Re: Where did it all begin?
Going through the thread again, nothing makes sense in this thread anymore. It’s best to cerate a new thread for any of the topics covered here.
Someone should kick your backside Teggy for this deliberate act of sabotage.
I really do not understand your line of thinking. You seem to say that it was favour done to your great scientist that he went on to win the prize. Dont drag India into all your conversations. Atleast get your facts straight or go back to the cave where people dont know what is happening in rest of the world.
I agree he was a great scientist but he was not a muslim and majority of Pakistanis are Sunnis of Hanafi school. The problem I have is with his claiming himself to be a muslim. Non-muslims are free to accept Nobel prizes and honor but they won't be welcomed by the majority of Pakistanis.
haye haye (waavela machaying) teggy ye kia kar diya, ahmadiyon ke khilaaf intni bari saazish, do threads merge kar diye 
This creates total confusion. Why not ask people around before doing something this drastic? Not all topics are the same you know, even if there is some overlap or connection.
You are just trying to ruin the focus aren't you? A form of censorship.
How is merging two topics that talk about the same thing, a form of censorship? I did not remove any of your posts with the merger.
Please do not over-sensationalize things. Both threads were merged because they support your point of view on how it all began with racism/extremism, and continued to become a law, and continues today.
Now i would request you to please focus on the thread and discuss the topic at-hand. If you still feel the merger was unsatisfactory and have a better idea, then feel free to PM me, and perhaps we can resolve it.
Anymore irrelevant posts that are off-topic will be removed. Lets keep the discussion focused. Thanks.
How is merging two topics that talk about the same thing, a form of censorship?
I did not remove any of your posts with the merger. Please do not over-sensationalize things. Both threads were merged because they support your point of view on how it all began with racism/extremism, and continued to become a law, and continues today.
One thread was about rise of extremism which is not the same as the treatment of minorities the other thread. Not sure where you got the idea that they are the same. Let's just merge all Pakistan topics as well, as after all they all deal with one topic Pakistan.
Now two more threads will need to opened to deal with extremism and minority rights on their own, as this one has lost focus.
[Quote]
Now i would request you to please focus on the thread and discuss the topic at-hand. ....
[/Quote]
yeah, yeah as soon as you let us by not merging separate topics without warning.
Religious extremism does not effect minorities only.
Similarly minority right are not violated just for religious reason it could be racial or for that matter anything else.
The two are not the same and need their own separate threads. There may be some overlap but they are not the same.
Re: Where did it all begin?
^^ may be teggy or this forum is part of Pakistani conspiracy against Qadaynies/Ahmadies, and like Terminator, test01 has been sent to this forum to test the level of conspiracy against them...
Read Hamid Akhtar’s article and 1953 Court of enquiry report…have you done anything expect lies, deceit, terrorism and all unfair means against Ahmadis in last 60 years? Such is your standard…can’t expect anything different.
yes we only need to look at kashmir to know how superbly humane and democratic indian policies are. pakistan has problems sure but if an indian git is going to ignore all of his own to deliver a sermon ,he might as well change his directions.
You take away the greatest right of a person viz the freedom of religion and complain about a land issue? A person can sacrifice his land or even life for religion. So who is committing the worst crime?
Why do you want Indian Kashmir anyway? So you can persecute Ahmadis there too? Is world stupid to support your claim on Indian Kashmir when Pakistan has an official and legal mechanism to persecute its own citizens?
The only thing I expect from you is:
There have been numerous such “genocides” that you cry about against other ethnicities, oppression of other ethnicity(ies) was included in laws too but we are not crying like you in every other thread. Your only job seems to be jump in each thread and cry how you’ve been victmised all these years.
Who are you going to cry to? No one takes you people seriously since your own record is so dismal. So every time you try to cry, someone shuts you up by shoving your own human rights record down your throat. And since it is all done in the name of religion form your side, ultimately your religion gets some bashing too.
You know all that very well and therefore avoid any human rights issues as it only backfires on you anyway.
Not that you don’t wnat to cry.
Re: Where did it all begin?
^ comprehension problem galore.
