Archive for the ‘Anti Ahmadiies’ Category
In recent past we are continuously observing a false & baseless propaganda against Great Islamic Scholar & poet Allama Iqbal about his associations with false prophet of Quadian. Brother “Waqar Ahmad Cheema” wrote an excellent piece on this topic at his blog. His article is just like a slap on Liberal / Ahmadi lobby wicked face
One of greatest Muslim philosophers and ideologues of all times, Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, gave special attention to the idea Finality of Prophethood (Khatam Al-Nubuwwah) and at length wrote about its significance in the House of Islam.
Here are some quotes from him;
“I want rather to fix your gaze on some of the ruling concepts of the culture of Islam in order to gain an insight into the process of ideation that underlies them, and thus to catch a glimpse of the soul that found expression through them. Before, however, I proceed to do so it is necessary to understand the cultural value of a great idea in Islam – I mean the finality of the institution of prophethood…
The birth of Islam, as I hope to be able presently to prove to your satisfaction, is the birth of inductive intellect. In Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need of its own abolition. This involves the keen perception that life cannot for ever be kept in leading strings; that, in order to achieve full self-consciousness, man must finally be thrown back on his own resources. The abolition of priesthood and hereditary kingship in Islam, the constant appeal to reason and experience in the Qur’an, and the emphasis that it lays on Nature and History as sources of human knowledge, are all different aspects of the same idea of finality…
The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that all personal authority, claiming a supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man’s inner experience. Just as the first half of the formula of Islam has created and fostered the spirit of a critical observation of man’s outer experience by divesting the forces of nature of that Divine character with which earlier cultures had clothed them. Mystic experience, then, however unusual and abnormal, must now be regarded by a Muslim as a perfectly natural experience, open to critical scrutiny like other aspects of human experience.”
(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)
At another place he further says;
“The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically the doctrine is that: The Socio-political organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam.“
And he does not stop here rather he goes on to answer some of the fundamental arguments of the Ahmadiyya. He says;
“Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder‘s own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually, amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of Prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad‘s Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the ‘finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.
He claims to be a ‘buruz’ of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a ‘buruz‘ of him his ‘finality‘ is virtually the ‘finality‘ of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the ‘finality‘ of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word ‘buruz‘ in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the ‘buruz‘ must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a ‘buruz‘ becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word ‘buruz‘ to mean ‘like in spiritual qualities’ the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.”
(Islam and Ahmadism, p.8 pub. Da’wah Academy IIUI, Islamabad)
And it is precisely the same Magian spirit which Iqbal like his great predecessor, Ibn Khaldun, considered to be against the spirit of the Muslim culture. In his lectures he says;
“I have already indicated the direction in which the student of Islam should seek the cultural meaning of the doctrine of finality in Islam. It may further be regarded as a psychological cure for the Magian attitude of constant expectation which tends to give a false view of history. Ibn Khaldun, seeing the spirit of his own view of history, has fully criticized and, I believe, finally demolished the alleged revelational basis in Islam of an idea similar, at least in its psychological effects, to the original Magian idea which had reappeared in Islam under the pressure of Magian thought.”
(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)
And the importance and vitality of the same idea of ‘finality’ he beautifully sums up in a single poetic verse;
لا نبی بعدی احسان خداست پردہ ناموس دین مصطفیٰ است
‘No Prophet after me’ is of God’s grace,
And veil the modest beauty of the Faith
One of the Pakistan’s greatest Ahmadi betrayer Sir. Zafarullak Khan who was unfortunately Pakistan’s first foreign minister provided a great damage to Palestine for fulfilling his community wicked plans to be settle in Haifa – An Israeli City. Please read the following article which is opening a new debate & unveiling his role.
Pakistan delegation to the UN was led by Sir Zafarullah, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and included Mirza A.H Ispahani, Pakistan Ambassador in Washington, Mir Laiq Ali, Abdul Sattar Pirzada and Begum Tasadduq Hussain.
The position taken up by Pakistan with regard to Palestine in the UN was that the Balfour Declaration and the League’s Mandate were invalid and against the wishes of people and the proposal of partition was contrary to the Charter.
The Ad Hoc Committee to which Palestine question was referred by the General Assembly, appointed two sub-committees to deal with it. These sub-committees were so constituted that all the members of sub-committee I were in favour of the partition while the member of sub-committee II opposed partition. Thus there was no hope of a compromise solution emerging from either sub-committees. To redress this situation, the Chairman of sub-committee II, who was the representative of Colombia, requested the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to nominate two states holding a neutral attitude in place of two Arab states, who were members of the sub-committee and who were willing to resign from it. On the refusal of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, the representative of Colombia resigned his Chairmanship of sub-committee II and Sir Zafarullah was elected in his place.
Sub-committee I, in its report recommended the internationalization of Jerusalem and the partition of rest of Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish, with a common economic council. Sub-committee II recommended a unitary state for the whole of Palestine with constitutional safeguards for the rights of all its inhabitants.
A Crucial Mission
Although Mirza Mahmud left Qadian and had come to Lahore and was faced with the crucial problem of finding a place to set up a centre in Pakistan, he never lost sight of Palestine question. When the issue was being discussed in the UN, he instructed Hakim Fazal Rahman, Qadiani missionary of Nigeria, to visit Palestine immediately. Walillah Shah and Jalaluddin Qamar were also instructed to go to Middle East and East Africa respectively to provide support to them. Hakim Fazal Rahman reached Beirut on 31 October 1947. Sheikh Noor Ahmad, Qadiani missionary Palestine writes:
“Hakim sahib suddenly arrived in Beirut and made effort to search me out. I was in Lebanon to see the cousin of Jamil Bek, the Prime Minster of Lebanon. I met Hakim Sahib on my return from Lebanon. Since he had to reach Pakistan, he wanted to go to Palestine at the very earliest. Anyhow, he left for Palestine on 4 November. Jama’at Kababir welcomed him, Hakim Sabib toured the cities of Jerusalem, Nasara, and Acca. He desired to see members of the Arab League Committee but owing to shortage of time he could not visit them. He stayed in Palestine for ten days. Then he left for Damascus. Noor Ahmad further states that he went to Beirut in connection with a very important work. During his absence from Damascus, Hakim Sahib saw many Barristers and Advocates, besides military officers. Hakim left for Karachi on 22 November 1947.”
Palestine issue came under frequent discussions in Lahore. In an important meeting held at Lahore, Mirza Mahmud discussed it in the context of an Arabic revelation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad which says:‘The holy men (Abdals) of Syria prayed for us (Arabic).‘ He interpreted it to mean that a section of Ahmadiyya Jama’at had to go to Syria in near future.
‘Hazoor (Mirza Mahmud) while discussing the revelation of the Promised Messiah that ‘Abdals of Syria prayed for you’ declared that a friend had drawn his attention to the point that the Promised Messiah ‘s revelation had come in the context of those revelations which signified distress. Hazoor said that this revelation had already been under his consideration. In Palestine adverse condition were prevailing. However, it would be possible that a section of Ahmadiyya Jama’at from us might have to go Syria. The revelation can be interpreted in two ways: One that the Abdal of Syria prayed to God for us and the other that they called us.‘ Amended Plan
In the UN, Sir Zafarullah opposed the partition scheme in accordance with the stand taken by Pakistan on the Palestine issue. It may be recalled that the Quaid had always supported the Palestinian cause in numerous conferences, interviews, press releases and through the resolutions of the Muslim League at its annual sessions, Council and Working Committee Meetings from 1937-48.Pakistan’s stand was absolutely clear. In reply to a question by Reuter’s correspondent Duncan Hooper (25 October 1947), the Quaid said:
‘The leader of our delegation to the UN, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, has clearly defined our position regarding the latest developments in Palestine.’
