Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam
New Age Islam has received a press release from some organisation called Shariath Protection Council based in Chennai that says, inter alia: ... “But if the Hon’ble Minister (the Union Finance Minister, Shri Pranab Mukherjee) intends to interact with Qadianis, taking them to be Muslims, then it is incumbent on the Council to correct his wrong assumption and to make known that, his participation in the said Convention, despite their protests, will wound the sentiments of Muslims, as a result of which Muslims will cease to take his Party as their ally.”
I would have thought that we Indian Muslims are not Pakistanis and that we have not declared Ahmadis non-Muslim. In our view anyone is a Muslim who says la ilaha illallah Muhammadur rasoolullah (There is no god other than the one God and Muhammad is his prophet) and Ahmadis do that. Indeed, I had the personal experience of seeing their love for Prophet Mohammad and belief in his finality as a law-bearing prophet when I spent a few years in Suriname, South America where the majority of Muslims are Ahmadis. They differentiate between law-bearing prophets and people who are renewers of Islam (mujaddedeen) coming every new century or so and who are inspired by God to say things that they didn’t know they had in themselves.
Yes, some Ahmadis do call Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani Saheb a prophet, albeit a non-law-bearing prophet below the status of law-bearing prophets like Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Ram or Krishna, etc. We have our differences with them and of course, the majority of mainstream Muslims do not agree with them. Indeed many Ahmadis, the so-called Lahori group of Ahmadis, led by as great a scholar of Islam as Maulana Mohammad Ali, too do not agree with them and merely consider Mirza Saheb a mujaddid (renewer of Islam). Indeed if we go by the logic of Ahmadis we would have to consider not only Mirza Saheb but also people like Ghalib, Iqbal, Shakespeare, Keats, Einstein, etc. as prophets. These people were indubitably inspired to say things that they did not know the source of. They only knew that they did not know the things they said in a clearly altered state of mind – in some cases like that of Ghalib, for instance, an altered state of mind produced by the influence of liquor. Similarly, some of them consider Mirza Saheb a reincarnation of Jesus Christ who is supposed to come back at the end of history. I am sure many Qadianis themselves consider this rather absurd.
Yet, come to think of it, the difference is minor and more terminological. With Lahori group of Ahmadis, of course, there should be no difference at all. There have been several mujaddids in Islam and all of us do not have to go by their interpretations. We can just ignore them. After all, the main source of Islam is the Holy Quran and all Muslim sects abide by that, though there may be differences in interpretations. The difference with Ahmadis has turned into a deep and seemingly unbridgeable chasm. It happened like this. The Mullahs who had opposed the creation of Pakistan wanted a place for themselves in the politics of Pakistan once it got created. They latched on to the issue of a section of Ahmadis considering Mirza Saheb a prophet of sorts for the revival of their own political fortunes. They started riots against Ahmadis. The political leaders of so-called moderate, mainstream Muslims did not have the gumption to oppose their murderous activities. And finally decades later an ‘enlightened’ Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the then Prime Minister, succumbed to fundamentalist pressure and in the hope of gaining some political mileage with the ‘Islamist” marauders, at a very difficult time when he was engaged in a battle for political survival, declared the group non-Muslim. But it is important to remember that before Bhutto, who was executed by Islamists for being a murderer declared them non-Muslim under their pressure, the Ahmadis were a bona fide group of Muslims even in Pakistan, as, of course, they are in other parts of the world.
I have always thought that we Indian Muslims, benefiting as we do from the composite spiritual ambience of multi-religious, multi-cultural India, are a different breed of Muslims than our brothers who have the misfortune to live in ‘Islamist’ Pakistan. But then come along statements like the one quoted above and it becomes clear that there are some among us who would have preferred to live in the spiritual disaster that is called Pakistan. They too would have probably liked to blow themselves up for the sake of bombing other Muslims praying in mosques around the country on account of minor ideological differences.
