removed the priestly classes from His final religion, he revolutionized religion by making every Muslim personally responsible for defending Islam, for promoting virtue and preventing vice. A believer who can't or refuses to make judgments of right and wrong fails Allah and is not a believer.
About the Taj Mehal thing, I understand that this argument is basically flawed. The main point is that Ahmedis should not adopt the symbols of Islamic identity i.e. their worship place should not resemble with muslim worship place - mosques. It is that simple. All the buildings having minarates (other than worship places) may not be mosques but all the mosques do have minarates and Ahmedis have to watch this.
For all those folks, who say that faith is a matter between a person and God. Allah and his messenger SAW have clearly defined the boundaries of the religion. All the sects agree on the basic set of belief is Islam and that if a person or a group of persons negates one of the basic principles of Islam, he ceases to be muslim. Sahaba e kiram fought wars against the those who proclaimed to be false prophet by terming them non muslims. Similarly, those who declined to pay zakat were dealt with very strictly by Hazrat Abu Bakr. Do not confuse the matter with the petty differences among various sects. If some extremist elements in every sect term other sects as kafir, that should not be considered the voice of all the followers of that particular sect. And this should not be made basis to justify the matter of Ahmedis.
The problem is that people tend to be authority on religion when they haven't even acquired the basic religious education and comment on religion with the spectacles of liberal west who is totally allergic with the religion.
@Yasin:
I ask, Who will decide once future, the Pakistani Mullas, Government OR The Allah the Almighty ? There is no force can be used on once beliefs. Qura'an does not teaches these. The amendment in constitution in 1974 was a Z.A.Bhutto's game, who planned the whole episode to gain favours from the Mullas and vested interest and also used his political black mailing so that he gets the people to vote in favour of his plan. He tried to take the power of Allah in his hand, so he was hanged by his own general Zia. Then the general Zia also tried to use the same formula of Bhutto and issued his own version of rules to harm Ahmadies in 1984. He also tried to become the hero for Mullas but Allah destroyed his dreams also and he was vanished in thin air & only his Jabra was found. If you think seriously, then you will realise that you all are trying to destroy Allah's mission which He wants to be completed though his man, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian & his jama'at, who was supposed to be Masih & Mehdi. His mission is & was to spread the true Islam of Hazrat Mohammed Mustfa (PBUH) to the world and its propagation, because Islam is not for Pakistan , or for muslim counytries but it is for the unverse. Who ever is trying to harm Ahmadiyyat , they are trying Harm Islam as whole. Laslty remember & note that who ever tries to harm Ahmadiat, they will have to face Allah's punishment & Azab.
Think about it !!!!!!
@gp65:
St Paul's church, a famous landmark in London, has a huge dome and minaret like structures; http://london.lovesguide.com/images/paul_cathedral.jpg
Unlikely that Londoners would accept its destruction on the pretext that it has a dome and minarets.
Nice article. I like the way she describe the story and also condemn the incident of cruel animals.
Dear all, The Taj Mahal has antecedents that go back 2000 years. The dome can be traced back to the Hagia Sofia in Istanbul (Constantinople ). The Hagia Sofia was built by the Roman Greeks(Byzantines). Hagai Sofia in turn has influences from the Parthenon in Rome. The Moslems built on the traditions of the civilizations that preceded them. What is purely Islamic about the Taj Mahal then ? Just walk around Pakistan with open eyes and you will see what i mean. Art, music and other things which we think we think are characteristically Islamic are based on Greek, Roman, Persian and YES even Hindu foundations. Painful as it is to some, the Taj Mahal reflects all these influences.
@Umer: "@kaalchakra: The Taj Mahal is not being used to propagate a different religion. Is Taj Mahal a mosque? No. So it should be destroyed for its resemblance with a mosque due to its domes and minarets if in fact minarets and domes are only allowed for a mosque."