Strangely enough when discussions were going on the partition scheme in the UN, Zafarulla started proposing amendments to it, which meant that he, in principle, agreed to the scheme if it was slightly amended. That was said to be done on the suggestion of Danish representative with a view to ‘crippling’ the scheme. Zafarullah says that he proposed an amendment just to see the reaction on it but the amendment was immediately accepted after voting.
Syed Jamal-ul-Hussaini, the leader of the Palestine delegation hurriedly approached him and enquired why he had done like that. Sir Zafarullah says that he explained the position and apprised him of the Danish strategy. To his utter surprise, he asked him in case all of his amendments were accepted he would favour the partition scheme: Zafarullah: No! We will be strongly opposing it. We want at least to weaken the partition plan even if it is accepted. It will not be as bad as it is now.
Jamale : We (Palestinians) will be in great difficulty then.
Zafarullah: You may inform Arab representatives that they may not vote in favour of an amendment and remain neutral.
Jamal: The difficulty still persists.
Zafarullah: What is that?
Jamal: If the Partition has not manifestly usurped our right, our people will not be prepared to wage a war against it. We will incur a heavy loss. We will be thankful if you do not propose any amendment!
Zafarullah: I got silent.
What was the real intention of Sir Zafarullah? Did he intend to sabotage Palestine case by favouring an amended Partition Plan instead of a unitary form of Government for a united Palestine? How far it projected Pakistan’s stand on Palestine issue? These questions need a suitable reply.
Sir Zafarullah, in his speech, deeply sympathised with the Jews in the misfortune that they had suffered in Europe. But the correct solution of their problem, he pleaded, was that they should be reabsorbed in the countries to which they belonged and if that were not possible, they should be offered facilities for settling down in the larger, newer countries, which had more space and greater resources than tiny Palestine.
The supporters of the partition scheme were determined to see it through at all costs. The vote was to be taken in plenary session on 26 November 1947. But according to Sir Zafarullah, if it had been put to the vote on that day, partition could not have been carried. But the UN Secretary General informed that the UN staff would not work on Thanksgiving Day (28 November) therefore the matter must be postponed. When the matter came to actual voting after the adjournment, some of the states whose representatives opposed partition proposal tamely supported it at the behest of America and the resolution was passed. Then necessary two third majority was obtained for the partition scheme which was backed both by the US and the Soviet Union. Zafarullah feels convinced that it was the personal intervention of President Truman that brought about these changes.’
During the thanksgiving interval when the US was availing time to secure required majority for the Partition Plan, a correspondent asked Sir Zafarullah: What were the basis of successful negotiations between Arab and Jews? He replied: ‘If they agree to appoint me an Arbitrator I can solve the matter on correct lines.’24 It is not clear why and in what capacity he offered his services for arbitration and how far it fell in line with our stand on Palestine?
What was Ahmadiyya reaction to the ‘creation’ of Israel? AlFazl Lahore wrote a short column on the unjust resolution of partition and creation of a Jewish state. It was called a great defeat for the Arabs but at the same time its two bright aspects were stressed. Firstly, the Arab countries would know how to stand on their feet without inculcating wishful thinking for the West. Secondly the Arab countries would have realized the benefits of unity.
The paper neither condemned the partition nor exposed Imperialist-Zionist intrigues in any way. On the contrary Mirza Mahmud called the creation of Israel a fulfillment of prophecy already given in the Holy Quran, Ahadith and the Bible. The Qadiani elders also emphasized that Mirza Mahmud had already visualized it in a dream and his prophecy relating to ‘Modified Treaty’ clearly stipulated the Soviet assistance for the Jewish state. The prophecy is said to have been gloriously fulfilled after the creation of Israel.27
Zafarullah ‘s Role
Sir Zafarullah, in the capacity of the leader of Pakistan delegation to the UN was supposed to project Pakistan’s stand on Palestine issue. I.H.Ispahani says Zafarullah did well Anyhow, he was Pakistan’s representative and not a spokesman of Qadian. But it is very strange that whenever Qadiani role in support of Jewish “aspirations ” is exposed, they quote Pakistan press comments given in favour of Zafarullah’s speech at the UN, as if Pakistan stand on the issue was similar to that of Qadian’s. It is nothing but an attempt to conceal real facts.
The fact is that Zafarullah later on exploited Pakistan stand and his position to project Qadianism and to deceive Arab countries. When he returned from the UN he deliberately stayed in Syria to spend some time with Ahmadiyya community in Syria. He was welcomed at the airport by the Syrian officials as well as Sheikh Noor Ahmad Munir and other members of Qadiani community. Also present at the airport were Syed Sohail, the personal envoy of Syrian President, Ustaz Arif Hamza, representative of Syrian ministers, Ghalib Muoze Bek, General Superintendent Police, Fuad Mueen Bek and Izzat, and members of the Arab League. Zafarullah met the Syrian dignitaries in an ordinary and casual way but freely chatted with Qadiani members and warmly embraced them at the airport. That looked quite strange to the Syrian officials.
Noor Ahmad Qadiani writes in his report:
‘The representatives of Arab League asked the police officers who were these men (whom Zafarullah met so frankly). But he did not know Chaudhry Sahib had come to Damascus on our invitation and in accordance with our requests. His arrival here was a source of joy for us and moved by these feelings, every one desired to exchange greetings and embraced him with love. Every Syrian seemed to be surprised at it. They thought that Chaudhry Sahib had come here as a stranger. The Syrian press highlighted the reception accorded by Ahmadiyya Jama’at to him. In this way the Syrians came to know about the religious and political position of the Jama’at.’ Noor Ahmad further states: ‘The Syrian President requested Sir Zafarullah to have a lunch with him on 13 December 1947. He also invited me to lunch. We were informed that he (Zafarullah) would be the stage guest and a room had been reserved for him. Chaudhry Sahib asked me to request the President to allow him to stay with his Ahmadi brothers. He would like to stay in the hotel for only one night for his pleasure. I conveyed a literal translation of it to the President. He was very much amazed to hear it and inquired with surprise: ‘With whom he would stay’? I explained him in detail that Chaudhry Sahib would stay with us and we had made all arrangements in this regard.’ 31 Sir Zafarullah called on Mufti-e-Azam Palestine in Lebanon and exchanged views on Palestine question with high officials. He lunched with the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Jamil Bek alongwith a Qadiani party. Some important political issues were discussed during his stay with the President. In Beirut, Um-e-Jazam, the widow of the former President of Lebanese Parliament, Sheikh Muhammad Jassar was engaged in political activities. She and her husband embraced Qadianism for political reasons.
Zafarullah gave a proposal to Mirza Mahmud to launch a proselytising campaign in Arab states through setting up new mission. In subsequent years he fielded his missionaries in the Middle East in accordance with this plan.
Activities in Israel
Soon after the so-called State of Israel was proclaimed, the Palestinians waged an all out war against the Zionist forces. The Arab countries, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Egypt went into action against the Jewish state in support of Arabs of Palestine. Saudi Arabia and Yemen declared their participation in the war on the side of the Arab countries. In the armed conflict most of the territory of Arab states was forcibly annexed by Israel. The General Assembly ‘decision’ of 29 November 1947 for one Arab state remained unfulfilled. Israel carved out for herself 20700 sq. kilometer or nearly four-fifth of Palestine.