That a top leader of the Congress party is attending an Ahmadi convention is good news. We mainstream Muslims, both Sunnis and Shias have ideological differences not only with Ahmadis but also with every other Muslim. Every Muslim Mullah considers every Muslims other than his own followers a Kafir. Kafir-manufacturing factories are the most productive in the Muslim world. Indeed Muslims do not have any other manufacture worth the name. No two Mullahs agree on the definition of a Muslim. Ask Justice Munir of Pakistan who investigated the bloody anti-Ahmadia riots in Pakistan of the 1950s:
Backgrounder: The Mullah and the Munir Report
For Deobandis and other Wahhabis even a Muslim who doesn’t show up for a Friday prayer should have his throat slit. Should non-Muslim Indian politicians then stop meeting Muslims who do not go for Friday prayers?
Why should this sickness of the Muslim community stop a non-Muslim political leader interact with Muslims whose views on the issues of the moment are most logical, suited to the times and in harmony with the spirit of Islam, even if we have some theological differences with them? Mirza Saheb interpreted Islam a century ago. Our Mullahs go by the interpretation given several hundred years ago or even a thousand years ago or more. Why should some of us threaten Pranab Mukherjee with the entire Muslim community not taking “his party as an ally” after this? This is totally absurd and irresponsible. What is this Shariath Protection Council that is bent upon the destruction of our syncretic Islam here in India? Or how representative of the Muslim community is Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam of Punjab, that I understand, is also running a campaign against Mr. Mukherjee’s visit? Who are the people behind this? What gives them the right to speak on behalf of the entire Indian Muslim community?
“Baithul Aman”, N-22/O-51,Barracks Road, Periamet, CHENNAI 60003
Phone: 2561-2496 / 92837-33786
Email: esempee email@example.com
Re: PRANAM (sic) MUKKERJEE’S PARTICIPATION IN THE CONVENTION OF QADIANIS
The Shariath Protection Council admits that Shri Pranab Mukherjee, the Union Finance Minister, like any other Indian citizen possesses the Fundamental Right of Movement and Right of Expression and so, none can prevent him from participating in the Convention organized by the QADIANIS who are considered by Muslims not as MUSLIMS but as KAFIRS ( unbelievers). But if the Hon’ble Minister intends to interact with Qadianis, taking them to be Muslims, then it is incumbent on the Council to correct his wrong assumption and to make known that, his participation in the said Convention, despite their protests, will wound the sentiments of Muslims, as a result of which Muslims will cease to take his Party as their ally.
SHARIATH PROTECTION COUNCIL
On this website we see disturbing news items like the potential overrunning of Pakistan’s civil society by an armed group of Taliban, charged with religious zeal of ‘do or die’ (Ref Irfan Husain’s article) . On the other hand we have a journalist friend from Tamil Nadu, who is actually on my side of the ideology, 'but who would not change his mind about calling others ‘kafirs’, and would not let me change the topic'. What do we do with such a legacy? Truly unfortunate.
ASSALAMUALAIKUM BROTHERS & SISTERS
I have read with interest brother Manzur Huque's rejoinder. According to him the Qadiyanis believe in the QURAN and the PROPHET. If they believe in and have respect for it, then why do they ADD yet another "Prophet" after the Muhammad (s.a.w.s) - the Last Messenger of Allah and the "seal of propherhood"?
THOSE WHO SAY THAT THERE CAME A PROPHET AFTER MUHAMMAD (s.a.w.s), ARE THEY MUSLIMS? When one cannot say that A or B was or is or will be like MUHAMMAD ( s.a.w.s), how can anybody say that one GHULAM AHMED Saheb IS A PROPHET whom Allah has sent AFTER PROPHET MUHAMMAD (s.a.w.s)? Hence, are we wrong in pronouncing and denouncing the QADIYANIS as KAFIRS?
S.M.PASHA, Convener, SHARIATH PROTECTION COUNCIL,
"Baithul Aman" 0-22/N-51, Barracks Road, Periamet, CHENNAI 600003 (South India)
I have already said on the subject, what I had to say. But in view of latest comments, I would like to reiterate the following:
If the report of Wikipedia is true or to the extent it is true (I have to write this, because somebody might say that the report is biased and exaggerated and then I wouldn’t be justified in what I am going to say), then on behalf of all the hundred and one sects of both Shia and Sunni streams of Islam, I apologize to all the Ahmadiyas of the world for any physical or even psychological violence inflicted on them by any Muslim anywhere in the world. I also give a word that if I see any Ahmadiya person or family being violated; I shall defend them to my death.