Well said Umer. I agree that domes are not patented for mosques. I would also like to point out that St. Basil's cathedral also has domes. Now as a Cathedral, it certainly does represent a different religion. So even that part of kaalchakra's logic does not stand. http://www.sacred-destinations.com/russia/moscow-st-basil-cathedral
@Lala Gee: "Only in a secular state (in my opinion, secularism is the true spirit of Islamic system of governance) can protect the rights of all the divergent religions and competing sects."
One of the few times that I can fully agree with you.
@Imran Farooqi: @kaalchakra: My question remains the same? who decides that a faith is distorted and not in alignment with Islam? state or Maulvis?if Maulvis, then of which sect? Aren't Shia's now being discriminated and paying with their life, for beliefs which others consider unislamic. Please answer my question who has the authority to decide these things and where will it end?
@kaalchakra:
Is Taj Mahal a mosque? No. So it should be destroyed for its resemblance with a mosque due to its domes and minarets if in fact minarets and domes are only allowed for a mosque.
@kaalchakra: The Taj Mahal is not being used to propagate a different religion.
But Taj Mahal was built by a Muslim and resembles not much different to a mosque. So, the majority Hindus should say that it propagates Islamic art and culture, provided the Hindus follow the hard-liner Muslims of Pakistan.
Amna Agha, i applaud you for a well researched and insightful column. Rather than sit on the fence, more of us need to express our opinion against these bigoted people. Turkey, where i have spent many years, is a good role model for our country. As long as you are a good Turk, you may openly practice any religious belief.Period. And no one dare give you a "Holier than thou" sermon!
@Ali tanoli:
Founder of Darulaloom Deoband disagrees with you and here is the evidence;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfde2WGvf3w
@kaalchakra:
Taj Mahal is NOT a mosque. It should not have minarets and dome if minarets and dome are only reserved for mosques. Do not dodge the real issue here. Minarets and dome are not a copyright item for a mosque otherwise they would never have been allowed on a non-Mosque building such as Taj Mahal.
@kaalchakra: "The ONLY requirement is that they make no overt religious sign or statement that will mislead others into thinking that Ahmadis are Muslims."
What about those who overtly make sign that will mislead people into thinking that they are Muslims while they behead innocent people ( mostly only Muslims) or giving such violent sermons inciting people to kill ( in the name of Islam offcource)? So, you are very comfortable with that?
@Imran Farooqi: Francis Fukuyama wrote a book titled The End of History and the Last Man which was a praise of the triumph of capitalist ideology. So does this mean the human history came to an end in 1989 (the demise of the Soviet Union)? Or should we accept that he is the last political scientist on the face of earth? The history, culture, religion, politics, and boundaries of the states are evolving values. As these evolve, some new questions come up sometimes generating social tensiMaxons, ideological confrontations, and to some extent transforming into paradoxes. Does this anology helps you that human history is a continuous process and that also includes rise and fall of religious ideologies. Pakistan! Get over your myopic vision of religion. Life is just too short.
Its been long time where are you brother Abdul Rehman Gillani.??
Umer
The Taj Mahal is not being used to propagate a different religion.
"May be the beliefs you hold are considered unislamic by a different sect, how will you repond to that?"
Elementary, Ahmadis are fundamentally different from all other sects of Muslims. The differences are far too many to list here, but the biggest is that they make their leader a Prophet of Allah, and by doing so, change basic teachings and family of Islam with supposed authority directly from Allah. Of course, they offer all kinds of shifting explanations but that is a fact which places them firmly outside of Islam.
Can the teachings of Islam accommodate a man who claims to be the Mahdi of Islam but meets none of the Islamic criteria, the Ram and Krishna of Hindus based on their Vedas, and the rebirth of Buddha teaching Buddhism from Quran? No. Such a person can be a missionary for his own religion, not for Islam, particularly if he wants to change meanings based on authority from Allah.