Ch.Muhammad Sharif, in his report sent from Israel to Pakistan calls the Israeli aggression, its ‘Victories’ and says:
‘On 23 April, 1948 Jews conquered Haifa. On 24 and 25 May they occupied suburbs of Haifa. Now came the turn of Arab population of Kababir. Early in the morning it was surrounded by the armed forces. They asked us if we wanted to leave the place then we should deposit all arms and surrender. We acted in accordance with the saying of the Holy Prophet (p.b.o.h), ‘A man who dies in defense of his wealth and land is a martyr.’ No army officer approached us. We gave ‘all clear’ (to the Jewish military forces) after making hectic search and investigation till evening.’ Mirza Mahmud fully realized the importance of Ahmadiyya Mission in Israel. He sent a special message ot Qadiani community of Israel from Lahore, a day before the termination of the British mandatory rule in Palestine. He instructed Kababir Jama’at of Israel not to sell their lands to Jews. Dost Muhammad, the compiler of Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat quotes an unpublished record of Ahmadiyya Advisory Body, Ratan Bagh, Lahore, dated 15 May 1948 stating that Hazrat Khalifa sent the following message to Ahmadis of Israel: ‘Write to Ahmadis of Syria to convey through whatever means they have, the message to Ahmadis of Kababir (Israel) to spend the difficult days with patience and in no way sell their lands to Jews whatever prices are offered to them.’ Brutal massacres and destructions were wreaked on Arab villages by Zionist organizations. There was ruthless murder of children and old people. The whole population of village Deir Yassin was mercilessly slain by the Hagana forces. The unarmed Palestinians fled in utter despair and panic from the villages to save their lives. During these days Ahmadi missionaries found an ‘excellent’ opportunity to exploit the miseries of Palestinian refugees. They visited the refugee camps and invited them to accept the false prophethood of Qadiani pretender. They also spied for the Zionists and informed them of the Palestinian resistance activities.
Rashid Ahmad Chughatai, in his report for the months of August-October, 1948 sent from Israel to Pakistan states:
‘I went to the city of Saur to see Ahmadiyya brothers of Haifa. There I preached Ahmadiyyat to Palestinian refugees. I stayed there for two days on the insistence of Ahmadi brothers. Besides preaching I spared time for their training. The Ahmadiyya message was given to 29 persons. Discussions took place with one of them for 4 to 6 hours. Some books were given to him to study Ahmadiyya creed.’ These shameful activities continued in utter disregard of the miserable plight of helpless refugees residing in tents and open. Ch.Sharif sent a report from Israel to Pakistan for the period 15 August, 1948-June, 1949. He says: ‘We saw the cities falling in front of our eyes. During these days nothing was heard except fire shots and every night we thought the day would not break on us. Although we were surrounded yet we continued to spread the message of Ahmadiyyat.’ An Absurd Proposal
On 16 May 1948 at the time of withdrawal of British forces from Palestine, Mirza Mahmud wrote a pamphlet in Urdu on Palestine question. Its Arabic translation was published from Iraq for wider circulation in the Middle East. The main theme of the pamphlet was:
Jews are occupying the holy places of Islam in accordance with the prophecies of the Heavenly Books. They intend to occupy the holy places of Islam. The greatest enemy of Islam is the Soviet Union. Its policy is much more dangerous to Islam than that of America. Pakistani Muslims should give at least one percent of their properties to the Government. In this way Rs. one billion may be collected. The Islamic world will follow the example and would contribute a sum of Rs. five to six billion for purchase of arms despite opposition from the Western countries. The holy places of Islam are in danger. Muslims should unite to defend them. In the end, it was emphasized that the prophecies of the Quran and Hadith undoubtedly stated that: ‘Jews would certainly occupy Palestine but only pious people would rule it forever. To shorten the period of prophecy Muslims should make sacrifice by casting aside their irreligiousness, heretic beliefs, lethargy and sluggishness.’ The pamphlet does not condemn Israel nor its brutal policies against the Arabs. Neither any sympathy with the Palestinian refugees has been expressed in any way. The proposal to hand over one percent of properties is not only impracticable but also ridiculous. At the time of partition, the Muslim refugees had even no place to take refuge not to speak of their properties. It was an attempt to win over the sympathies of Arabs in order to establish future pro-Zionist missions in the Middle East. Qadianis always considered themselves the chosen and pious people who would ultimately settle in Israel. Being firm believers in the prophecies of their Promised Messiah, Qadianis uphold that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s revelations i.e. ‘I have saved Israel from detriment. The Pharaoh and Human, the armies of both, are in the wrong,.. Avenues useful for Arabs, Arabs set out from their home’ relate to restoration of Jews in Palestine. The Review of Religions, Rabwah, explains: ‘This feature of the prophecy received a clear fulfillment. The war (1914) was not yet over when, a sa consequence of war itself Mr. (later Lord) Balfour declared that the people of Israel who had without a ‘homeland’ would be settled in their ancient ‘homeland’, Palestine. The allied nations promised to compensate the people of Israel for injustices done to them in the past. In accordance with these declarations, Palestine was taken from Turkey and declared the national home for the Jews. The administration of Palestine was shaped so as to make it easy for Jews to make it their homeland. A very old demand of the Jews that conditions promoting their national cohension should be created for them was met…’38 The Qadiani jopurnal further emphasizes: ‘The revelation of the Promised Messiah also says ‘I will relieve the Children of Isreal.’ This indicated a great change in the position of the Jews. It indicated the end of the opposition which nations of the world had offered so long to an independent home for Jews.’
Mirza Nasir Ahmad, the third successor of the Ahmadiyya community, was on his European tour in 1980. At a press Conference at the Café Royal in Piccadilly, in reply to question whether he recognized the State of Israel, he stated that he could not refuse to accept a fact of history that Israel exists.After his death Mirza Tahir Ahmad captured the Rabwah ‘gaddi.’ He very shrewdly put forth his point of view over the issue. His booklet ‘From Rabwah to Tel Aviv’ is an interesting study on the subject.
During the Gulf War (1991), he gave a series of ‘revealing’ addresses and an analysis of the role of big powers in the political upheavals in the Middle East. He also discussed the past role of Israel as an ally of Western countries. 40 It was an updated beat, a smoke screen to debunk the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda. He continued to enjoy the support of Western countries and the Jewish lobby.
During Goggling I found following piece from not any other place but from Lahori Ahmadiya Group website. Kindly keep in mind both groups (Quadiani and Lahori Ahmadi Group) have declared Non Muslim by National assembly in 1974
From about the year 1911 Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (second khalifa of the Qadiani Movement) started to put forward the doctrine that it is not sufficient for a person to declare belief in the Kalima Shahada in order to be a Muslim because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had now appeared as a prophet and belief in him must be acknowledged as well.
According to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, it is no longer sufficient for the existing Muslims to believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad and all the prophets before him. Now they must also declare that they believe in the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as well. Otherwise they cannot remain Muslims but become just like those Jews and Christians who believed in the previous prophets but failed to accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote a book A’inah-i Sadaqat, published in 1921, which was translated into English and first published in 1924 under the title The Truth about the Split. In this book, while acknowledging his beliefs, he writes:
“(3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his [i.e. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] Bai’at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.”
— The Truth about the Split, Rabwah, 1965, pp. 55–56. The 2007 edition of this book is available on the Qadiani website from the link http://www.alislam.org/books/. See page 56 for this extract.
See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 1].
In this book, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also gives a summary of his first article expressing these views which had earlier appeared in April 1911. He writes regarding this article:
“The article was elaborately entitled — ‘A Muslim is one who believes in all the messengers of God.’ The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that ‘those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah’. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah were not Muslims.”