However their Nabi being different from our Nabi, they are as different from us, as we are different from the Christians or the Jews, though we also believe in Prophet Jesus, and Prophet Moses. This is an organizational matter, and I am sorry I cannot include everybody without checking on credentials.
As regards calling them Kafirs, I don’t. I don’t have any emotional link with such issues to start talking like God. I don’t call any human being as Kafir because I think it’s only Allah’s prerogative to call a non-believing harshly, and warn him of dire consequences. Besides, I never knew, a person believing in God has been labeled Kafir in the Quranic scheme of things.
But what did make me sad however was the fact that there was no response to other issues that I had raised in my positing after declaring that the Ahmadiya thing was a non-issue for me (awareness is sufficient to take care of this problem).
The DOB with my name below stands for my Date of Birth.
Manzurul Haque (DOB: 15.01.1953)
QADIYANIS ARE KAFIRS:MUSLIMS PLEASE NOTE
PAMPHLET ISSUED IN THE INTEREST OF THE MUSLIM UMMAH
One who believes that Muhammad (s.a.w.s) is the LAST MESSENGER OF ALLAH alone is a MUSLIM; one who does not believe it is a KAFIR, The QADIYANIS who are also known as AHMEDIS believe that GHULAM AHMED of WQadiyan in Gurdaspur Dst, in Punjab is a PROPHET who came after the Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (s.a.a.s) Hence, they have been declared to be KAFIRS by the Rabita-al-alam-e-Islam’s ( World Muslim League’s) Fiqh Council on the 6th of July 2005 C.E. Besides, there is NOT a single Mufthi in the world who has not similarly declared them to be Kafirs. Hence,Muslim brothers & sisters are requested to treat them as they would treat non-Muslims. Let there be no marriages between the Muslims and the Qadiyanis. Do not offer prayers in their masjids. Do not allow them inside our masjids. Do not allow them to bury their dead in our qabarasthans (graveyards).
THIS IS, IN SHORT, AN EARNEST APPEAL TO
S.M.PASHA, Convener, SHARIATH PROTECTION COUNCIL, CHENNAI
The mindless outcry by some fellow readers on Ahmadia issue, and their ardent race to declare them Kafir is not only sickening but also reflects their bigot mindset. These are the ideological premises which can make men become human-bombs or can arm them with lethal weapon to kill so-called believers, to set ablaze houses and business properties of those who dare to differ with them.
This is irony of Islam that they are still debating the issue who is a real Muslim? One should not forget the fact, Prophet Mohammad was raised by his uncle Abu Talib who never believed his religion and showed his respect and commitment for his pagan ritual until he died. He played an important role to protect not only the life of Prophet but his infant faith and contributed his best in support of Islam. I feel pity for the followers of the Prophet, they talk a lot about Sunnah and try to imitate his life but for what? We have a special progeny of Islam who claim themselves to be the super Cop of Islam and trying hard to establish Islamic regime and we have many version of Islamic Havaldars who think that they are doing a good job, without knowing what they are doing??
Prophet of Islam had a very dignified and respectful view for those who did not believe in his TRUTH and he managed them properly about 1400 years ago but his followers, in his name are divided in several schools of thought and they are not ready to give space to those fellow believers who have some ideological differences with them. They can accommodate with Non-Muslim faiths easily but they can go to any extent while dealing with internal ideological differences. We have a long record of bloody history of Shiite-Sunni strife to Ahamadia-Sunni struggle.
I will request the editor of New Age Islam not to be disturbed by the attacks of these craps. They have their historical identity of ignorance and their love for regressive forces which always supported the king in lieu of a few bucks. You have a better instrument to enlighten common masses and believer who could commit to make this planet a better place to live peacefully.
Ahamdias are better to some extent as they have produced a commendable number of intellectuals, bureaucrats, technocrats, army personnel, scientists etc. in proportion to their population, and most important, they do not come in the news for arson of Sunni Mosque or killing someone in the name of Islam.