@observer: Thay may have all the rights of a minority if they accept that they are not Muslim. The refuse accepting that Prophet Muahmmad (S.A.W) is the last Prophet of Allah and then they insist to build a Masjid, it doesn't make sense. Most of the religions have some common values but even that Muslims pray in Masjid, Hindu worship in Mandar, Sikhs go Temple and Christians go to Church. It never happened that Hindus wished to perform Puja in a Masjid and a Muslim went to a Mandar for prayer. Then why should Ahmadi's do if they are not Muslim? Freedom of religion doesn't mean mixing many religions to make a new religion.
@Hairaan
The issue of examining the heart arises when one claims to be following the right faith.
You mean Ahmadis 'claim' to be following the 'wrong faith'?
@Hairaa: You wrote ":A person who follows distorted unislamic believes and claims to be a Muslim would of course be termed as non-Muslim."
Who will decide that beliefs are distorted?? state ? Maulvis? It were Ahmadi's first; now it's shia's; then it will will be deobandis then.............. It's never going to end. May be the beliefs you hold are considered unislamic by a different sect, how will you repond to that?
Observer, my friend, why is this so difficult? You intelligent folks can apprehend the Higgs boson inside a tunnel, so why not this simple fact in broad daylight?
Ahmadis have a full right to have a place of worship.
They can live as long as they would like and Allah would allow them.
The ONLY requirement is that they make no overt religious sign or statement that will mislead others into thinking that Ahmadis are Muslims. If they simply announced that they speak as non-Muslims, they can live happily in Pakistan or any other Muslim country. In unIslamic countries, people have no clue so societies place no restrictions upon them.
To you it may not matter, to many religions it may not matter, but Islam is serious about protecting itself from misrepresentation.
@R.A: Ahmedis are declared non-Muslim based on their declared believes. The example you quoted is simply irrelevant. A person who follows distorted unislamic believes and claims to be a Muslim would of course be termed as non-Muslim without examining his heart. The issue of examining the heart arises when one claims to be following the right faith.
@Hairaan
Ahmedis are non-Muslims. Period.
And therefore,
a. They have no right to have a place of worship?
b. The have no right to live?
I am double Hairaan now.
Let me start by condemning this religious persecution of Ahmedis in Pakistan, same people who helped creation of this country so that its citizens can enjoy their freedom are being persecuted for their faith.
For those who believe Minarets represent Muslim identity should consult the Quran, God is all encompassing and creator of the entire universe. Narrow minded image of Allah is itself negation of the creator, if anyone is guilty of falsifying the creator it is those with a narrow vision.
After this demolition incident, all of Pakistan's problems should be solved. Because this was the only issue that needed attention......Were those innocent and peaceful minarets an obstacle ???. When are we going to be sensible???? Such things just invite curse of Allah, and we are already in mess how can we manage more! Khuda ke liyay and to save Pakistan stop this before it is too late. A great article, keep it up. May Allah give you the strength and courage to speak for the suppressed.
@O P and Ali tanoli You say that Ahmadis are not Muslims While Ahmadis say they are How to decide who is right 1. When a companion of Holy Prophet S A W S killed a man who had recited Kalima The Prophet asked him did you tear apart his heart to find out if he was not telling the trouth 2. To day again it is only Allah or his Prophet who can decide this no one else has the authority to do so can I asks whome Allah gave this authorityMs Agha, I admire your courage for writing such an honest analysis of the situation regarding minorities (Ahmadis) in particulr. I am sure you are reading the comments and may feel assured that there are liberal and sensible souls out there. But be careful. Most of these comments are made by Ahmadis. Whenever I talk about this intolerance to my Pakistani friends, I am disappointed that they do not share my liberal views at all. In fact some 'accuse' me of an Ahmadi myself. I am certain some comments are not allowed to be printed by ET, as they hit below the belt. So there is a jungle of wild craziness in the country and conservative Muslim minds abroad. In my view, things can only improve if the truth is told as it is. WE must make people realize that we do not live in a one way street, where we can demand tolerance from others, without giving an inch in return. If this mentality does not change, things are going to get far worse before they get better. Thank you Ms Agha and thank ET for highlighting such madness. Has any case been registered against the culprits and police yet?
even if we suppose Ahmadis non-muslims for the sake of argument, then why are they not given the status of a minority like the other minorities of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and a plethora of muslim sects....are they not citizens of this god forsaken country?
