Most writers and especially secular ones critcise ZA Bhutto’s decison to declare Ahmadi’s as Non Muslims. They see it as the beginning of the creeping Islamisation that Zia later on pushed through and pandering to the religious groups as a way of winning votes (even though the Ahmadi community had voted mostly for the PPP.
In contrast in the 1950’s when the Anti Ahmadi movement was first launched the government of Khawaja Nazimuddin reacted very harshly against the protesters, he declared a martial Law in Punjab and arrested the agitators (which included a certain Maudoodi who was sentenced to death ..a verdict later commuted).
While I do not want to get into a religious debate on the issue as my views have been mentioned on other threads quite clearly. But, I am curious, what people think of the decision, of a Parliament declaring a sect or group Non Muslim? Should it have been done in another way? Or perhaps it’s not the business of government to decide who is Muslim and who is not? Or was the decision a correct one and should have been pushed through much earlier?
It's definitely not the business of a government to decide who's faith is what.. It stems from treating citizens based on their religion and not nationality. I doubt if there'd be such hooha over anyone's faith if all opportunities were available to all Pakistanis regardless of race, religion, orientation or domicile.
Christians have umpteen denominations yet all call their place of worship a Church and all are called Christians... even the Unitarians have a Church when it's just a glorified conference hall for networking. There is this acute problem with a large section of our society striving to become more exclusive about their religion than inclusive and the majority throwing their weight around.
A question, although with slight religious overtones....
Wasn't it clear in Islam or political islam until the 1970/80's whether Ahmedis were muslims or not? If not, then I can understand. SOmetimes it takes years to understand simple words..but if so, then why wait for so long?
what's important for Pakistan Matsui is that this debate should go on in religious circles and the outcome should not have any bearings on the citizenship of that sect.
"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to got to your mosque or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed--that has nothing to do with the business of the State."
Only a secular democratic Pakistan can assure the equal rights to every citizen.
Only a secular democratic Pakistan can assure the equal rights to every citizen.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Although Musharraf might not be held up as a role model for democracy, he is at least a step in the right direction when it comes to adopting the secular approach. ZAB's amendment needs to be over-turned.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
But, I am curious, what people think of the decision, of a Parliament declaring a sect or group Non Muslim? Should it have been done in another way? Or perhaps it's not the business of government to decide who is Muslim and who is not? Or was the decision a correct one and should have been pushed through much earlier?
I look forward to everyones comments.
[/QUOTE]
Although more than 95% Pakisatnis are muslims, but we know it clearly that a muslim is not simply a muslim. There are so many different creeds and confessions among muslims and every group considers the follower of other group a lesser muslim or sometimes non-muslim. We don't elect a parliamentarian on the ground of his belief, what if the majority of the parliamentarians are non-sunnis and they manage to enact a law which declares sunnis as non-muslims. Let it be, belief is a personal matter. The government shouldn't intervene in the religious matters and guarantee the freedom of religion to every citizen.
Agreed. Although Musharraf might not be held up as a role model for democracy, he is at least a step in the right direction when it comes to adopting the secular approach. ZAB's amendment needs to be over-turned.
[/QUOTE]
Qadianis have become the favourite whipping boy for the mullah crowd. Whenever something bad happens to Pakistan, they can conveniently blame it on a "Qadiani conspiracy".
First they came for the Qadianis, then the Hindus, then Christians and now Shias.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
I don’t know about ZAB’s amendment to the Constitution, but I know that he was a backstabbing sob. He used to get wasted with my uncle on the most expansive booze, during his student days in Oxford, and later in Pakistan, and that’s how he paid back.
But Zakk, as Boobsie pointed out, states should have no business deciding religion of anyone. Religion is like sexual orientation, it is what people consider themselves what is important and not what State tells one. ZAB started a very dangerous precedent and the country is paying for idiocy in shape of religious fanaticism and extremism. Now Saudi sponsored Sunnis want Shias to be declared Kafirs.
[/QUOTE]
Madhanee, I think he made the move to please the religious fanatics of Pakistan, just to strengthen his seat. I dont think a man like him would have had a problems in recognizing Ahmedis as being Muslims, he wasnt that type.