Islam is the religion of various contradictions, Dear Editor and you have to live with it. You haven’t created any division; you only inherited this situation. So Mapping Islam in twenty First century is a tough task, my dear Sir, you have chosen this path strewn with thorns. It’s your choice; nobody has forced you to do so. Not to be worried when you encounter even thousands or millions of Bashas. Keep your stride on. We are not in that period where THEY silenced their opponents quietly and historians didn’t even register that. We have a world which is not determined by these bigots; it will take care of you.
Mr.Haque, When the Prophet took us from Jahaliya to Islam it was an act of liberalization. The fundamental messages in the Quran support equality, justice, fairness and human dignity and oppose compulsion. These are all liberal tenets. The laws, punishments and prohibitions prescribed may be time-bound, and they may have been further reified by a thousand years of the blind-leading-the-blind ulamas, but it is the fundamentals that we need to chersish.
Having said that, let me add that I would never disrespect your perspective if it was slightly or even considerably different from mine. Your right to have and to propagate a different view is sacred to me.
You criticize me for talking about persecution rather than segregation of the Ahmediyas. According to the Wikipedia, "As a result of the cultural implications of the laws and constitutional amendments regarding Ahmadis in Pakistan, persecution and hate-related incidents are constantly reported from different parts of the country. Ahmadis have been the target of many attacks led by various religious groups. ....In a recent survey in Pakistan.... Ahmadis are considered to be the least deserving minority in terms of equal opportunities and civil rights". In Bangladesh, "Ahmadiyyas have become a persecuted group, targeted via protests and acts of violence. According to Amnesty International, followers have been subject to “house arrest”, and several have been killed."
Some of their beliefs may be wrong, but let us not forget that many Christians and Jewish theologians have been calling Islam a "false religion" for centuries. Instead of sitting in judgement over each other, let us leave these matters to God. Ahmediyas call themselves Muslims because they believe in the Quran (at least 99% of it) and the Prophet. I do not either agree or disagree. It is not my call.
I would like to see Mr. Mohiuddin as a liberal Muslim. His being Muslim is my presumption and his being liberal is my finding.
Personally, I too would like to go in for quite liberal interpretation of Islam. However simple logic would suggest that if we have an Islamic ‘religious order’ propounded by a prophet, then there would be limits to our ability to become too liberal in religious matters. Somebody can still argue, ‘why the hell do you accept limits? Break free, and so on’. Yes I know it is possible to break free. But, suppose, I do not want to break free. I mean, why should a liberal person believe that everyone who does not want to break free is under some sort of constraint of thought? Isn’t it theoretically also possible, that a person entirely capable of breaking free, finds the balance of advantage in some degree of conservatism? Liberalism can be a means to an end such as establishment of peace between communities and within communities and between individuals. But will the buck never stop, till we all land up in nude camps? – For that is what will happen, again entirely logically, if liberalism is an end in itself.
My liberalism permits me to segregate myself from someone whom I see as harmful to my interest. I cannot be pushed beyond this point in the name of liberalism to force myself to compromise on my interest. The West is also too aware of this principle. In fact I consider this approach as their gift to the modern civilization.
I do not know what is working on the mind of an intelligent and articulate person like Mr. Mohiuddin, such that he too is pushing the debate to the ‘persecution’ side when the real issue is ‘segregation’, which even Mr. Khan, a self-proclaimed practicing Ahmadiya understands in the earnest. The Muslims are no more that dumb (they never were, but were sleeping) that someone (mostly the West and their lackeys) goes on giving a bad name to the dog and carry on the killing. As of now, the underdog at the receiving end of killing, will at least shout back “My lord, you are being unjust”. I would like Mr. Mohiuddin to please understand that if the issue with the Ahmadiyas is ‘persecution’, then I would repeat one thousand times, that they should never be persecuted by any Muslim for being different from us. Indeed I would request my Muslim brethren never to exceed the limits laid down by the holy Quran in dealing with any individual or community. Quran is a holy book, full of limitations placed in the way of pursuit of our wanton desires, weaknesses, and cruel tendencies. This, even a man of ordinary common sense can perceive, and this fact gives a kind of hope to the ordinary common man from the dangers lurking around him from tyrants and sadists and self-centered epicureans. Therefore good Muslims must even fight against Muslims who are cruel, tyrannical, and morally debauch. If Muslims are not doing that, it is clearly their fault not merely in the eyes of the victims, but also in the eyes of Allah.
