This question was raised by a member in another thread. I think it deserves its own thread.
I am not offering any opinions at this point. Lets see what our members feel about this question.
I don't think any one currently existing state has the right to declare someone to be non-Muslim. Technically, the only state that could make such a legal ruling is some future Khilafah (no, I'm not HT, and I seriously oppose their methods).
In the case of the Qadianis, however, the situation is different. If it was just Pakistan that declared them to be non-Muslim, then I would be wary of following such a ruling.
However, it is not just Pakistan that considers Qadianis to be non-Muslim. They are considered non-Muslims due to consensus amongst Sunni scholars, of all races and nationalities, world-wide. Such an act of ijtihad is recognised by all fiqhs within Sunni Islam, including Fiqh Hanbali, which has the most stringent controls over how ijtihad can be made.
What Pakistan is doing is enforcing a ruling supported by most of the world's Islamic scholars. Hence it is right in declaring Qadianis to be non-Muslims.
[quote]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT:
** In the case of the Qadianis, however, the situation is different. If it was just Pakistan that declared them to be non-Muslim, then I would be wary of following such a ruling. **
[/quote]
It was Pakistan especially the Deobandis who spearheaded & articulated this campaign. It was Khatam e Nabuwat organization of the Deobandis and the financial fundings from the Wahabis that did in the Qadianis.
[quote]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT:
** However, it is not just Pakistan that considers Qadianis to be non-Muslim. They are considered non-Muslims due to consensus amongst Sunni scholars, of all races and nationalities, world-wide. Such an act of ijtihad is recognised by all fiqhs within Sunni Islam, including Fiqh Hanbali, which has the most stringent controls over how ijtihad can be made. **
[/quote]
I am not sure what you are talking about here, or "** due to consensus amongst Sunni scholars, of all races and nationalities, world-wide.' **.
What world wide consensus of all nationalities, races... ??
The Pakistani fiqhs of all Sunnis was all the consensus they needed.
What do you mean worldwide ijthihad - sounds like you are implying some global gut wrenching taking place when it was only confined to Pakistans and Ulemas of the Respective Sunni fiqhs.
The Pakistani Hanbali fiqh is under the thumbs of the Saudi Ministry at Riyadh as are the other fiqhs who take orders from Al-Azhar & elsewhere.
I am not aware as to how the shia sects voted. Could someone fill in this part.
To recall excerpts from the Judge's briefs: ** no Ulema could agree on - who or what constitutes a muslim but they all were in agreement that the other fiqhs were not muslims and should be put to death. **
[quote]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT:
** What Pakistan is doing is enforcing a ruling supported by most of the world's Islamic scholars. Hence it is right in declaring Qadianis to be non-Muslims.**
[/quote]
Again - the drama was played out by Pakistani ulemas of the Deobandi Khatam e Nabuwat and the ** Wahabis who saw this as an opportunity to take the pressure off their extremist heretic sect.**
In case of this decision - they ruined the lives of countless numbers of human-beings, who to this day are persecuted, hounded & harassed.
[This message has been edited by faceup (edited November 16, 2001).]
I think the argument is very simple, its really very hard to think about this in reference to a modern state. But we have to remember that the modern state and the countrries menationed in the argument are not the same. By modern state we mean a state in which the Church and state are separate entities.
So the states which can not separate them self from the religion can do this, this practice was done by the Church, and even by states which are purly democratic like Israel, through thier [British] law, by defining officail Judaism.
Christianity has to go through a reformation period of about 300 years before separating it self from the state. And since Islam is nowhere near that, so the state will always play a role in atleast defining the religion.
On the second note, the idea of man and its own religion is also driven out from the vary same school of thought which promotes the separation.
Comming to the argumet if it was supported by all the schools of jurispudance [sp] I think all four schools agree on the defination of the religion.
Of course! State has the right to do so! The soul & body of all its citizens belong to the state!
Pakistan is a totally Islamic state, and none of the other so-called Muslim states believe in Freedom of Religion as we do!
Ahmadi/Qadiyani/Marzai practice of Islam was highly offensive to us & so we exercised our God given right as prescribed in Quran & clearly evident from the Sunnah of AnHazoor (saw)!