— pages 135–136 of the 1965 edition. In the 2007 online edition at http://www.alislam.org/books/ see page 144.
“Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims.” (pages 137–138 of 1965 edition; page 146 of online 2007 edition)
“…not only are those deemed to be Kafirs, who openly style the Promised Messiah as Kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai’at, have here been adjudged to be Kafirs.” (pages 139–140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)
“And lastly, it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable Kafirs.” (p. 140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)
See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 2].
According to these views, the only Muslims in the whole world at any time are those who have taken the bai‘at of the Qadiani leader of the time. In the last quotation above, the closing words given as “veritable Kafirs” are “pakkay kafir” in the original Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat. The word pakkay conveys the significance of ‘real, true, absolute and full-fledged’, meaning that all other Muslims are kafir in the fullest sense without the least doubt.
Views of M. Mahmud Ahmad’s brother Bashir
For the views of Mirza Bashir Ahmad, younger brother of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, see this link.
Qadianis disallow funeral prayers for other Muslims.
Since the Qadiani belief is that all Muslims outside their community are non-Muslims, just like a Christian or a Hindu is a non-Muslim, the Qadiani leader Mirza Mahmud Ahmad forbade his followers from saying the funeral prayers of other Muslims. This instruction is given by him quite clearly and forcefully in his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published October 1916. At the end of the section where he deals with this question, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes as follows:
“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said. This leaves the question that if a man who believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be true but has not yet taken the bai‘at, or is still thinking about joining Ahmadiyyat, and he dies in this condition, it is possible that God may not punish him. But the decisions of the Shariah are based on what is outwardly visible. So we must do the same thing in his case, and not offer funeral prayers for him.”
— Anwar-i Khilafat, page 93 of original edition; underlining is ours.
This book is available online at the Qadiani website in the collection Anwar-ul-‘Uloom, v. 3, no. 5 from the link http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3. See pages 150–151.
See original Urdu text below from the book Anwar-i Khilafat [Urdu 3].
It is quite clear and plain from these instructions that the Qadiani belief is that all other Muslims, including the children , are unbelievers (kafir) and non-Muslims just as people of other religions such as Hindus and Christians.
Original Urdu texts of above quotations
Title page of first edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat:
Images below are from the online edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat at http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=6 (book no. 5). We have used red-lining to indicate the words being referred to.
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 35 original edition; p. 110 online edition)
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 84 original ed., p. 149–150 online ed.)
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 85 original ed., p. 150 online ed.)
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 86 original ed., p. 151 online ed.)
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 86 original ed., p. 151 online ed.)
Title page of first edition of Anwar-i Khilafat:
Anwar-i Khilafat, p. 93 original edition, p. 150–151 online edition. Image above is from the online edition of this book at http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3 (book no. 5)
It is been 10 days since Pakistan witnessed barbaric acts of terrorism in Lahore. Armed men went on a killing spree taking 100 lives. Ahmadis, a peaceful and quite community, were targeted. Perpetrators were highly equipped and held the premises and worshippers hostage for four hours before blowing themselves up. Fortunately one was captured alive and led to further arrests.
The immediate outburst at the 2nd Constitutional Amendment, “imtina i qadiyaniat ordinance” and blasphemy laws has deviated attention from the act to these controversial issues. These rants have a long history, although raised by a new breed of individuals, and stem from the secular doctrine.
The same doctrine that flourished in 20th century Europe as not only a historical process to de-divinize the cosmos, history, theology, philosophy, psychology, economy, and political life, but also became a way of thinking and living. Later it spread to Asia and Africa through European colonization. The colonized elite, politicians, men of letters were deeply influenced by the economic, political, social, intellectual and cultural colonialism experienced by them.
Our expressive brethren, remnants of above phenomenon, perhaps, notbecause of their dislike for the religion but because of the mind set created by the legacy of European intellectual tradition, consider secularism as a solution to our inner conflicts. They want to separate religion from state and yelp for such measures.
In a drive to separate religion from state these advocates are actually substituting Islam with Secularism which Henry Cox calls the new religion. In his article titled The secular city published in 1990, Cox argues “Secularism, on the other hand, is the name for an ideology, a new religion. With its claim to finality, apparently, lead to fundamentalist outlook in which nothing but secularism can solve socio-economic and political problems of the so-called developing world.”
Their patriotism is unquestionable nor there is any doubt in their intentions but the ill-direction has created a question mark on their objectives. Picking on controversial issues and constitutional clauses, especially the ones bearing religious importance, project them as praise savvy quixotic individuals. It appears not to be a matter of legislation or genuine concern for the minorities but a means to be projected and recognized as progressive, conscientious, enlightened and reformists in the west.
Voicing slogans of Dignity Equality and Freedom our learned thinkers remind me of voluntary followers mentioned by Henry Ford in The Dearborn Independent, July 24th 1920. Citing the 1st protocol of the Elders of Zion Ford quoted “Already in ancient times we were the first to shout the words, ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ among the people. These words have been repeated many times by unconscious poll parrots, flocking from all sides to this bait, with which ruined the prosperity of the world and true personal freedom … The presumably clever and intellectual Gentiles (non-Jews) did not understand symbolism of the uttered words; did not observe their contradiction in meaning; did not notice that in nature there is no equality …”
The attacks at innocent worshippers, although in humane and barbaric, are not unique. The country had witnessed much worse acts of sectarian violence. We have lived through bombings in Imambargahs, indiscriminate killings of worshipers in masajids and sporadic and targeted killings. The current attacks and their predecessors points to displaced priorities at national level.
Opeds and blogs instead of looking at Illiteracy, unavailability of health care services, rising inflation, lack of opportunity, poverty and subsequent intolerance, frustration and sense of deprivation which fuels hatred have directed their attention to certain legislations.
What public interest infrastructure has been laid in tribal areas and south Punjab in the last 63 years and especially in the last decade? Why have we let these areas to become breeding grounds for radical Islam? Was it only the military dictatorship or the civil governments also did nothing other than usurp money? Why no finger is raised at our involvement in US’s proxy war which has cost innumerable civilian lives in addition to 3,500 military personnel.
Religious scholars irrespective of their school of thought have condemned this atrocious act calling this a conspiracy to defame Islam and Muslims. In addition to condemnation they are united in denouncing the act as un-Islamic and a contradiction to Quran and Hadith.
Abolishing a certain amendment and ordinance will not riposte the monster of terrorism; however, it will ignite the flames of hatred and disgust amongst the masses. We are concerned about religious clauses of the constitution while the country is led into anarchy.