The case of Ahamadiyas is different, in that, they have chosen to be different. I don’t know for what goddamned reasons they want to continue to call themselves Muslims, when they very well know that Muslims are avowedly organized around the personage of their one last Nabi, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). On first occasion one can stumble into the boundaries of another man by genuine mistake, but if he insists doing so, despite being reminded, he would be deemed an encroacher or better still trespasser, according to all modern legal systems.
However my advice to Muslim brethren is not to give undue importance to the issue of ‘Ahmadiyas being Muslims’, which appears to be an orchestrated campaign, (and you might never know one day, even United Nations might declare that they are, under the diktat of Security Council’s vetoes, by some sort of inverted law-making exercise), as long as we Muslims know that we are Non-Ahmadiyas. We can educate our sons and daughters on this.
Having said the above, I would like to submit that I am discussing a non-issue (especially when the need of education of sons and daughters has popped in), when I compare this issue with the real threats that the Muslims are facing within. The rigidity of attitude of Muslims is not permitting them to resolve their sectarian conflicts, or allowing social reforms. Their total dependence on maulvis for interpretation of Islamic precepts has created the problem of genuine ignorance creeping in on religious matters, though if we analyze, the maulvis were meant to be doing some rituals for us in our day to day lives (which is an important social function, no doubt), but they could not possibly be Islamic interlocutors or spokespersons. If we have lacked in this kind of institution, then there is need to develop such an institution. Where are the Muslim scholars of Islamic Studies; and can we expect from them high quality of spokesman-ship to present Islam to both Muslim children well-versed in modern scientific education with their own set of queries, and then to the non-Muslims, both of benign and curious attitude towards Islam and of malignant attitude towards Islam. A bigger question would be, can Muslims support such high-grade Muslim scholars in terms of financial support and in terms of acceptance?
We talk of Muslim ‘muashra’ , and some young boys no doubt have started sporting long black beards (too long for their age, and my liking), but most Muslim Indian girls from traditional families who are out for education after plus two, are going haywire. Muslim boys in hostels at distant places would find a local mosque for their Friday prayers to maintain at least an umbilical link with the community. Muslim girls having gone out of their families of origin for years on, are completely divested of this link too. Remember, Muslim girls cannot mix with Muslim boys because of the traditional practices, so perforce they have to mix around with non-Muslim boys. If they happen to revert to Muslim community to find a Muslim husband they are hardly equipped to carry forward the essence of the Muslim ‘muashra’. This has been going on, but is going to happen soon in a big way, because of large number of Muslim girls seeking to better their prospects (again a very legitimate need). And if we think our ‘educated’ girls are reading these pages of NewAge Islam to apprise themselves of the community-problems being discussed, we are simply fooling ourselves. Boys may take interest, sooner or later in these matters, but girls never will. Their tastes and priorities are different. Only an institutionalized community-mechanism can handle this kind of problem and keep both the sons and the daughters flocked together on an equal scale. Sadly Muslims are not even aware of what things are hitting them in the modern age. Hence their penchant for non-issues, laced with complete lack of any social program.
Today, Islam has been reduced to rituals. With what pride people are flaunting their namaz, and roza and now Hajj, is to be seen to be believed. I have known a person who has amassed wealth by smuggling and drug-peddling, who, regularly feasts hundreds of poor fellows free ‘aftars’ during Ramadan, and one grand ‘aftar’ for all the Muslims in his locality; dons a cap to visit local mosque for occasional namaz etc. Unfortunately, I have the privilege of knowing his hideout also where he holds his drinks and gambling sessions with his gang of friends. Of late I am told that he has become the Secretary of the local Masjid committee.
So issues there are many, and we need many more people to formulate genuine and sincere responses to the issues and many more people to market or tele-market those responses to the right constituencies.
I WISH MR. SULTAN SHAHIN TAKE A RELOOK INTO HIS COMMENTS ON WHO IS A 'MUSLIM' AND WHERE AHEMADIS STAND WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ISLAM.
