Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
I think its time to understand Pakistan again and its root.
Pakistan is based on an ideology of Islam and not on hate, persecution, injustice or inhumanity.
Those who support Ahmadya movement are outsiders and non-muslim forces. Why is that ?
None of the muslim country is on their side..Why?
Ahmedya movement was never heard of until Brits came over and it would never have florished without Brit support for even a day. So now do you see who is behind this so called religeon? BBC or others are very happy to report these so called NEWS but these are propaganda activities against Pakistan.
Pakistan still does not give any hard time to Ahmadya people despite they are considered Non-muslims and disguise themselves as 'muslims'. I suspect very much that they can be very easily bought against Pakistan and "mainstream Pakistanis". I also suspect there are many Ahmedya people in important posts in Pakistan.
Its not Islamic to persecute anyone based on his or her ideology or religeon.
But its being stupid and ignorant not be vigilant of others trying to hurt Islam and muslims.
Coming back to So called secularism...no one can claim its a failed system and it has promoted more intolerence than tolerence to human ideologies.
Islam is the solution to all problems as we see today.
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
The Pakistani govt and people have shown a great deal of contempt and discrimination towards Ahmadis..
There is ample evidence to show that contrary to belief, Ahmadis are given a very hard time in Pakistan. The problem is that no one in Pakistan ever reports it excpet for Ahmadis themselves or outsiders. Locals are afraid to stand up for them out of fear…
But this is an example of the intolerance of Islam.. Im not sure if I should blame Islam, but this is certainly a fault of the people who follow the religion. Because they are unable to tolerate the Ahmedis, simply because their beliefs contradict the popular belief.. This is intolerance of the worst kind, and it exposes Islam and Islamic societies for what they are, an intolerant religon and an intolerant people…
And yes, long live Pakistan, but minus all this intolearnce and injuctice..
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
What's wrong with not accepting what majority believes is wrong in a particular country?
Try spreading nazi'ism or communism or socialism in most of north America, australia and west.....Do you think it would be welcomed or accepted? Are they not 'intolerant'?
There is nothing wrong in being 'intolerant' to.... 'wrong ideology'
Thats just silly to expect acceptance from people of one country to like and accept a baseless and failed ideology and be called as intolerent and being injustice...
There has not been a single persecution against non-muslims in Pakistan including Ahmedya people.
Its easy to play victim and gain favor of outsiders for Ahmedya people despite they are florishing in Pakistan.
They considered it to be intolerant if they are asked exactly who they are on passport or ID card form. Are they ashamed of who they are?
When all Pakistanis accept minority view the way Ahmedya want then may be they would be considered 'tolerant'? What a joke!
Believe whatever you want to believe in but please do not ask us to accept you as muslims as we see it being muslim. OK? Is this too much to ask?
Long live Pakistan and Pakistanis including muslims/non muslims Pakistanis(and Pakistani Ahmedya believers)
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
Americans and the Eurpenas and others aswell, tolerate Nazi and racist views, as long as they dont spread violence. Even when the hardline idiots do cause trouble, its limited to individuals and not to organizations, unless those organizations openly espouse violence.
You can not tolerate a group that calls for violence.
But idea should be and must be tolerated. The Ahmadis have neever caused any violence in Pakistan, most has been inflicted on them. Regadless of how you view their beliefs, and im not willing to call anyone non Muslim, I think no one especially no Sunnis have any right to label anyone, you must tolerate them. Tolerating them means allowing them to propagate their faith through non violent means even if thats means preaching and through writings. As long as they arent forcing anyone to change. Islam cant guarantee people this right, Islam isnt tolerant of anyone that has a different view.
And no, you dont have to accpet Ahmadis as Muslims, thats not the point, but the problem is that the Govt is cattering to the beliefs of the majority and thus denying the rights of minorites. This is not tolerance, this is victimization.
As much as you disagree with them, being tolerant means aloowing them to practice their religion in complete freedom.
If your not willing to do that, then simply admit that Pakistan isnt a tolerant society and neither is Islam a tolerant religion.
There is no haan, but yai, or haan but woh, its clear and simple, Tolerance means allowing others to live their lives without fear of persecution regardless of how you feel about them as long as the dont propogate violence..