اللہ رب العالمین پر ایمان اور اس سے محبت کسی کی میراث نہیں حبہّ وجبّہ، امامہ ودستار حُبّ رسول کی علامت وپہچان تو رہی مگر معیار نہیں بنی۔ قادیانیوں کو کافر اور غیرمسلم قرار دے کر پورے عالم میں اس مسئلے کو ہمیشہ کے لیے واضح کر دینے کا سہرا بلاشبہ سابق وزیراعظم پاکستان ذوالفقار علی بھٹو کے سر ہی ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ قادیانی مسئلے پر بھٹو صاحب نے ایک سفر طے کیا۔ وہ کئی مراحل سے گزرے، انھوں نے کئی فکری گھاٹیاں عبور کیں، تفکرات کی وادی کا ایک سفر کر آئے، عقلی نشیب وفراز سے گزرے، دلیل کے کٹہرے میں خود کو کھڑا کیا۔ ایمان کی منازل طے کیں اور پھر ۷ ستمبر ۴۷۹۱ءکو پاکستان کی پارلیمنٹ نے ایک تاریخی فیصلہ سنایا۔ جس کے لیے یہ پارلیمنٹ حد درجہ قابل ستائش ہے۔
ایوان میں قادیانیوں کو غیرمسلم قرار دینے کی تاریخ ساز قرار داد ۰۳ جون ۴۷۹۱ءکو پیش کی گئی۔ پروفیسر غفور احمد بتاتے ہیں کہ ابتدا میں قرارداد پیش ہونے پر پیپلز پارٹی کے بعض ارکان حزبِ اختلاف سے خفا تھے۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ آپ علماءحضرات ہر ایک کو کافر کہنے میں مستعد رہتے ہیں مگر یہاں حزبِ اختلاف نے تدبر سے کام لیا اور علمی و عقلی دلائل کے ساتھ پیپلز پارٹی کے اراکین کے سامنے ثبوت رکھے۔ ان کو بتایا کہ بنیادی طور پر تو قادیانی مسلمانوں کو کافر قرار دیتے ہیں اور یہ بات جو بعد میں مرزا ناصر احمد اور لاہوری گروپ کے ارکان کی جرح کے دوران ثابت بھی ہو گئی۔
ابتدا میں بھٹو صاحب کا کہنا تھا کہ اس قرارداد کے منظور ہونے سے پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی بہت بدنام ہو گئی۔ لوگ پیپلز پارٹی کو ایک سیکولر پارٹی سمجھتے ہیں۔ ان سے کہا گیا کہ اگر کچھ لوگ اس طرح کی باتیں کرتے بھی ہیں تو آپ کو اس کی پروا نہیں ہونی چاہیے کیونکہ یہ بات پیپلز پارٹی کے منشور میں شامل ہے کہ اسلام ہمارا دین ہے۔ بھٹو صاحب بہرحال قائل ہو گئے۔
بھٹو صاحب نے یہ قرارداد اسمبلی سے باہر اپنی جماعت کے اراکین کے سامنے رکھی۔ ان کی پارٹی کے اراکین جے اے رحیم اور شیخ رشید نے اس کی بہت مخالفت کی۔ وہ نہیں چاہتے تھے کہ یہ قرارداد اسمبلی سے پاس ہو مگر بھٹو صاحب نے کہا کہ یہ اسلام کی بات ہے مذہب کا معاملہ ہے، پیپلز پارٹی اس کی مخالفت نہیں کرے گی۔
”کرنل رفیع الدین اڈیالہ جیل میں بھٹو صاحب کی ایامِ اسیری کے دوران صرف ان کے سیکورٹی انچارج نہیں بلکہ ان کی تنہائیوں کے رفیق بھی تھے انھوں نے ”بھٹو کے آخری ۳۲۳ دن“ کے نام سے ایک کتاب بھی تحریر کی ہے انھوں نے لکھا ہے کہ”احمدیہ مسئلہ، ایک ایسا مسئلہ تھا جس پر بھٹو صاحب نے کئی بار کچھ نہ کہا، ایک بار کہنے لگے”رفیع! قادیانی چاہتے ہیں کہ انھیں پاکستان میں وہی مقام ملے جو امریکہ میں یہودیوں کو حاصل ہے یعنی ہمارا ہر چینل، ہر پالیسی، ان کی منظوری سے ہو“ پھر ایک روز کہنے لگے ان کے اعتقادات کو دیکھا جائے تو یہ حضرت محمد کو آخری نبی نہیں مانتے، اب یہ مجھ کو خود کو غیرمسلم قرار دینے کا ذمہ دار کہتے ہیں تو کوئی بات نہیں میں ایک گناہ گار آدمی ہوں۔ کیا معلوم یہ عمل میرے گناہوں کا ازالہ بن جائے اور اللہ اس نیک کام کے بدلے میرے گناہ معاف کردے۔
اب آئیے ۷ ستمبر ۴۷۹۱ءکے اس تاریخی دن کی طرف جس دن قادیانی غیرمسلم قرار پاتے۔ اس دن وزیراعظم پاکستان ذوالفقار علی بھٹو مرحوم نے ایک تاریخی تقریر کی۔ اس وقت مکمل تقریر نقل کرنا تو ممکن نہیں مگر جستہ جستہ حصے آپ کی دلچسپی کے لیے حاضرِ خدمت ہے:
جنابِ صدر! میں جب یہ کہتا ہوں کہ یہ فیصلہ پورے ایوان کا فیصلہ ہے تو اس سے میرا مقصد یہ نہیں کہ میں کوئی سیاسی مفاد حاصل کرنے کے لیے اس بات پر زور دے رہا ہوں۔ ہم نے اس مسئلے پر ایوان کے تمام ممبران سے تفصیلی طور پر تبادلہ خیال کیا ہے جن میں تمام پارٹیوں اور ہر طبقہ خیال کے نمائندے موجود تھے۔ آج کے روز جو فیصلہ ہوا ہے یہ ایک قومی فیصلہ ہے۔ پاکستان کے عوام کا فیصلہ ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ پاکستان کے ارادے، خواہشات اور ان کے جذبات کی عکاسی کرتا ہے۔ میں نہیں چاہتا کہ فقط حکومت ہی اس فیصلے کی تحسین پائے اور نہ میں یہ چاہتا ہوں کہ کوئی ایک فرد اس فیصلے کی تعریف و تحسین کا حقدار بنے۔ میرا کہنا یہ ہے کہ یہ مشکل فیصلہ ہے بلکہ میری ناچیز رائے میں کئی پہلوﺅں سے بہت ہی مشکل فیصلہ جمہوری اداروں اور جمہوری حکومت کے بغیر نہیں کیا جاسکتا تھا۔
یہ ایک پرانا مسئلہ ہے، نوے سال پرانا مسئلہ ہے۔ وقت گزرنے کے ساتھ ساتھ یہ مسئلہ مزید پیچیدہ ہوتا چلا گیا۔ اس سے ہمارے معاشرے میں تلخیاں اور تفرقے پیدا ہوئے لیکن آج کے دن تک اس مسئلے کا کوئی حل تلاش نہیں کیا جاسکا ہمیں بتایا جاتا ہے کہ یہ مسئلہ ماضی میں بھی پیدا ہوا تھا، ایک بار نہیں بلکہ کئی بار۔ ہمیں بتایا گیا ہے کہ ماضی میں اس مسئلہ پر جس طرح قابو پایا گیا اُسی طرح اب کی بار بھی ویسے ہی اقدامات سے اس مسئلہ پر قابو پایا جاسکتا ہے۔ مجھے نہیں معلوم کہ اس سے پہلے اس مسئلے کے حل کے لیے کیا کچھ کیا گیا لیکن مجھے معلوم ہو کہ ۳۵۹۱ءمیں کیا ہوا تھا۔ ۳۵۹۱ءمیں اس مسئلے کے حل کے لیے طاقت کا وحشیانہ طور پر استعمال کیا گیا تھا جو اس مسئلے کا حل تھا۔