@ Salman Arshad, Well Said, Police deserves salute for its performance in this matter. I second what you said because Police may intentionally avoid cold-blooded murderers, drug baron, hate-mongers, thieves, bandits, land mafia lords but immediately responds whenever there is an incident of blasphemy etc. But we appreciate general public too who rarely become witness against a hard-criminals but never miss chance to please God when someone is charged with blasphemy, even lynch such culprits on spot lest they would lose paradise if they did not stone such ugly characters.
It is extremely heartening to hear such words from the learned lady. It is ignorance at the best to assume that God discriminates among its children on the basis of religion, sect or gender. In fact such is his justice that everyone has to pay for his sins
@Mirza: it was initiated by ZAB, dont forget this fact. ZAQ only progressed in the foot steps of ZAB. The prime culprit of this is ZAB and after that ZAQ came to exploit it for his gains.
What a nice description of people who can't be trusted. The Police? there has to be a better name for them...
@Author: I fully concur with your assertion "It is not for the police or the government of a country to decide what qualifies one as Muslim or non-Muslim". Religious beliefs are purely a personal matter directly related with God and the Individual and state or anybody else has no business with that. This was exactly what Quaid-e-Azam advised to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. As being a staunch believer of the Quaid's wisdom and foresight, I would say this is the only solution of Pakistan's current sectarian tensions and killings. Only in a secular state (in my opinion, secularism is the true spirit of Islamic system of governance) can protect the rights of all the divergent religions and competing sects.
Well written and rightly said. However, the happenings at the street level, even while in collusion with the police is not true indicator of a state in developing countries. There can be hundreds of aberrations, and at the most it can be called as a less governed state. But, what matters most to the world is what the constitution of the state stands for. Unfortunately, the Pakistani constitution itself allows all that the author has opposed, like objectivity in religious matters, division of people based on their religion, and all these in intern leading to discriminatory laws etc etc. Deleting just couple of sentences from the constitution would easily archive all that the author is wishing for.
sad
Ahmedis are non-Muslims. Period.
Amna Agha let me say you wrote this article with lot of bravery and courage--- which is normally vanish in our newspapers and columnists. your following sentence "It is not for the police or the government of a country to decide what qualifies one as Muslim or non-Muslim". is the key ---- of peace--- if GOVT follow this there will be no mess in the country.
ahmeddis as a minorities should be respected ..... but you cant call them muslims as they dont believe in prophet mohammad pbuh as a final massenger of god...... so ahmeddis should be respected but they cant be called muslims..............
the nation lost its manifesto given by its Father of Nation i.e. his 11th August Speech before constituent Assembly. Father of the Nation said that state had nothing to do with someone's religion. Unfortunately, the nation and its leader took u-turn from the policy given by Father of the Nation. now the state not only interferes in religious matters but also considers it as its most important duty. Kharian incident is offshoot of these policies.
There is only one remedy to avoid these kind of incidences that is to review our constitution and laws and repeal all religious provisions from the Constitution and laws. our constitution should be for whole nation not only for Muslims. every Pakistani should have equal rights and opportunities under the law. Every pakistani should have right to become President and Prime Minister of the Country.
First I would like to applaude this brave person, for writing the article from the depth of her heart. Plight of Ahmadis reminds me a film, which came out in seventies about the life of the Holy prophet saws. It's name was "message "- it showed how Muslims in the Meccan days were persecuted beaten, tortured and killed. They were shown to be saying their prayers in private, fear of persecution and their life. They were not permitted to call azan and were not allowed to call themselves Muslims (they used be called sabis). This is ironic that the rest of the world is marching forward, however this land of the pure is sliding back into the dark ages. I personally don't see any one grabbing the bull by the horns and try to reverse the rot. Even chief un- justice is blind to the fate of Ahmadis and other minorities. This nation is happily and blindly walking the plank. Ahmadis have served this country well and selflessly, Muslims throughout the history have been very ungrateful to their" mohsins" I use to bleed green, however not any more because this country is a lost cause.