It is a common understanding that an irregularity cannot be quoted as a precedent. If one sect calls the other a 'kafir' among the Muslims, it may be out of ignorance of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed PBUH. Here a definition of 'Muslim' is far not as simpler as made out of by Sultan Shahin.
A mere recitation of 'La Ilaha Illal Lahu Mohammadur Rasoolullah' would not make anyone a Muslim. Because, as Iqbal says, "Dilo Nigaha Musalman Nahi to Kuch Bhi Nahi". Its not only your lips, but your heart and mind should wholly and faithfully accept the faith of Islam. Even Gandhi recited the 'Holy Quran' and said "Lal Ilaha Illallah' in his own understanding of faith. He did not consider himself a Muslim. Why Gandhi, throughout the length and breath of Arabia where some 10% of Arabs are Christians, speaking Arabic, were seen chanting the 'Qirat' while driving the vehicle. They could understand the meaning of it since it was in their own mother tongue of Arabic, yet one Arab confessed to me, being a Christian himself, that he would not accept the finality of the Prohet Mohammed PBUH. To him "Jesus" was the son of God and his saviour.
As for who would be called a 'Muslim' and whether Ahmediyas would fit into the definition of Islam, is the question debated. The firm belief of all Muslims is that our Prophet Mohammed PBUH was the last of the 12400 Prophets sent by Allah on this earth. It was evident from the fact that after the death of our beloved Prophet Mohammed PBUH, no one, barring a few lunatics, who were done to death, could claim that he be the next Prophet except another lunatic and ill informed Ghulam Ahmed of Qadiyan claimed to be so. When someone among the Muslims says so, he would definitely be questioning the age-old faith and its established norms. No one can equate himself or claimed to be the next Prophet. If Qadiyans or Ahmediyas have any belief on the Holy Quran, let them go through the text of Quran and see for themselves that there were no indications anyone following after "Qatimun Nabiyeen". Ahmediyas then do not qualify as "Muslims". They are and would continue to be "kafirs" and a non-Muslim sect.
Readers may please take notice that a miniscule minority like Ahmediyas concentrated in the ignorant world of America and Africa, have been spreading a false message under the direction of the Zionist enemy, who is trying to wreck Islam from within. Anyone supporting such a sect including our own Sultan Shahin, is doing a disservice to the cause of Islam.
A.M. Jamsheed Basha,
I wish Mr. Jamsheed Basha focussed on this part of my earlier comment too:
... But, even apart from the Ahmadiya question, it is also for us to try and build a consensus as to what it means to be a Muslim. Who is a Muslim is a question we are not able to answer. Every Muslim sect calls every other Muslim sect kafir and qabil-e-gardanzani (deserving of their throat being slit). Sunnis and Shias blow themselves and other nimazis up in mosques during prayers. Justice Munir Ahmad of Pakistan, who retired as chief justice of Pakistan Supreme Court, put this question to the representatives of many sects while he was heading the commission of enquiry into the anti-Ahmadiya riots in Pakistan and no two ulema would agree with each other in defining the term Muslim. Apparently they can’t, because then they would have to stop killing each other. And the purpose of these sects is not to follow Islam or any interpretation of it but to kill each other. Killing and rioting is best way of furthering one’s politics in Pakistan’s bizarre set-up. The same is happening in Iraq too now, ever since Americans replaced the secular fundamentalist Saddam Husain with an assortment of Islamic fundamentalists.
The only definition of a Muslim can be someone who says: la ilaha illallah Muhammadur rasoolullah (There is no god other than the one God and Muhammad is his prophet) and not only Ahmadis but all the sects too do that. But if we consider every Muslim as a Muslim who do we fight with, who do we kill, whose house and property do we loot and burn, how do we further our politics and our worldly fortune. There is a fortune to be made in killing and rioting. Who cares for the peaceful? Would the Saudi and other Arab Sheikhs pay you any money if you were propagating Islam as a peaceful faith? The battle for petrodollars is on since in the early 1970s: the rich and powerful nations of the world too are engaged in it; how can you blame some impoverished Mullahs if they try to please them for a few dollars? And the only way to please them is, of course, to kill and loot and burn all non-Wahhabis.
