Ahmadjee, u always assume things about others as ur ahmadi brothers here about all sunnis.. can u show a single line in gupshup where I said i like or approved of that dictator Zia.. though I like Bhutto.
The above provision of Constitution u showed was for minority religions.. but ahmadis dont believe they are not muslims.. if they declare they are out of sphere of Islam then those would apply to them..
Degas bhai, the comment about Zia was with all the phun intended.
And you talked about laws as understood by the government, not Ahmadis And so I quoted the articles of constitution written by people who declared Ahmadis a minority, without their consent of course.
To make it simpler, the amendments incorporated by Zia, like the removal of Kalima from Ahmadis houses that started this discussion, are blatantly unconstitutional.
Mr. Degas:
I don't know where you live but How would you feel that you would be jailed for saying 'Hello' or 'Hi' or 'Amen'.
Mr. Rally:
Just like you consider Ahmadiyya belief as abusive to Islam, I can also consider your islamic belief as abusive towards real islam brought by the Holy prophet (peace be upon him). One example of that would be the abusive and filthy language you used in your last post.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rally: *
It's pretty simple logic if ahmadi's wanna go round preaching their religion, which I have no problem with, but when they get abusive towards islam they obviously gonna be met with not so nice replies.
[/QUOTE]
And when did we ever get "abusive" towards Islam? Give me one post from an ahmadi who used "abusive" words against Islam.
I agree, we have different interpretation of some versus/ahadith and we support our point by giving arguments through our understanding of Quran/ahadith but that doesn't mean we are getting abusive Na'uzobillah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
To make it simpler, the amendments incorporated by Zia, like the removal of Kalima from Ahmadis houses that started this discussion, are blatantly unconstitutional.
[/QUOTE]
But this thing is part of Constitution....
.. the Constitution of 1973 was amended by the Constitution (Second Amendment ) Act, 1974 (Act XLIX of 1974) to amend Article 106 and Article 260 thereof. Clause (3) was added to Article 260 to declare those persons as non-Muslims who do not believe in the “absolute and unqualified finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon Him) or claims to be a Prophet in any sense of the word or of any
description whatsoever, after Muhammad (PBUH) or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or a Religious Reformer". The Qadianis of the two groups are interalia covered by this definition and they were thus declared non-Muslims."
During Zia 's time Ordinance 298 was promulgated which added section 298-B and 298-C to the Paksitan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) and made consequential amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) and West Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 Sections 298-B and 298-C are as follows:
298-B
"Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc. reserved for certain holy personages or places.
1) Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or by any other name) who by words either spoken or written or by visible representation;
a) refers to or addresses, any person other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as 'Ameerul Mumineen', 'Khalifat-ul -Mumineen', 'Khalifat-ul-Muslimeen', 'Sahaabi’ or 'Razi–Allah-Anho'.
b) Refers to or addresses any person other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) as 'Umm-ul-Mumineen';
c) Refers to or addresses any person other than a member of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon Him) as Ahle-bait; or
d) Refers to or names, or calls his place of worship as ‘Masjid’,
Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
2) Any person of the Qadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, refers to the mode or from of call to prayers followed by his faith as Azan; or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
298-C
“Person of Qadiani group etc. calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith. -- Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or by any other name) who directly or indirectly poses himself as a Muslim or call or refers to his faith as Islam or preaches or propagates his faith or invites others to accept his faith by words either spoken or written or by visible representations, or any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
These Sections made it a criminal offence for an Ahmadi:-
a) to call or pose himself directly or indirectly as a Muslim or refer to his faith as Islam;
b) to preach or propagate his faith or to invite others to accept his faith or in any manner whatsoever outrage the religious feelings of Muslims;
c) to call people to prayer by reciting Azan to refer to his mode or form of call to pryer as Azan;
d) to refer or call his place of worship as Masjid;
e) to refer any person other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as Ameerul-Mumineen, Khalifatul-Muslimeen, Sahaaba, Razi-Allah Anho any person other than the wives of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as Umm-ul–Mumineen and any person other than a member of the family of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as Ahle-bait.’
So u can appeal that calling people who joined Mirza are Sahaba Karam, his family Ahl-e-bayt, worship place mosque and subsequent head of movement as Khalifa's and this amendment is against Constitution.
According to a decision by shariat court of Pakistan, Islam is kind of a trademark like Cocacola or Pepsi. And it can only be used by person who is declared a Muslim by the constitution assembly of Pakistan. They have taken Allah and Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) out of equation and give constitution assembly of Pakistan authority to declare somebody a Muslim or Non-Muslim.
I have no problem with any non-Ahmadi Muslim consdering me a Non-Muslim. I don't have any problem if they want to perform 'Nawaz' lead by an Ahmadi. I don't have any problem if they don't want to dine with Ahmadis. The problem starts when they use force and government resources to make people (who consider themselves Muslims) to act like Non-Muslims.