Don't you know it was Aza'at Mua'ab Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Sahib, the great warrior of Islam, who kicked them out of the green circle . His associates & their authority on Islam were so much authentic that all the Muslim world would have made him their Khalifa ... but unfortunately, Ameer-ul-Momeneen Zia-ul-Huq didn't agree. I don't know why General Sahib accused Bhutto jee of being unIslamic, corrupt, immoral etc ... I don't see any basis of it ... what so ever!
Can Palestenian call & declare unilaterally themselves Jew & INVITE themselves into Israel state & take over the whole country by virtue of being equal to rest of the jewish israelis,
I know Palestenian would do it under the garb for them Pasleatenian political rights is much more important than being muslim.
I realize the heasding only mentions MUSLIMS ,but isolating any one religion from other recognized major religion is frought with unequal playing field.Ultimately even religions which are not even abrahmic like buddhism & Hinduism ,are being asessed on the same level as abrahmic although those ancient religions are not religion like abrahmic.They are culture accumulatyed over 7000 yrs which has so much slackness due to non specificity that i can be pressed for hard if myself or anybody else cant pass as hindu or buddhist without having to compromise there abrahmic faith really .
barque(bijli) yoon akadti hai apne karname pe ke
jaise phir naya hum aashiyaan bana nahi sakte
[This message has been edited by Azad Munna (edited November 17, 2001).]
"Of course! State has the right to do so! The soul & body of all its citizens belong to the state!"
Ahmedji, I would like to disagree on this.
That sounds so dictatorial. "The tyranny of the majority" The purpose of the state should be to provide all its citizens the peaceful safe and fair legal environment to live in harmony with other citizens with as little state interference as possible. And to my mind, my relation ship with my god is personal and private. It needs no help from the state.
For this the citizen is obliged to return the favor to the state by being law abiding and being ready to defend the environment from disruptive forces. Just a social contract.
When a state dispenses favors legally to one religious community over others, then obviously a definiton becomes necessary. To my mind, when such official discrimination takes place, the state is not living up to its obligations under the social contract. Equality under the law for all citizens is the most fundamental tenet of a modern state. Any slack in this respect is regressive and causes social trauma in society.
I raised this question to understand how do thoughtful muslims deal with this intellectual conflict. Especially when they have experienced religious freedom in the west.
Uh Tanhaa… you seem to have failed to detect the sarcasm in ahmedjee’s post!!!
Thanks Mad bhai, for pointing that out. To me this is a very serious matter and I was not expecting sarcasm. But I remember wondering why Ahmed ji was saying that, but I didnt pay too much attention. Well thanks dost. I should not take life so seriously. There is humor around and one should pay attention and be ready to smile.
Since Pakistan was formed on the basis of protecting the socioeconomic rights of the Muslim majority (nowhere in India today are Muslims banned from praying or observing their religion, but you may not see them in high ranking decision making positions in a more balanced proportion to their population ratio) then laws should 'favor' Muslims.
Sadly 'Muslims' in Pakistan would rather group under sects than be true Muslims and would prefer to ostricize anyone with an opposing point of view.
Islam is Believing in ONE God.
Non-believers are usually referred to as 'pagans'. The rest are Christians, Jews, or hypocrites or idol worshippers.
I am unaware of Qadiani's agenda, but if they believe in ONE God and that the Prophet Muhammad is the LAST PROPHET (meaning Qur'an is the final document), then they are as 'muslim' as the rest of the Pakistanis.
If not.. they are just another 'sect' which is only 'similar' to Islam.
Many of today's 'Islamic' sects could easily be termed idol worshippers themselves!! having elevated humans in Islamic History to the status of Gods.
Now certain 'touchy' Mullahs, being in majority, extend the boundaries of 'acceptible speech' to the extent the US Government has extended boundaries of patriotism and acceptible behavior.
Hence come laws that are barbaric and inhuman and devoid of any logic.
If we are to kick someone out of the 'Circle of Islam' for not being a 'Muslim' as we'd like them to be, then there are plenty of other sects I can name, and their idol worship rituals, that should be labelled un-Islamic too.
Sadly, Pakistan isn't a land of 'Islam' anymore.. it's a land of 'Dominant Sects of Islam.'
[This message has been edited by PakistaniAbroad (edited November 18, 2001).]