Quite a few portions can be quoted from 1953 report which are relevant even today. A couple are below;
Justice Muhammad Munir and Justice M R Kiyani interviewed religious scholars of major sects as part of their investigation and the question of 'who is a Muslim' also came about. Following are the observations of the two justices made in their report;
[quote]
The question, therefore, whether a person is or is not a Muslim will be of fundamental importance, and it was for this reason that we asked most of the leading ulama to give their definition of a Muslim, the point being that if the ulama of the various sects believed the Ahmadis to be kafirs, they must have been quite clear in their minds not only about the grounds of such belief but also about the definition of a Muslim because the claim that a certain person or community is not within the pale of Islam implies on the part of the claimant an exact conception of what a Muslim is. The result of this part of inquiry, however has been anything but satisfactory and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama [religious scholars] on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be….
Keeping view the several different definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the Ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to the definitions of everyone else.
Under the heading Apostasy, the Report refering to the belief held by the ulama that, in an Islamic state, a Muslim who becomes a kafir is subject to the death penalty. The Report says:
[quote]
According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i-Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, if Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri or Mirza Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, or any one of the numerous ulama who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautiful tree in the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 14, were the head of such Islamic State. And if Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi were the head of the State, he would exclude those who have pronounced Deobandis as kafirs from the pale of Islam and inflict on them the death penalty if they come within the definition of murtadd, namely, if they have changed and not inherited their religious views.
The genuineness of the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 13, by the Deobandis which says that Asna Ashari Shias are kafirs and murtadds, was questioned in the course of enquiry, but Maulana Muhammad Shafi made an inquiry on the subject from Deoband, and received from the records of that institution the copy of a fatwa signed by all the teachers of the Darul Uloom, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi himself which is to the effect that those who do not believe in the sahabiyyat of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and who are qazif of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa and have been guilty of tehrif of Quran are kafirs. This opinion is also supported by Mr Ibrahim Ali Chishti who has studied and knows his subject. He thinks the Shias are kafirs because they believe that Hazrat Ali shared the prophethood with our Holy Prophet. He refused to answer the question whether a person who being a Sunni changes his view and agrees with the Shia view would be guilty of irtidad so as to deserve the death penalty. According to the Shias all Sunnis are kafirs, and Ahl-i-Quran, namely, persons who consider hadith to be unreliable and therefore not binding, are unanimously kafirs, and so are all independent thinkers. The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim. If the constituents of each of the definitions given by the ulama are given effect to, and subjected to the rule of `combination and permutation' and the form of charge in the Inquisition's sentence on Galileo is adopted mutatis mutandis as a model, the grounds on which a person may be indicted for apostasy will be too numerous to count.
/quote
Re: Where did it all begin?
Damn, you ahmedis are annoying.
(I fully support secularism, but I also know how annoying you guys can get in your recruitment drives)
Damn, you ahmedis are annoying.
How so?
Try getting killed for your faith...that’s really annoying.
quote
[/quote]
Who is recruiting? For what? Relax, no one is trying to recruit anyone. As soon as some human rights are restored in Pakistan everyone can relax. Now, have you done anything towards that or are you just going to sit and lecture? Because that is annoying.
Damn, you ahmedis are annoying.
You have a problem with muslims, ahmedis, punjabis, pathans, baluchis, sindhis, and vulcans, I suggest you get help fast.
How so?
Try getting killed for your faith...that’s really annoying.
Who is recruiting? For what? Relax, no one is trying to recruit anyone. As soon as some human rights are restored in Pakistan everyone can relax. Now, have you done anything towards that or are you just going to sit and lecture? Because that is annoying.
How about getting killed for your ethnicity and political affiliation? Seen it happen already.
Every ahmedi I have met, has at least tried once to turn me into an ahmedi. It's part of your religious doctrine and I despise that.
and I thought Muslims didn’t mind dieing for faith 
really? why so much fuss over drone attacks? …and protests over Gujrat riots and killings of Kashmiris, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians..?..and its the religious parties, supposedly more pious, who are protesting most..
…they should all be celebrating instead of protesting.