In my view a more correct definition of a Muslim would be any one who just says la ilaha illallah. For, according to generally accepted Islamic theology, all prophets previous to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), something like 1,24,000 of them, also brought Islam and the same message from the same one and only God, albeit in the local language of their followers and not Arabic. People around the world are following the teachings of these prophets, even if they call them differently in their language, some even going to extent of calling them god or son of god, avatar, whatever.
Let us consult the Holy Quran: AL-HUJRAAT 49:14
Muhsin Khan: The Bedouins say: "We believe." Say: "You believe not but you only say, 'We have surrendered (in Islam),' for Faith has not yet entered your hearts. But if you obey Allah and His Messenger (SAW), He will not decrease anything in reward for your deeds. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Yusuf Ali: The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only) say, 'We have submitted our wills to God,' For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey God and His Apostle, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Pickthal: The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
It would appear from the above verse AL-HUJRAAT (49:14) that Allah is prepared to consider as Muslim even those who, He knows, do not yet believe in Him, but are only saying so, in words, and promises to judge them with His usual compassion and kindness only on the basis of their deeds. It may be recalled that the Prophet never expelled from Islam the people in Medina who he knew were Hypocrites. The prophet had been told that such a group existed by no less an authority than Allah himself. These hypocrites had joined Islam specifically to harm the infant religion that was most vulnerable at that time and they were all known to other Muslims. Yet the Prophet even went to the funeral and prayed above the grave of the ring leader of this group: Abdallah bin Ubayy bin Salool.
It would be best if we allowed Allah to decide who is a Muslim and did not take the responsibility on ourselves. At any rate Bhutto’s law cannot and should not become our guide. We all know how good or bad a Muslim and an Aalim he was, though it is not for us to judge any one, not the least someone who claimed to be a Muslim. He is certainly not someone we can place above Allah and the Holy Quran in deciding who is a Muslim and who is not.
The Ahmediaya movement is a British Zionist front.
Assalamualaikum. May i respectfully request the editor to publish my rejoinder to his lengthy comment condemning the action of my council which raised objection to the union finance minister participating in the meeting of the ahmedis taking the ahmedis to be Muslims?
Convener, shariath protection council, Chennai
Mr.Haque says, "If my segregating myself from some ‘other’, amounts to persecution of ‘that other’, (Refer Mr. Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb’s remarks), then clearly we have different understanding of the meaning of ‘persecution’."
I did not say you were persecuting anyone. What I said was, "your right to believe what you believe is sacrosanct. So is the right of Ahmadis to believe what they believe. But the supposed right of the Pakistani government and Pakistani courts to delegitimize the Ahmadiyah sect and to persecute Quadianis is an abomination, no matter what kind of evidence they had examined."
One has the right to dissociate oneself from the Ahmediyas if one is offended by their beliefs. But one does not have a right to persecute them irrespective of how much we disagree with their beliefs. Their rights as full-fledged citizens of the country cannot be abrogated by any government. If their beliefs are wrong, it is a matter between them and God. Since they believe in the Quran and the Prophet, they call themselves Muslims. If that is sinful for some reason, they will answer to God for it. Our tendency to sit in judgement of others, whether they are Shias, or Ahmediyas or idol worshippers needs to be curtailed.
Dear Mr. Abdur Rehman Khan
Assalam o Alaikum,
There are two ways of responding to your comments. One, that I also quote the scriptures, and start an endless and meaningless ‘Muzakra’. The other is, to apply the Western standards. I shall choose the second option.
Far from my segregating you from me, I was actually trying to segregate myself from you. I wish you understood that I have a right to choose. By not allowing me that, my right to choose is being compromised.
If you insist to call yourself Ahmadiya Muslim, then I have no choice but to call myself Muslim Non-Ahmadiya. So the segregation is inevitable. There is no way you or the Western Powers can force us to be the same. You have made your choice. Now it is our turn to make one. This is the position as it stands today. Although, I am not unhopeful for the individuals and the families, to revert back to ‘Islamic order’, as propounded by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
By conceding that Ahmadiyas are better than Muslims, I have just tried to be respectful to others in line with my own Islamic upbringing. It would be worthwhile recalling which community had developed the ‘Pahle Aap’ culture and in which ‘muashra’ one calls one’s one own house as ‘gharibkhana’ and other’s house as ‘daulatkhana’ (can we contrast this with the present culture of vulgar and aggressive display, led by the Western civilization?)