^ Spock thats the odd thing with Bhutto, his party in the '70's was a very left wing Party, it comprised of many people who associated with the communist party or the socialist movement and he had won Sind and Punjab outright in the elections. Bhutto himself used to use quite foul language about many of the religious parties... also I don't think any of the religious parties had even brought up th issue of the Ahmadis in the 1970 election campaign. And despite the amendment to the constitution ZAB included clauses in the constitution as a whole preventing discrimination on the basis of sect or religion. Itw as essentially Zia ul Haq who pushed through targetting religious minorities (and sect based minorities) as a matter of state policy.
I doubt you'd ever get any political party now advocating the undoing of the Amendment declaring Ahmadis non Muslim..although I do not believe in the separation of state from religion, I do not think it is the place of a Parliament or a Dictator to decide who is a Muslim or non Muslim, even if I agree with the religious arguments.
it'll be outright political suicide for any party today to suggest a change.. as a society we've let religious fanaticism grow stronger and uglier and become a threat.. reform needs someone who's confident and sincere in what they're doing plus not mind a few heads rolled in the process..
Musharraf certainly doesn't appear to be that person.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Now Saudi sponsored Sunnis want Shias to be declared Kafirs.
[/QUOTE]
We are 95% on the way to have this already accomplished. Even if it's not written law right now, the fanaticism spread amongst the people by that special unnamed group has made huge inroads in the mindset and psyche of the nation.
In the 1970's the mullahs and government of ZAB was
under immense pressure from the people of PAKISTAN to declare Kadianees and ahmedis as non muslims.
It was the legislature elected by the people of Pakistan that
decided to declare them as non muslims.
It seems that some people are trying to spread confusion between
Muslims. The Pakistani scholars of Islam including shias have given the
decision that Ahmedis are non muslims. so what is wrong with that.
It was not Saudi or Irani decision but PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN made
a decision in a DEMOCRATIC WAY.
Zulfi: I am trying to avoid a religious discussion on whether the group is considered Muslim or not, there are countles threads on other boards on the issue.
As far as ZAB being under immense pressure I think that's an exaggeration, he had repeatedly ignored the religo political parties, his passing of the amendment had more to do with spliting the opposition
Imdad: Musharraf pushed through one major reform he eliminated the separate electorate system which essentially gives the Ahmadi and other religious minorties equal voting rights.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
I recall again these famous words of Mr. Jinnah:
"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to got to your mosque or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed--that has nothing to do with the business of the State."
Only a secular democratic Pakistan can assure the equal rights to every citizen.
[/QUOTE]
It seems that some people are trying to spread confusion between
Muslims. The Pakistani scholars of Islam including shias have given the
decision that Ahmedis are non muslims. so what is wrong with that.
It was not Saudi or Irani decision but PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN made
a decision in a DEMOCRATIC WAY.<<<
Zulfikulfi, if tomorrow people of Pakistan decide in a Democratic Way that Sunnis are not Muslims, would you accept that? And since when do you believe that PEOPLE have been empowered to Decide on other people’s Religion? Do you mean to say that Ahmadis are only non-Muslim in Pakistan and not Saudi Arabia because there people don’t get to decide in a DEMOCRATIC WAY? Are you also suggesting that there’s no need for Quran Nimaz etc., and PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN should decide in a DEMOCRATIC WAY about what is Islamic and what is not? are you also saying that DEMOCRATIC WAY is Islamic way? What are you suggesting?
[/QUOTE]
You are asking so many questions that are not even related to
the topic. Your only purpose is to stir arguments for the sake
of arguments.
Or was the decision a correct one and should have been pushed through much earlier?
Yes. The decision was a correct one and should have been pushed through much earlier. You mentioned 1950's. People advocating for
declaring them as non muslims faced police brutality. And
Qadiani mob beat up people in Lahore.
Yes, State has the right to interfere in religious matters.
Lets face it we have 150 million Muslims in Pakistan. So
every government has to take them seriously while formulating
public policy.
Firstly the State has no business in deciding what faith individuals follw. But this law does not stop the Ahmadis/Qaddianis from following their faith. All it does is define who or what a Muslim is: One who believes that the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was the LAST and FINAL Messenger of Allah. Those that fail this simple test have no business in calling themselves muslims.
Secondly, the Qaddianis can't have it both ways. On the one hand they claim to be a persecuted minority in a predominantly Muslim country and at the same time they claim to be part of that majority.