جنابِ اسپیکر! ہماری موجودہ مساعی کا مقصد یہ رہا ہے کہ اس مسئلے کا مستقل حل تلاش کیا جائے اور میں آپ کو یقین دلا سکتا ہوں کہ ہم نے درست اور صحیح سمت اور حل تلاش کرنے میں کوئی کسر نہیں چھوڑی۔ یہ درست ہے کہ لوگوں کے جذبات، مشتعل ہوئے، غیرمعمولی احساسات ابھرے، قانون اور امن کا مسئلہ بھی پیدا ہوا، جائیداد اور جانوں کا اتلاف ہوا۔ پریشانی کے لمحات بھی آئے تمام قوم گزشتہ تین ماہ سے تشویش کے عالم میں رہی اور اس پر کشمکش اور بیم و رجا کے عالم میں رہی لیکن میں اجازت چاہتا ہوں کہ اس معزز ایوان کی توجہ اس تقریر کی طرف دلاﺅں جو میں نے قوم سے مخاطب ہوتے ہوئے ۳۱ جون کو کی تھی۔ اس تقریر میں مَیں نے پاکستان کے عوام سے واضح طور پر کہا تھا کہ یہ مسئلہ بنیادی طور پر اور اصولی طریقے سے مذہبی مسئلہ ہے۔ پاکستان کی بنیاد اسلام پر ہے۔ پاکستان مسلمانوں کے لیے وجود میں آیا تھا اگر کوئی ایسا فیصلہ کر لیا جاتا جسے اس ملک کے مسلمانوں کی اکثریت اسلام کی تعلیمات اور اعتقادات کی خلاف سمجھتی ہو تو اس سے پاکستان کے بنانے کی وجوہات اور تصور کو ٹھیس لگنے کا اندیشہ تھا۔ چونکہ یہ مسئلہ خالص مذہبی مسئلہ تھا، اس لیے میری حکومت کے لیے یا کسی ایک فرد کے لیے ان کی حیثیت میں مناسب نہ تھا کہ اس پر ۳۱ جون کو ہی کوئی فیصلہ دیا جاتا۔
لاہور میں مجھے کئی لوگ ایسے ملے جنہوں نے کہا کہ آپ آج ہی، ابھی اور یہیں اعلان کر دیں مگر میں نے ان اصحاب سے کہا کہ پاکستان کی ایک قومی اسمبلی موجود ہے جو ملکی مسائل پر بحث کا سب سے بڑا ادارہ ہے۔ میری ناچیز رائے میں اس مسئلے کے حل کے لیے یہی مناسب جگہ ہے۔
جنابِ والا! اکثریتی پارٹی کے رہنما کی حیثیت سے میں نے قومی اسمبلی کے ممبروں پر کسی طرح کا دباﺅ نہیں ڈالا۔ میں یہ مسئلہ قومی اسمبلی کے ممبران کے ضمیر پر چھوڑتا ہوں اور ان میں پارٹی کے ممبر بھی ہیں۔ پیپلز پارٹی کے ممبران اس بات کی تصدیق کریں گے کہ جہاں میں نے کئی بار بلا کر پارٹی کے موقف سے آگاہ کیا، وہاں اس مسئلہ پر میں نے اپنی پارٹی کے ایک ممبر پر بھی اثرانداز ہونے کی کوشش نہیں کی، سوائے ایک موقع پر جب اس مسئلہ پر کھلی بحث ہوئی تھی۔
جنابِ اسپیکر! میں آپ کو یہ بتانا مناسب نہیں سمجھتا کہ اس مسئلہ کے باعث اکثر میں پریشان رہا اور راتوں کو مجھے نیند نہیں آئی۔ اس مسئلہ پر جو فیصلہ ہوا مَیں اس کے نتائج سے واقف ہوں۔ مجھے اس فیصلے کے سیاسی اور معاشی ردِعمل اور اس کی پیچیدگیوں کا علم ہے جس کا اثر مملکت کے تحفظ پر ہو سکتا ہے۔ یہ کوئی معمولی مسئلہ نہیں ہے۔ لیکن جیسا کہ میں نے پہلے کہا پاکستان وہ ملک ہے جو برصغیر کے مسلمانوں کو اس خواہش پر وجود میں آیا تھا کہ وہ اپنے لیے ایک علیحدہ مملکت چاہتے تھے، اس ملک کے باشندوں کی اکثریت کا مذہب اسلام ہے۔ میں اس فیصلے کو جمہوری طریقے سے نافذ کرنے میں اپنے کسی بھی اصول کی خلاف ورزی نہیں کر رہا۔ پیپلز پارٹی کا پہلا اصول ہے اسلام ہمارا دین ہے۔ اسلام کی خدمت ہماری پارٹی کے لیے اولین اہمیت رکھتی ہے۔ ہمارا دوسرا اصول ہے جمہوریت ہماری پالیسی ہے۔ چنانچہ ہمارے لیے فقط یہی درست راستہ تھا کہ ہم اس مسئلہ کو پاکستان کی قومی اسمبلی میں پیش کرتے۔ اس کے ساتھ ہی میں فخر سے کہہ سکتا ہوں کہ پاکستان کی معیشت کی بنیاد سوشلزم پر ہے۔ ہم سوشلسٹ اصولوں سے انحراف نہیں کرتے۔ ہم اپنی پارٹی کے تینوں اصولوں پر مکمل طور پر پابند رہے ہیں۔
یہ فیصلہ مذہبی بھی ہے اور غیرمذہبی بھی۔ مذہبی اس لحاظ سے کہ یہ فیصلہ ان مسلمانوں کو متاثر کرتا ہے جو پاکستان میں اکثریت میں ہے اور غیرمذہبی اس لحاظ سے کہ ہم دورِ جدید میں رہتے ہیں۔ ہمارا آئین کسی مذہب و آئین کے خلاف نہیں بلکہ ہم نے پاکستان کے تمام شہریوں کو یکساں حقوق دیے ہیں۔ میری حکومت کے لیے اب یہ بات بہت اہم ہو گئی ہے کہ وہ پاکستان کے تمام شہریوں کے حقوق کی حفاظت کرے۔ یہ نہایت ضروری ہے کہ اور میں اس بات میں کوئی ابہام کی گنجائش نہیں رکھنا چاہتا۔
جنابِ اسپیکر! میں آپ کو یقین دلانا چاہتا ہوں کہ اور ایوان کے ہر مختص کو بتا دینا چاہتا ہوں کہ (اقلیتوں کی حفاظت) یہ فرض پوری طرح اور مکمل طور پر ادا کیا جائے گا۔ اس سلسلے میں کسی شخص کے ذہن میں شبہ نہیں رہنا چاہیے۔ ہم کسی قسم کی غارت گری اور تہذیب سوزی یا کسی اور طبقے یا شہری کی توہین اور بے عزتی برداشت نہیں کریں گے۔
جنابِ اسپیکر! جیسا کہ میں نے کہا کہ ہمیں اُمید کرنی چاہیے کہ ہم نے اس مسئلے کا باب بند کر دیا ہے۔ یہ میری کامیابی نہیں یہ حکومت کی بھی کامیابی نہیں، یہ پاکستان کے عوام کی کامیابی ہے جس میں ہم بھی شریک ہیں۔ میں سارے ایوان کو خراجِ تحسین پیش کرتا ہوں۔ مجھے احساس ہے کہ یہ فیصلہ متفقہ طور پر نہ کیا جاسکتا۔ اگر تمام ایوان کی جانب سے اور تمام پارٹیوں کی جانب سے تعاون اور جذبے کا فقدان ہوتا۔