Just consider the scenario, in which a government is lead by Molvis of Sipah-e-Sihaba. The first thing they would do is to name Shias non-muslims and would also put that in consitution. Would anybody at that time would advise Shias to bear it as it is in consitution?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities** freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures**;
Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed;
Therein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;
BTW, the word 'freely' was omitted by your favorite Gen. Zia!
[/QUOTE]
Shariat Court Decision
On 15 July 1984 Mujib-ur-Rehman, Amir Jamat Ahmadiyya Rawalpindi, on the instructions of Mirza Tahir Ahmad, filed a petition in the Federal Shariat Court against the Ordinance. A full bench of the Federal Shariat Court comprising Chief Justice Mr Aftab Hussain, Mr Justice Fakhre Alam, Mr. Justice Chaudhry Mohammed Sadiq, Mr Justice Maulana Malik Ghulam Ali and Mr Justice Maulana Abdul Qaddus Qasami heard the petition. Lahori Jamat also presented their viewpoint in detail. The Court continued hearing for 21 days and passed a short order on 12 August, 1984 dismissing the two petitions as having no force.
The Court had the assistance of Juris-Consultants viz, Prof Qazi Mujib-urRehman, Prof Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Prof. Mohammad Ashraf of Peshawar University, Maulana Tajuddin Hyderi, Allama Mirza Yousaf Hussain, Maulana Sadaruddin Rifai and Prof. Mahmud Ahmad Ghazi. The Federal Government was represented by Dr Riaz Hassan Gilani and Haji Shaukat Ghias Muhammad Advocates. The Court held that the allegations in the petitions as elaborated at the bar that the impugned ordinance violates the freedom of faith of Qadianis of either persuasion or restrains them from practicing their religion or affects their right of worship is not correct. The said Ordinance does not interfere with the right of the petitioners or other Qadianis to profess and practice their religion in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. *They are at liberty to profess Qadianism or Ahmadisin as their religion and to profess their faith in Mirza Ghularn Ahmad as a prophet or the Promised Messiah or the Promised Mahdi. They are also at liberty to practice their religion and worship, interalia, in their places of worship according to the tenets of their religion. *
The Judgement says the impugned ordinance is consequential to the constitutional Amendment of 1974 by which the Qadianis and Lahoris were declared non-Muslims in accordance with the dictates of Islamic Shariah. In implementation of the constitutional fiat, which was disregarded with impunity by the Qadianis, they have been restrained by the impugned ordinance from directly or indirectly calling or posing themselves as Muslims or calling their faith as Islam. To call their places of worship by the name of Masjid and to call people to prayers by calling Azan which are exclusive for Muslims; by the said name and the said call to prayers, the unwary among the Muslims are likely to be deceived and to be drawn to offer their prayers behind a non-Muslim Imam in a non-Muslim place of worship. Qadianis can call their place of worship by other name and call the adherent of their religion to prayer by use of any other method. The use of epithets like Ummul Mominin, Sahaba, Ahle-Bait etc by the Ahmadis not only outrages the feelings of the Muslims but also amounts to their posing indirectly as Muslims. The prohibition does not interfere with the right of Ahmadis to profess and practice their religion. The prohibition against propagation of the religion of Ahmadis is not contrary to the Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (p.b.o.h). This prohibition is also consequential to the declaration of Ahmadis or Qadianis as non-Muslims and restraint against their posing as Muslims. Their entire strategy in preaching is to satisfy the Muslim to whom they preach that by conversion to Ahmadism he shall remain a Muslim. This would be contrary to the constitution. (The Muslim lslamabad, 13 August 1984)
Degas Sahib,
Amendments are made to the constitution & sometimes by provinces which are contradictory to the original constitution.
According to the great State of Arkansas "A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month." & in the sunny state of Alabama, inter-racial marriages are illegal. But both of these are deemed unconstitutional based on the bill or rights of America (May Allah bless her).
So, Zia along with his Majlis-e-Shora can make the laws but if they self contradict, it really doesn't go very far. But off course, when there is a majority mob rule, you can even put people in jail for years under the new patriot act & call it 'national security'.
It's all how you play it, my friend!
ahmadjee
I never said those penal code laws are according to Constitution.. but they are there and according to above judgement they are not contrary to Constitution.. so its up to u to prove that they are constitutional.. u quoted part of constitution and I showed teh judgement with reference to it.. Pakistan is ruled with Constitution of Pakistan not by urs or mine whims and preferences..
check it again...
"..The said Ordinance does not interfere with the right of the petitioners or other Qadianis to profess and practice their religion in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. They are at liberty to profess Qadianism or Ahmadisin as their religion and to profess their faith in Mirza Ghularn Ahmad as a prophet or the Promised Messiah or the Promised Mahdi. They are also at liberty to practice their religion and worship, interalia, in their places of worship according to the tenets of their religion. "
Mr Degas:
According to your logic, constitutional assembly of a country has a right to decide ones faith?
Based on this logic, what would happen if a country with Shia majority declares Sunnis non-muslims, forbids them to call their place of worship a mosque, forbids them to say Assalam O Alaikum, put them in jails if they are saying Namaz in a public place?