I grew up believing that a muslim cannot call another who claims to be a muslim anything else.
This has been indicated to me as a great virtue of our religion. I have had people who don't know much or who are very intolerant saying that someone who does something they don't agree with is not a muslim. It has also been called a great weakness, especially in these days where muslims come up against the question of disowning the terrorists - which most do, but some are stuck withteh technical problem that they don't have the authority to say that these people don't belong to their religion.
The point brought up in this thread is that of a states' authority to decide who is muslim and who is not.
What I would like to ask is, is the state a muslim state in the true sense of the word? is it a state which has the consensus of it's (muslim) citizens? or is it a military or other dictatorship, hereditary kingdom, theocracy?
[quote]
Originally posted by Shirin:
*What I would like to ask is, is the state a muslim state in the true sense of the word? is it a state which has the consensus of it's (muslim) citizens? or is it a military or other dictatorship, hereditary kingdom, theocracy? *
[/quote]
Maybe you should ask where in Islam, God or the Holy Prophet gave any state (regardless of its nature as a dictatorship, kingdom or theocracy) the right to decide about who is a Muslim & who is not?
Isn't it related that after the passing away of the Prophet (SAWW), Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) actually went to war with the forces of Musailma Kazaab, when he announced prophethood. Now, thinking rationally, Musailma Kazaab and his supporters claimed to be muslims and Musailma claimed to be the next prophet.
If we take the argument that the muslim state has no right whatsoever, to stop anyone from calling themselves as muslims, then my question is that why did the first Ameer-ul-Momineen went to the extent of fighting those people and infact defeated and killed Musailma, the fake prophet?
Why didn't Abu Bakr (RA) left them to their own, and said "What they do is their business and Allah will judge them on the day of judgement. And its not my responsibility to judge the faith of another person?". He didn't do that, right?
Now, if we say that Abu Bakr (RA), being the righteous caliph had more authority than a democratically elected Bhutto in passing any such law, then its another matter. We can then talk about it more, but first of all lets get this question clear. Does a state has a right to stop a person from calling him/herself as a muslim?
[quote]
Originally posted by Pristine:
** If we take the argument that the muslim state has no right whatsoever, to stop anyone from calling themselves as muslims, then my question is that why did the first Ameer-ul-Momineen went to the extent of fighting those people and infact defeated and killed Musailma, the fake prophet?
Why didn't Abu Bakr (RA) left them to their own, and said "What they do is their business and Allah will judge them on the day of judgement. And its not my responsibility to judge the faith of another person?". He didn't do that, right?
Now, if we say that Abu Bakr (RA), being the righteous caliph had more authority than a democratically elected Bhutto in passing any such law, then its another matter. We can then talk about it more, but first of all lets get this question clear. Does a state has a right to stop a person from calling him/herself as a muslim? **
[/quote]
I shall restrict my response to what happened in Pakistan & its Constitution.
If I recall from my readings - it was ZA Bhutto and maybe Gen Zia or both - who managed to have the Pak. Constitution Amended thereby watering down the gurantee to individual rights to religion & liberty and thus paving the way to have the Ahmedis stripped of their democratic rights by groups of paranoid & rabid mullahs.
Instead of amending the constitution, it should have been strengthened after all ZA Bhutto was running a Parliamentary Democracy.
Both- he & Zia both ended up playing the Religion card, made beds with the Mullahs and the results are before your eyes.
Finally, this Question for you noble Guppies:
Is there any Muslim country that can guarantee & then ENFORCE the safety & full liberties to its non muslims or even muslim minorities?
[quote]
Originally posted by faceup:
** Finally, this Question for you noble Guppies:
Is there any Muslim country that can guarantee & then ENFORCE the safety & full liberties to its non muslims or even muslim minorities?**
[/quote]
No, because there is not a single Muslim country in the world that follows Islam completely. Right now, countries only pick and mix little parts of Islam and apply them to their political and judicial system.
Maybe we should first tackle the initial question, without jumping the gun and bringing in new tangents.
Lets first discuss, whether a state has the right to stop a person from calling him/herself a muslim? You can answer based on my post above.
Later, we can talk about the specifics in the case of Pakistan and the law on Ahmadis. Lets keep the discussion focused on the first issue at hand. So, keep Bhutto and Zia and rabid molvis out of the discussion for the moment.