So sir, I wish you and the members of your family well in life, but I cannot wish the same to your mission.
PS: If my segregating myself from some ‘other’, amounts to persecution of ‘that other’, (Refer Mr. Ghulam Mohiyuddin saheb’s remarks), then clearly we have different understanding of the meaning of ‘persecution’.
AHMADIYAS ARE NON-MUSLIM - SULTAN SHAHIN'S DEFENCE IS UNFORTUNATE
Had Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani declared himself a 'prophet 'during the days of either Khulfae Rashedeen or Ashabe Karam, he would have been killed on the spot. But Indian Muslims were tolerant and did not take such actions, when a perverted intelligent declared himself out of his own insanity a 'prophet' citing unreasonable passages from the Holy Quran. He convinced certain people and his following increased in India and elsewhere in Africa and America. It’s not because his defence was strong or his arguments were forthright, but because people were innocent and fell a prey to his eloquence and his faith.
What I could not understand is the defence of such a maligned faith by none other than our own learned Sultan Shahin. He may be a liberal in thought and pragmatic in approach to various problems facing the Muslim community in India, but to come out and say that Ahmadis were also part of Islam, is unthinkably wrong and unacceptable to us.
Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani died in a toilet, a fate that awaits everyone who crosses swords with the basic teachings of Allah and His Prophet Mohammed PBUH. His death in a toilet reminds us of the death of Abu Lahab, the sworn enemy of Prophet PBUH, whose body after death was so stinging that even his children did not dare to go near the body. Ultimately a pit was dug at a distance and his body was pushed through sticks and stones till it reached that pit. It’s a grim reminder to all those to follow what fate awaits anyone who dares to challenge the teachings of the Prophet PBUH.
Prophet Mohammed's finality cannot be questioned and anyone challenging it is undoubtedly a 'kafir', a non-believer. Rightly the Ahemadis were declared non-Muslim. What's wrong with that, even if they were declared so in Pakistan? It could not be done in India, because there is no Muslim rule here. Will these Ahmadis dare to practice their religion either in Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country? They would be done to death. It’s not because of intolerance.
If Pranab Mukherjee proposed to attend such a meet convened by Ahemadis, he is free to do so and no one has a right to object to it. A miniscule minority in Chennai form a part of this renegade sect. But majority of Muslims in Chennai are Sunni Muslims while Shias form less than 10% of it.
When Sunnis, majority of them do not approve of some of the claims of Shias, the question of accepting Ahmadis as part of Muslim community does not arise.
Mr. Sultan Shahin may be a liberal among Muslims but his approach to this sensitive issue is far from Islamic. Let him correct himself.
Assalaam O Alaikum Warahmatullah Wabarakatuh = May the Peace, Blessings and Mercy of Almighty Allah be upon you all.
A prosperous 2010 to all Readers of New Age Islam.
Mr Ghulam Mohiyuddin says:
" Mr.Abdur Rahman Khan, While Ahmadiyas have a perfect right to freely subscribe to their beliefs and to live freely without any discrimination or disapprobation, and they have a right to call themselves Muslims since they believe in the Quran and the Prophet, attempts to advance their beliefs as the only manifestation of true Islam would just repeat the cycle of suspicion and paranoia and perpetuate the possibility of unnecessary hostilities."
He has logically deduced the results of Ahmadiyya Muslims Jama'at's efforts to preopogate and promulgate Islam worldwide.
I would like to apologise to Ghulam Mohiyuddin
My previous letter was not meant to be addressed to hom where his name is mentioned.
Rather, my comments were meant for Mr Manzurul Haque as the excerpt from his letter would show.
Thanks for your kind courtesy.
Jazaakumullah Ahsanal Jazaa.
Wassalaamu A'laa man Itaba'ul Hudaa!