How would you feel? Would you abide by the law as it is based on a ruling of the CONSTITUTION ASSEMBLY?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Mr Degas:
According to your logic, constitutional assembly of a country has a right to decide ones faith?
Based on this logic, what would happen if a country with Shia majority declares Sunnis non-muslims, forbids them to call their place of worship a mosque, forbids them to say Assalam O Alaikum, put them in jails if they are saying Namaz in a public place?
How would you feel? Would you abide by the law as it is based on a ruling of the CONSTITUTION ASSEMBLY?
[/QUOTE]
No shis country can declare that if that countrys constitution guarantee that laws should be passed according to Quran and Sunnah as that act could easily be challenged! and that sunnah will be Muhammad (PBUH) and not Mirza Sahibs...U didnt checked I guess that I posted reply to ahmadjee's quote of Constitution that everone is free to go to their temples and are free.. The appeal by ahmadis was rejected with a detailed judgement..
". The Court held that the allegations in the petitions as elaborated at the bar that the impugned ordinance violates the freedom of faith of Qadianis of either persuasion or restrains them from practicing their religion or affects their right of worship is not correct. The said Ordinance does not interfere with the right of the petitioners or other Qadianis to profess and practice their religion in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. They are at liberty to profess Qadianism or Ahmadisim as their religion and to profess their faith in Mirza Ghularn Ahmad as a prophet or the Promised Messiah or the Promised Mahdi. They are also at liberty to practice their religion and worship, interalia, in their places of worship according to the tenets of their religion. "
So calling that un-constitutional is not true.. Senior Justices of Shariat court gave verdict against Ahamadis.. now if u dont believe in them its not their problem.. Country is run by a Constitution.. without that there will be anarchy.. The Constitutional amendment by General Assembly is backed fully by Justice system.. If someone doesnt accept both these institutions and seek somewhere else then what can anyone do about it..
Mr. Degas:
Countries are run by constitutions but ones faith is not determined by constitution.
Mr. Degas:
You quoted the decision of a higher court of Pakistan:
[QUOTE]
They are also at liberty to practice their religion and worship, interalia, in their places of worship according to the tenets of their religion.
[/QUOTE]
But according to the tenets of religion of Ahmadis (which is Islam by the way), their place of worship is called a mosque but still we are not allowed to call our place of worship a mosque. A contradiction! don't you think?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Mr. Degas:
Countries are run by constitutions but ones faith is not determined by constitution.
[/QUOTE]
so vast majority should forced to be believe in Ahmadi faith? What about decisions of teh learned Jurists? or we should ask opinion from Ahmadi Khalifa? There are so many faith in acountry how should all be settled.. That constitution decision was backed by Justices and jurists of constitution .. This post was about interpretation of constitution about liberty to profess ones religion.. ahamdis are considered non-muslims in Constitution of pakistan and they can only practice as non-muslims... and they are free to practice ahmadism or qadianism ..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Mr. Degas:
You quoted the decision of a higher court of Pakistan:
But according to the tenets of religion of Ahmadis (which is Islam by the way), their place of worship is called a mosque but still we are not allowed to call our place of worship a mosque. A contradiction! don't you think?
[/QUOTE]
But according to main stream muslims around the world Ahmadism is everything but Islam.. but if ahmadism is Islam then what about muslims who dont believe in it? According to muslism around the world Ahmadism refutes the basic foundation of Islam.. other sects may have differences that are not that important ..
There is no contradiction if u read the judgement.. the judgement also says..
"...to refer any person other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as Ameerul-Mumineen, Khalifatul-Muslimeen, Sahaaba, Razi-Allah Anho any person other than the wives of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as Umm-ul–Mumineen and any person other than a member of the family of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as Ahle-bait.’ "
Mr. Degas:
You wrote:
[QUOTE]
so vast majority should forced to be believe in Ahmadi faith?
[/QUOTE]
Can you give me any example in the history of Ahmadiyya movement in Islam where non-Ahmadis are forced to be Ahmadis? One single example!
My point is that no government or constitution has any right to interfere with ones faith.
Ahmadis don't have any problem whether Mr. Degas considered them Muslims or not! but Ahmadis have a problem when Mr. Degas try to force Ahmadis to act like Non-Muslims.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Mr OuiJa: *
but hey **bao bihari* couldnt asnwer me CORRECT and no1 of u guyz(anti ahmadis) even dare to asnwer the question?? isnt there any answer of this?? the Mullahs and Police did a rude job in the name of Mullahism(of course they did)?
So plz, tell me about it.!!
[/QUOTE]
what about the reason i gave.........and what police and ulema did was right..................
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Ahmadis have a problem when Mr. Degas try to force Ahmadis to act like Non-Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
Besides yourselfs, who in islam has recognised/accepted you as muslims?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bao bihari: *
what about the reason i gave.........and what police and ulema did was right..................
[/QUOTE]
the reason you gave was WITHOUT any base and argument, just put a story which could be false and claim that b.s Mullahs and b.s cops do the right thing.
Think about it and asnwer me again!!!
Btw I asked for a vers in Holy Quran and Hadith not like your stories!!!!