جنابِ والا! ماضی کو دیکھتے ہوئے اس مسئلے کے تاریخی پہلوﺅں پر اچھی طرح غور کرتے ہوئے میں پھر یہ کہوں گا کہ یہ سب سے زیادہ مشکل مسئلہ تھا، گھر گھر میں اس کا اثر تھا۔ یہ دیہات میں اس کا اثر تھا اور ہر فرد اس سے متاثر تھا۔ یہ مسئلہ سنگین تر ہوتا چلا گیا اور وقت کے ساتھ ساتھ ایک خوفناک شکل اختیار کر گیا اور ہمیں اس مسئلے کو حل کرنا ہی ہو گا۔ ہمیں تلخ حقائق کا سامنا کرنا ہی تھا۔ ہم اس مسئلے کو ہائی کورٹ یا اسلامی نظریاتی کونسل کے سپرد کر سکتے تھے۔ ظاہر ہے کہ حکومت اور حتیٰ کہ افراد بھی مسائل کو ٹالنا جانتے تھے اور انھیں جوں کا توں رکھ سکتے تھے۔ اس جذبے کے تحت قومی اسمبلی ایک کمیٹی کی صورت میں خفیہ اجلاس کرتی رہی۔ خفیہ اجلاس کرنے کی کئی ایک وجوہات تھیں۔ اگر قومی اسمبلی خفیہ اجلاس نہ کرتی تو جناب! کیا آپ سمجھتے ہیں کہ یہ تمام سچی باتیں اور حقائق ہمارے سامنے آسکتے؟ اور لوگ اس طرح آزادی اور بغیر کسی جھجھک کے اپنے اپنے خیالات کا اظہار کر سکتے؟ اگر ان کو معلوم ہوتا کہ یہاں اخبارات کے نمائندے بیٹھے ہیں اور لوگوں تک اس کی باتیں پہنچا رہے ہیں تو شریکِ اجلاس اس طرح اظہار نہیں کرتے جیسا کہ انھوں نے خفیہ اجلاسوں میں کیا۔
جنابِ اسپیکر! میں اس زیادہ کچھ نہیں کہنا چاہتا۔ اس معاملے پر جو میرے جو احساسات تھے میں انھیں بیان کر چکا ہوں میں ایک بار پھر دہراتا ہوں کہ یہ ایک مذہبی معاملہ ہے یہ ایک فیصلہ ہے جو ہمارے عقائد سے متعلق ہے اور یہ فیصلہ پورے ایوان کا فیصلہ ہے اور پوری قوم کا فیصلہ ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ عوامی خواہشات کے مطابق ہے۔ میرے خیال میں یہ انسانی طاقت سے باہر تھا کہ یہ ایوان اس سے بہتر کچھ فیصلہ کر سکتا اور میرے خیال میں یہ بھی ممکن نہیں تھا کہ اس مسئلہ کو دوامی طور پر حل کرنے کے لیے موجودہ فیصلے سے کم کوئی اور فیصلہ ہو سکتا تھا۔
کچھ لوگ ایسے بھی ہو سکتے ہیں جو اس فیصلے سے ناخوش ہوں گے۔ ہم یہ تو توقع بھی نہیں کر سکتے کہ اس مسئلے کے فیصلے سے تمام لوگ خوش ہو سکتے ہیں۔ اگر یہ مسئلہ آسان ہوتا اور ہر ایک کو خوش رکھنا ممکن ہوتا تو یہ مسئلہ بہت پہلے حل ہو گیا ہوتا۔ مجھے اچھی طرح معلوم ہے کہ ایسے لوگ بھی ہیں (ظاہری طور پر قادیانیوں کی طرف اشارہ ہے) جو اس فیصلے پر نہایت ناخوش ہوں گے۔ لیکن میں یہ ضرور کہوں گا کہ یہ ان لوگوں کے طویل المیعاد مفاد کے حق میں ہے کہ یہ مسئلہ حل کر لیا گیا ہے آج یہ لوگ (قادیانی) ناخوش ہوں گے۔ ان کو فیصلہ پسند نہ ہو گا۔ ان کو یہ فیصلہ ناگوار ہو گا لیکن حقیقت پسندی سے کام لیتے ہوئے اور مفروے پر اپنے آپ کو ان لوگوں میں شمار کرتے ہوئے میں یہ کہوں گا کہ ان کو بھی اس بات پر خوش ہونا چاہیے کہ اس فیصلے سے یہ مسئلہ حل ہوا اور ان کو آئینی حقوق کی ضمانت حاصل ہو گئی۔ مجھے یاد ہے کہ حزبِ مخالف کی طرف سے مولانا شاہ احمد نورانی نے یہ تحریک پیش کی تو انھوں نے ان لوگوں (قادیانیوں) کو مکمل تحفظ دینے کا ذکر کیا تھا جو اس فیصلے سے متاثر ہوں گے۔ ایوان اس یقین دہانی پر قائم ہے۔ یہ ہر جماعت کا فرض ہے یہ حکومت کا فرض ہے۔ حزبِ مخالف کا فرض ہے اور ہر شہری کا فرض ہے کہ وہ پاکستان کے تمام شہریوں کی یکساں طور پر حفاظت کریں۔ اسلام کی تعلیم رواداری کی ہے۔ مسلمان رواداری پر عمل کرتے رہے ہیں۔ اسلام نے فقط رواداری کی تعلیم ہی نہیں دی بلکہ تاریخ میں اسلامی معاشرے نے رواداری سے کام لیا ہے۔ اسلامی معاشرے نے تاریک زمانے میں یہودیوں کے ساتھ بہترین سلوک کیا جبکہ عیسائیت ان پر یورپ میں ظلم توڑ رہی تھی اور یہودیوں نے سلطنت عثمانیہ میں آکر پناہ لی۔ اگر یہودی دوسرے حکمران معاشرے سے بچ کر عربوں اور ترکوں کے اسلامی معاشرے میں پناہ لے سکتے ہیں تو پھر یہ یاد رکھنا چاہیے کہ ہماری مملکت اسلامی ہے۔ ہم مسلمان ہیں ہم پاکستانی ہیں اور یہ ہمارا مقدس فرض ہے کہ ہم تمام فرقوں، تمام لوگوں اور پاکستان کے تمام شہریوں کو یکساں طور پر تحفظ دیں۔
اسپیکر صاحب! آپ کا شکریہ
محترم قارئین! آپ نے بھٹو صاحب کی تقریر کا مطالبہ کیا ہے۔ یہ تقریر ایک تاریخی دستاویز ہے۔ ان الفاظ کو غور سے پڑھیں تو ایک ذمہ دار فرد کے الفاظ ہیں۔ آج جب ایک بار پھر قادیانیوں کو”فرقہ“ قرار دیے جانے کی کوشش کی جارہی ہے پیپلزپارٹی کی ہی حکومت ہے، پیپلزپارٹی کے ممبران اسمبلی کے لیے نہایت ضروری ہے کہ وہ جو ”جئے بھٹو“ کے نعرے لگاتے تھکتے نہیں، اپنے قائد کے فلسفے اور اس مسئلے کو سنجیدگی سے حل کرنے کے جذبے کو سمجھیں۔ یاد رکھیے عقیدہ ختم نبوت کے حوالے سے معروضی حالات کبھی بھی تبدیل نہیں ہوسکتے۔ جو کوئی ناموس رسالت کی طرف میلی آنکھ اٹھاکر دیکھے گا اس کو شدید عوامی اور الٰہی غیظ وغضب کا نشانہ بننے کے لیے تیار رہنا چاہیے۔
On May 28th, 2010 Pakistan witnessed a black Friday. More than 80 Pakistani citizens were butchered as they congregated to offer their prayers. The atrocity has every sensible Pakistani shaken or shocked. However, in land of pure, using the opportunity to settle personal prejudice is nothing new and seems to be the order of the day. The incident triggered a chain of continuous and voluminous claims that Ahmadis are state persecuted.