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
PakPatriot,
Anything that can or will destabalize the established order will be banned. That's why seperatist talk is grounds for war. IRA was a result of a lack of policitcal process, not because the Irish were militant to begin with. Canada is the only exception I can think of to this...
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
Yes, but this only applies to groups which resort to terrorism, but since when are Ahmadis a destablizing force? The established order is not under threat from a people who only comprise 1 percent of Pakistan, infact there are more Christians then there are Ahmadis…
This is a clear example of the lack of tolerance in Pakistani society and Islam in general..
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
PakPatriot,
No, any group that agitates for seperation and manages to gain a constituancy among the people they claim to represent can quickly expect a swift military response if they declare defacto independence.
The so-called lack of "tolerance" in Islam is hardly unique. In fact, it's more tolerant in it's own ways...as western nations in general do not allow minorities to change the law specific to their communities. This is percicely so that Islam is not imposed on those who don't believe in it.
What you mean to say is that Islam as a poltical system will not accept any challengers. I can't think of a political system that would....
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
If that group does not resort to violence I see no problem with them and they should be allowed to go about their own bussines.. If it gets to the point where they begin to break the law by no paying taxes etc, then you can take action.. But they can consider themslvs to be anything they want as long as they dont break any laws... Although not sure how this applies to the Ahmadis..
I dont think Islam is a tolerant religoun because you do find examples in Hadeeth etc where followers are encouraged to root out all those who attempt to cause a schism or have opposing views etc. Upon readin the Koran, all you find all kinds of little gems which dont seem very tolerant what so ever.
Islam as a political system, although I think it shouldnt exist doesnt give any room to any would be challenger. How ever I have said this before, the diffrence between a secular system and a religous political system is that laws within the religous system are written in stone and thus cannot be changed, where as the laws within a secular system are much more flexible, and thus allowing opposing viewpoints and challengers.
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
PakPatriot,
By definition, declaring independence is a violation of the law.
Insofar as tolerance in the Hadith...schisms are bad period. Indeed, people who do want to create divisivness should be stopped...and this is no different in nation states (where the analogs would be seperatists). Unity does not neccessarily mean unity in thought...but if you have one group who uniliaterally declares themselves to be exempt from Zakat (not based on any understanding of the faith mind you), then of course that's going to be taken as an act of treason. If you have a group droping core Islamic theology, and agitiating against the rest of the Muslim community...then yeah, that is cause for concern and action.
For this same reason, Muslims are asked to be more British than the British or American thatn the Americans...as evidence as to where their loyalties lie. Let there be no doubt: there would be NO toleration of fundementalist muslims who want to change society. Period.
There are some things you don't compromise on. Others, no big deal. What is a big deal and what is not changes from society to society.
Tolerance is not a unitary concept...Muslims are much more tolerant of minorities practicing their own laws, for example. This is considered taboo in the west. It's all relative.
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
Yes declaring independance is illegal, but most groups you gave examples of have never called for independance and neither have the Ahmedis.
Schisms are bad, but a few points have to be made...
1) The Shia were the biggest schism from mainstream Islam, yet I dont see anyone in Pakistan calling for them being kicked out of the fold, except for a few, but they are considered fantatics.
2) You have to relaize that one mans Schism is another many idea of the natural evolution of faith. So while Sunnis may feel that Ahmedi are causing a schism, Ahmedis seem to think that they are the natural progression of Islam. If you have gone through the debates that used to happen before they were banned, Ahmedi Guppies had said that they feel they are the only true Islam left while all the rest were.. Well.. Not!
And while you may not agree with this point of view, you cant really argue against it either.
So whether its schism, and if so who is causing this schism is open to debate.
Shia would certainly feel the same way about Sunni's. Im sure many Shias will blame Sunnis for the schism, and they do... So who is to say who is right or wrong?
As for Zakat, I dont know if Ahmedis pay it or not... I have many Ahmedis in my family, my village is 15 percent Ahmedi, so I know the Pay Zakat within their own Mosques and such.
But I doubt that the govt of Pakistan would accept Zakat from them since they are considered to be non Muslim. I do know that these people are generally harmless and pious... Much negative publicty has been given to them and I thin its really unfair and very unbecoming of the so called Muslims to accuse them without allowing them the chance to defenc themsleves.