Rather than being Pakistanis, we are focusing on the differences in personal beliefs and faiths. This bigotry and hypocracy has landed this wretched country in the mess we find ourselves in. Ahmadis are Pakistanis. I have had the honor and privilege of knowing and working alongside some of the best officers and finest pilots in the Pakistan Air Force, who were Ahmadis. They were brave, proud Pakistanis. Sadly, because of our bigotry, they are forced to distance themselves from us. ZAB not only split our nation in half, but also sowed the seeds of further dismemberment.
It is a shame that the state in 1974 declared Ahmadis as non muslims and then it did not stop there. Even though that declaration is deeply problematic, it failed to protect Ahmadi's rights as citizens of Pakistan. None of the civilan or military governments did anything to reverse such injustice and continue to fail its own citizens. All Pakistani liberals need to stand up for religious minorities but also those who take refuge in religious ideologies, human rights are fundamental irrespective of faith.
Persecuting peaceful religious minorities sets a very dangerous and self destructive path for any state, as well demonstrated by Nazi Germany. Just because a law has been passed by democratic means does not justify it, if it interferes with the basic, internationally recognized, human rights of a group. This is a classic example of misuse of democracy. The Munir Report clearly established the risks inherent in the state taking sides in religious matters or ceding too much authority to clerics. The scenario in which large-scale Shia-Sunni and Deobandi-Barelvi strife destabilizes the country into an Iraq or Syria like situation becomes the logical extension of all this.
u moderate people tak about constitution all the time then whyy dont u accept this that Ahmadis are non-muslim and their workship places should not resembles with Muslims...we only want this...
If the people are tolerant a country would never enact any such law of discrimination. Now to write a long winded article whining about it is nothing but crying over spilt milk. Why complain about only one law, there are many other laws subsequently enacted that are equally reprehensible.
Thank you author for honesty, bravery and courage! It is refreshing to see op-eds like this one given the number of sick and disgusting people we have. Pakistani Ahmadis are fully patriotic citizens of this country who are worried to the core about where these mullahs and others are leading Pakistan to. If anything their patience in the face of persecution is similar to that of the earlier Muslims in Mecca.
Pakistan is one of the Countries in the world Apart from Saudia, Iran, Israel and Some other Arab States where Religious Persecution is a part of the constitution. All Pakistanis should be proud of it. Our Constitution allows that so we have to agree with persecution of minorities. We should feel Proud that we will step first into Heavens as we are segregating evil and angels on this land of the God. Humanity is a definition that is well suited for Western countries not for Pakistan.
@Mirza: I agree Zia was the ultimate rogue,but I believe it was ZAB who started it by declaring Ahmadis Non-muslims.It paved the way for sectarianism and religious intolerance,by consitutionalizing /legitimitizing it. Subsequent PPP governments can't even dare to admit, it was a mistake.
@Ali tanoli:
Then how come so many sect are saying what, why, but on so many issues and blowing each other up too if it’s all so clear and there is no room for disagreement?
For all the Pakistani liberals who claim that such laws are unjust/cruel, what are you doing to change them? During the independence struggle,Gandhi had initiated a 'Non-cooperation' movement to not obey any unjust laws, and forced the Brits to amend/repeal such laws. I don't see any of the liberals protesting against these laws, not refusing to sign the passport application / preventing such demolitions! How about taking some tangible actions before it is too late, and end up getting steam-rolled by the fundamentalists.