Pristine you've answered your question already. Abu Bakr(ra) as the head of state did.
Only the khilafah has the authority, nothing else.
Pristine Bhai!
Musailma visited Madina during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, and enjoyed the privilege of his company for some time.** On return from Madina, Musailma, however, laid claim to a divine mission and founded a new creed.** He never called himself Muslim after claiming the recipient of the revelations.
He used to recite rhythmical sentences and bits of doggerel, which he had, himself composed, but gave out as having been revealed by God.
Knowing his falsehood, AnHazoor (sallalaho alayhay wasalam) could have sent forces to kill him (as some believe, should be the punishment of apostasy) but he did not.
When asked by the Holy Prophet to abandon his pretensions, Musailma sent an impudent letter demanding the division of the Arabian peninsula into two halves, one part to be earmarked for the Muslims, and the other to be the exclusive reserve for Musailma and his followers. Even then AnHazoor (sallalaho alayhay wasalam) showed restraint.
The Holy Prophet addressed him as Musailma, the Liar, and said that all land belonged to God, and He gave its control to such person as He willed.
The Holy Prophet deputed Nahr-ar-Rajjal a Muslim convert from the tribe of Banu Hanifa (the tribe of Musailma) to go back to his people and propagate Islam.
AnHazoor (sallalaho alayhay wasalam) did not go out to fight him, as Musailma showed no physical aggression at that time, other than his claim & his letter.
With the death of the Holy Prophet, Musailma gained in strength further. The general argument that prevailed with the people was that Muhammad (sallalaho alayhay wasalam) passed away while Musailma was alive, a living prophet was to be preferred to a dead prophet. (Naozobillah)
Many tribes who were hostile to Islam joined his ranks with their forces. He built up his military & refused to take Hazrat Abu Bakar (razi allaho tala anho) as Khalifa.
Hazrat Abu Bakar had no choice but to send an army against him. The first two conveys sent towards him were defeated by his forces, later Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed (razi allaho tala anho) lead 15,000 Muslims against 40,000 of Musailma's forces, and put him to justice. He died during the fight.
So, there is no comparison here.
Now, the main stream Muslim school of thought believes the **sole reason **why Hazrat Abu Bakar (razi allaho tala anho) send Muslim forces against him was due to his claim of prophet hood and nothing else.
To which they have a dilemma on their hands .. as they imply that Hazrat Abu Bakar (razi allaho tala anho) did something which Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (sallalaho alayhay wasalam) didn't choose to do so.
And I wouldn't believe for a second that Hazrat Abu Bakar (razi allaho tala anho) did something that contradicted AnHazoor's Sunnah.
You are more than welcome to believe, which ever you may choose! Though, then going as far as calling Ahmadies Non-Muslims would not suffice, you will have to hunt each & every one of them down & kill 'em!
It's a sensitive question no doubt, but a very short answer will suffice.. what's the beef with Ahmadi's?? do they consider there was a prophet after Prophet Muhammad?
At this point I am not discussing the Ahmadi issue per se.
I am just trying to understand if we all agree that Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was right in stopping Musailma from either claiming himself as a prophet, nor his followers could claim to be muslims. Aren't the two issues inter-twined?
The basis of all islamic jurisprudence is the word of Allah as revealed in the Quran, the words and conduct of the Prophet (SAWW), and the words and conduct of his righteous Caliphs and companion, in strictly that order, respectively. If no guidance is available from those three sources, then muslim scholars can research the issue based on the collective knowledge and come up with Ijma'a (collective ruling) or Ijtihaad (individual ruling). Ijma'a is a source of islamic jurisprudence under some schools of thought, whereas Ijtehad is only recognized as a source of law in very rare cases.
Having mentioned the sources of islamic jurisprudence, we come back to the conduct of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA). He did send armies to defeat and kill Musailma Kazab and his followers. This conduct of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) is a valid source of islamic jurisprudence in all islamic schools of thought, except very few.
I am just trying to validify the claim of many people who say that islam is entirely a personal matter, and anyone is free to call himself as a muslim and no one should interfere in this basic human right. They also say, that no one has a right to stop a person from calling himself as a muslim or otherwise. Based on the example above, is this a valid stance?