Asalam O Alykum,
I don’t know if you were reading the news or not; yesterday some very disturbing news came from Pakistan where some gunmen killed around 80 persons in Ahmadis mosques.
Sir is this not another kind of terrorism? the root cause of such incidents is our own government who has declared Qadyanis as Kaffirs….off-course when a state declare some sect or group as Kaffir then the people who are feed up with hate against kaffirs by Mullas will gather and kill/ burn every hunt they found.
If this the duty of Govt of Pakistan to give declarations on who is Muslim and who is Kaffir? if so then it should also complete its list by mentioning in the constitution that Christians/ Buddhists/ are Kaffirs and what about Shia and Bohri? at the end constitution of Pakistan would look like some fiqah book.
What is your say?
Zeeshan Zia, Muscat, Oman
Wa alaikum us salaam wa Rahmatullah e wa Barakatuhu
I’m also very disturbed with the incident on human grounds. Killing people on the grounds that they keep a different point of view is a heinous crime which has no roots in Islam. Al-Hamdulillah, all the Muslims now agree on this and even Majlis Tahaffuz e Khatme Nubuwat has also condemned this spree killing.
Declaring Qadyanis as Non-Muslims was a different matter. Definitely, in a religious state, it is required to include the definition of people who follow one religion or other to determine the scope of implementation of law. For example, during Mideaval States, Islamic Law of Salah, Zakat, Jehad, Marriage, Divorce and Hudood were implemented on the Muslims only. For Non-Muslims, their own law was implemented by the state.
Therefore, a definition was required to segregate Muslims and Non-Muslims to implement the law. Since Ahmedis do not agree on the basic principle on the “End of Prophethood”, therefore, the government had declared them as Non-Muslims. Before doing so, a full chance was given to them to present their point of view. “End of Prophethood” is a very significant issue in Islam. If some considers that a new prophet came arrive now, then he also agrees that such new prophet can make any amendment to Islam. That’s the reason that such point of view is considered a serious heresy in Islam.
The matter of sects within Muslims is different. All of them agree on certain basic directives of Islam e.g. salah, zakat etc. Such directives should be implemented on all and their sectarian differences should be ignored by the state.
The word “Kaafir” is a very serious word. It is used in the Quran for those people to whom the message of a Prophet of Allah was presented and they rejected in knowingly. This word was used for the pagans of Makkah at the last stage of the Dawah of the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم.
We also have some double standards about Qadyanis. Most of our ancient Sufis had claims (of direct communication with Allah) similar to Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. For example, see the Fasus ul Hikam of Ibn Arabi. All of our Sufism-based sects consider Ibn Arabi as a great saint and are proud to be his followers but they criticize Mirza Ghulam Ahmed for his views. We cannot call this anything except double standards. If Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is condemned due to his claim of direct communication with God, why should one consider another person a saint on similar grounds?
I think the reason behind this dual approach is the language and style of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed sb. Just read his books. He himself was an extremist and used obscene language for those who do not follow him. It resulted in a general outrage against him and his followers. This hatred continued for about a century. This is the historical background of such dispute.
Although we can disagree with the views of Mirza sb. but killing people on the ground that they follow him, is a heinous crime and such vicious people have to be responsible in front of Allah.
Instead of spreading hatred, we should convey our message of the “End of Prophethood” to all people in a decent and positive way. By hatred, we are doing nothing except to making them more convicted to their point of view. Only love can conquer hearts. We should clarify the mistakes in claim of Mirza saheb is nice a decent way to Ahmedis and try to convince them with love and logic that the prophethood has ended on Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم. Now, any claim about prophethood is not true. All this should be done with respect and love.
Muhammad Mubashir Nazir
HS67-Detailed Analysis of Millennialism & Masiha Movements – Bahai & Ahmadi Religious 1258-1947CE
Don’t hesitate to share your questions and comments. They will be highly appreciated. I’ll reply as soon as possible if I know the answer. Send at email@example.com.