It is unfortunate when facts are distorted or selective viewpoint is propagated to make one's case stronger, particularly by people who are considered to be more enlightened and educated. Fascism in any kind is wrong whether it's religious or liberal. The above article based on a news item published in The Express Tribune a few days back infers that Ahmedis are being persecuted, and this very incident is a proof of that, which I believe, is oversimplification of the issue in hand. We will have to consider the following facts. 1) Pakistan is home to the people of various school of thoughts like any other country. The constitution of a country is representative of the hearts and minds of the majority of the population. You may have your differences to parts of it but a change is only possible when the majority of the population has changed its opinion. 2) Whether you like it or not, Pakistan is an Islamic state whose constitution has to be in accordance with the teaching of Islam, which again, is something according to the will of the majority. Nowadays, we see a lot of so-called liberal intellectuals trying to prove that Quaid e Azam was a secular and he did not want Pakistan to become an Islamic state, giving an out of context reference of one of his speech but totally ignoring all the other public speeches where he spoke his heart about the concept of the Islamic state. 3) Ahmedis were not termed non-muslims overnight. There is a background to that and it was result of a movement which was not run by a single sect but it was the voice of the masses representing all school of thoughts of Islam, who believed that Khatm e nabuwwat is the basic principle of islam. If someone has a different faith than that, he has crossed the line. 4) Once, Ahmedis had been termed non-muslims, it was important to bar them from using the same identity as muslims, as they were using this to lure general public to convert to their religion. The other objective was to maintain interfaith harmony so that Ahmedis could live in peace, provided they didn't adopt the symbols of muslim identity, as this would hurt the feelings of muslims in general, hence the Ordinance of 1984. So why so much hue and cry, if the administration comes into action when Ahmedis violate the law which is necessarily a cause of creating law and order situation. Where do all the human right activist go when building of a Mosque at Ground Zero is stopped despite initial approval. And they must be happy and content when European countries legislate to ban hijab. 5) Ahmedis can not build their worship place in resemblance with muslim worship place. And the question is why do they have to. And if you ask of their opinion about all the sects of muslims, they term all of them as 'kafir' and according to their faith, only they are the faithfuls. 6) It is not that Islam will change its guidelines according to the changing 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. Allah is the creator of mankind and he has best defined the human rights. Change of religion, for instance, may be allowed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but in Islam, things are not like that. Converting from Islam to another religion is a grave crime. All the school of thoughts of Islam have unanimous viewpoint regarding that, whether you like it or not. Similarly, if Universal Declaration is now abandoning the death penalty, we can not change Quran or Sunnah according to that.
Thats written in Allah book send it to last prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and if we are muslims then there is no what, why, but ,it, wit, maam.
Thanks for honesty and bravery.
To the Author, Maa'm you rightly said:- "It is not for the police or the government of a country to decide what qualifies one as Muslim or non-Muslim." But you all have already decided that Ah-media's are non-Muslims and have incorporated this in your constitution. If the Prime Minister of your country cannot follow the directives of the Supreme court for fear of violating the Constitution.........what can you say of a lowly SHO. Appeasement of a section of the vociferous minority for short term gains makes the coming generations suffer for a very very long time. That this was done by an extremely progressive leader with supposedly leftist thinking is all the more regrettable and painful. I can understand people like you are pained but for most it is a tamasha and a sadistic satisfaction over other people's misery especially if you have been religiously indoctrinated to hate them --------- very human or is it inhuman
It's not just the ahmadis who are suffering.Atheists,agnostics,freethinkers have also had to endure persecution.The ahmadis get to atleast profess who they are,the people in pakistan don't allow anyone to be openly atheist/agnostic.The persecution is such that atheists have to live a lie their entire lives,have to live a lie so society will let them stay alive. The Ahmadi brothers have factories,businesses,jobs in multinationals.An openly atheist person can't have any of these things in pakistani society.
You should appreciate that there is at least some laws that the police is enforcing with full responsibility. Reprimanding the police for enforcing the law of the land is extremely undemocratic.. . The law itself.. well that's such a boring subject.. yawn!