Now as for core Islamic theology, and they droping it.. Furst I should pint out that there are two Ahmedi groups.. One is the Lahori group and one is the larger Ahmedi group. The larger one, which is the best known is the one that believes that Mohammad was not the last prophet but that the line is still open, however they still consider him the last law bearing prophet or something, and believe that Mirza saab was a prophet. The Lahori group on the other hand believes that Mohamad was the last prophet and that Mirza saab was only the Promised Messiah and they go to great legths to distinguish themselvs. The Pakistan govt however feels they are both the same and thus non Muslim.
Now as for changing core values, im going to ask you to see this from a purely secular point of view since this is ultimately a debate over the merits of Secular society of Islam. The Ahmadis may have changed core values, but they are only as guilty as Shia were for changing the doctrines enshrined in Sunni Islam. There is no possible way you can judge the Ahmadis as apostates or whatever because you personally have absolutely no clue as to the will of God or whoever is up there. Yes they changed certain established beliefs but they say that they are simply correcting a belief that was inorrect to begin with.
Your right, a religon doesnt accpet appostates but its all about definition... Who is it that is defining them as Apostate and what right do they have to do so?
Islam is very dangerous in that while it doesnt tolerate so called apostates, it fails to take into account the simple fact that all religions can be interpretted and reinterpretted to suit the times or the circumstances, its simply human nature. So Islam asscribes punishment for something that is natural to all faiths, the fact that interpretations change.
The only reason that Ahmedis in Pakistan are being treated badly is because those defining them as heratics just happen to be the majority Sunnis.. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would be in my place trying to defend the rights of Sunnis and saying basically the same thing I am..
And your right dont compramise.. But that means dont accept the personally, but allow them the same rights you allow yourself... Allow them to preach their religion and to call themselves whatever they want... They should be as tolerant of you as you are of them. Tolerance by the way does not mean accpetance.
Tolerance is very simple, regardless of what the other person is saying, you tolerate their beliefs because that is their right. This right is guaranteed to people in secualr states because religion is the definining characteristic of the citizen. While Islam may be tolerant of Minorities practicing their laws, they dont extend this privlige to those within their own community that would want to interpret their religion in a different way. And that is the problem, its great that Islam can tolerate minorites, but their is that limit... This is the problem, because religous tolerance more then anything else, is something that should not be limited. Secualr society however provides all religous groups to preach whatever they want and practice whatever they want so long as they arent sacraficing people at the alter...
This in contrast to Islam, and Islamic states which dont accpet any opposing views whatso ever. And it is relative. If you live in a state where Sunnis are the majority, then it is they who define who is or isnt a Muslims and vice versa... Islam like I said before is a very dangerous relgion because it puts this decision in the hands of Muslms themsevs and opens the doors to vigalantism and intolerance..
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
PAkpatriot- Britain is a secular country- tell me where is the tolerance- in my opinion due to the loss of christianty there is more intolerance- atleast being a christian he would have considered me Gods creature- but remember secularism is a curse- it divides people not unite
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
I have no particular need to see the Ahmedis be persecuted. Yet, I do not want to see religion *******ized from society in the name of "protecting" minorities. Secularization simply makes a minority out of the majority, in the Pakistani context.
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
Its the other way around, Pakistan has become the curse on Islam, why? every mullah is RIGHT and he is armed to prove it too, wanna argue with them? thats how they “destroyed” Islam, by defacing it. If anything, Islam was a blessing for Pakistan as it was the only reason of its creation.
Re: Why tolerance is not on the curriculum in Pakistan
Well see thats the problem… You are a majority in Pakistan and thus under Islam, the majority sentiment tends to be the one enshrined as law at the expense of the minorites.. Secular society on the other hand seeks to end discrimination and intolerance by accepting everyone as equal..
Islam doesnt and wont guartantee this right so thus it is naturally intolerant..
And yes there are religions that allow such differences. Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Christiainty and Judaism arent so intolerant to different views… Atleats intolerance isnt enshrined in these religions as it is in Islam.
In the case of Islam, the majority are Pakistani citizens.. By allowing secularism in Pakistan, you only make the majority Pakistani citizens with equal rights and privilages, unlike now where the majority is Sunni and everyone else is a minority..