The butchery of Lahore was hijacked for revocation of constitutionalamendment and Ordinance. Putting the blame on the 2nd Amendment and Ordinance XX is a façade. Why? Let us cross examine the said Ordinance with the Articles 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 28.
Ahmadis are barred from preaching or professing their beliefs, to call themselves or pose as Muslims. For them to Offer their prayers in Non-Ahmadi mosques or public prayer rooms became illegal. They were prohibited from calling their place of worship mosque, performing Azaan, publicly using traditional Islamic symbols, greetings, quoting from the Quran, publishing and disseminating their religious materials. The above forbidden acts can lead to imprisonment of upto 3 years.
Ahmadis themselves were the reason for such strict measure. It was there continuous and never ending preaching that formed the basis for Ordinance XX instigated by religious groups. In the words of experienced columnist Athar Abbas, Express “Preaching is the worst habit of Ahmadis. This is the single reason why they entice violent acts upon themselves.” Athar also shared a couple of personal and first hand experiences.
Having similar outlooks, displaying identical rituals and symbols made common Muslims an easy target of Ahmadis. Posing as Muslims they recruited converts thus deviating innocent and unsuspecting Muslims away from Islam. Hence it became imminent, in the greater public interest, to deprive them of their cover. Why are they adamant on preaching their beliefs? The answer was given by Mirza Nasir during parliamentary debate in 1974. “Muslims not conforming to Ahmadiya beliefs are infidels” he stated.
Now let us move to the often mentioned Articles which the infamous Ordinance contradicts.
- The dignity of man and, subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable.
- No person shall be subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence.
Ahmadis are not under continous surveillance nor are they required to report what they do in their personal lives. Infact, there are countless ahmadis amid us who lead their lives unnoticed. Secondly, Ahmadis are not rounded up, arrested or later tortured for extracting information by the police or other law enforcement agencies. Excesses if any have died with the dictatorship which exhibited unrestrained behavior against political activists and other threats.
Every citizen shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order.
The fact that more than 1500 Ahmadis were present in prayer houses refutes the claim pertaining to the violation of article 16.
Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court (commission of) or incitement of an offence.
The article is defends the Ordinance XX when it provisions that restrictions can be imposed in the interest of glory of Islam.
Subject to law, public order and morality:
a) Every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion; and
b) Every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
Athar Abbas in his column wrote the following incident. A few days earlier if village elders hadn’t succeeded in pacifying the threat to public order was very well on the cards at Shakar Garh. It so happened that an Ahmadi student and a zamindar’s ward played together. The ahmadi used to propagate Ahmadiya beliefs to his playmate and how by converting the later could enjoy benefits of living in US, Britain and Germany. Annoyed the boy turned to his parents and it enticed hostility amongst Muslim of the area. Fortunately, before any mishaps the area elders intervened and hushed the matter beneath carpet.
Hence the Ordinance does not contradict rather complements the Article 20 of the constitution.
- No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own.
- In respect of any religious institution, there shall be no discrimination against any community in the granting of exemption or concession in relation to taxation.
- Subject to law:
- no religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instructions for pupils of that community or denomination in any educational institution maintained wholly by that community or denomination; and
- no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution receiving aid from public revenues on the ground only of race, religion, caste or place of birth.
Law does not stop Ahmadis from preaching their beliefs to members of their community and only bars public professing. Other than confusing prayer halls with educational institutions I don’t see any contradiction in the above Article and Ordinance XX.
- All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.
- There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.
- Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection women and children.
The Ordinance does not state that Ahmadis are not liable to government protection or allowed to file petitions with the court of law pertaining to regular social and business matters. It does not state that they are lesser mortals and can be deprived of their valuable or even life when and as Muslims please. Twin attacks in Lahore were a heinous criminal act and perpetrators should be awarded due punishment.
Subject to Article 251 any section of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture shall have the right to preserve and promote the same and subject to law, establish institutions for that purpose.
Ahmadi worship centers are neither attacked nor their scriptures burned by state agencies. The Government prohibited mass scale printing for public distribution and not amongst the Ahmadi community.
The much dreaded Ordinance doesn’t violate the constitution of 1973 and hence can not be held responsible for the mayhem of May 28th, 2010.
Source : http://naqad.wordpress.com/
WTF! The words came out spontaneously. The carnage in Lahore that took place last Friday was an inhumane and un-Islamic act. Islam allots complete protection to the Non-Muslims living in its fold. Who ever did it perhaps had a certain agenda or was intoxicated with religious choran. Reports of 80 casualties reminded me of the ordeal faced by Karachites a decade ago. Sectarian killings claimed many innocent lives especially in masajids and imam bargahs.
A series of opeds and blogs followed each condemning the heinous crime. It seems bigotry has become the order of the day. Critical of particular laws and to term them as usurping the spirit of Pakistan’s Ideology is nothing but bigotry.
The desensitization of our masses to the ills of corruption, terrorism, nepotism and subversion to radicalism either towards west of Islam has led to Pakistan suffering Bi-polar identity disorder. Which if not addressed will develop into chronic schizophrenia. The universal polity between left and right existed but never nor anywhere is it as intolerant as in Pakistan.
The most ironic point is that our thinkers in their prejudice often miss the all vital and significant point “Greater Public Interest” while they debate on such issues. It seems that we are motivated more by the hatred for each other than the love of our country.
The fact that so many people lost lives is deplorable but what is even more condemnable is the fact that their misery is used by a bunch of pseudo intellectuals who seized the opportunity to score some easy points. Praising Khwaja Nazim ud din for using brute force against the agitation of 1952 while lambasting Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for back stabbing his comrades (Ahmadis) in 1974.
Ahmadis were Bhutto’s political partners. They were the only organized group, whose electoral network was most beneficial in Bhutto’s 1970 campaign. Ahmadis needed a liberal government and People’s Party matched that goal. They (Ahmadis) took these elections as if they were fighting their own war. Additionally, declaring them Non-Muslim was even harder task because of their patronage by US and Britain.
An extensive parliamentary debate pursued for two months. Mirza Nasir,third caliph of Ahmadiya Jamat even though not a member of the parliament was invited and given a good 52 hours to explain Ahmadiya perspective in detail. Mirza Nasir during parliamentary debate in 1974 was asked about Ahmadiya perspective on Muslims that does not conform to Ahmadiya. “Infidels!” replied Nasir.
The second amendment was a well debated matter and involved in Mirza Tahir’s (fourth caliph of Jamat e Ahmadiya) own words a consensus amongst all Muslim sects. During these two months parliament held 28 sessions and 96 sittings for resolving this issue after which it was decided to amend the constitution. The second amendment, as it is known, declared Ahmadis a Non-Muslim minority.
The amendment was a result of continuous and extensive struggle, initiated in 1935 “Muqadma e Bahawalpur”, and was applauded by the religious right. The left-wing intellectuals termed it religious bigotry and pressure power of the mullah factions. Their stance though sympathetic to Ahmadis is motivated from their animosity for the right-wing.
It is the same hatred that is visible once again. These enlightened individuals really not care for the consequences nor are aware of the reasons why such acts were introduced in the constitution but are adamant to have them nullified or void. They say that the Ordinance XX passed in 1984 to be a violation of Article 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 28 of the 1973 constitution.
The fact of the matter is even in the presence of current laws killing Ahmadis or any other Pakistani citizen or taking law in ones own hands is not justified. A crime is a crime and the perpetrators should be apprehended and punished accordingly. Islam accords complete protection to non-Muslims living in its fold. Such acts are nothing but barbarism and have no place in Islam
Source : http://naqad.wordpress.com/