I am an Ahmadi
The following provocative piece was written by Wajahat S. Khan, of TalkBack fame. The question of whether or not Wajahat is actually an Ahmedi is irrelevant. If we say Mr. Khan is not that would simply dilute the strength of this piece.
I am an Ahmadi. There are four million of me in Pakistan. This Islamic Republic is the only state in the world which has officially declared me to to be a non-Muslim. Why? It’s simple. I am an Ahmadi.
Ordinances have been passed against me. Acts and Constitutional Amendments have focused on me. Shortly after the heart and soul of our nation was split into two, a country reeling to define and defend its own identity unleashed itself upon me. In 1974, a parliament I had voted for adopted a law that outlawed me.
The rest of you were given a different story. Unlike you, I was not a “a person who believes in the finality of the Prophet Muhammad”. But nobody really asked me what I believed in. Why? Because I am different. Because I don’t matter. Because I am an Ahmadi.
A powerful man who killed another powerful man in the name of the law did worse to me. In 1984, the General of an Army I pay for, support and have fought for passed another law: now I could not call myself a Muslim, or even “pose as Muslim”.
You might have noted the affects of that yesterday. As my attackers unleashed their wrath, television networks I watch and love got the location of the bloodshed all wrong. What I call a mosque, they called a “place of worship”. That’s alright though. It’s not their fault. I’m used to the special treatment. After all, I am an Ahmadi.
But I wish things were different. I wish I was like you. I wish I was a Sunni, a Shia, a Punjabi, a Pashtoon, a Baloch, a Sindhi, a Memon, a Gujrati, a Siraiki, a Makrani. If I was any of those, or even anyone else, I would have been called a martyr or “shaheed” in the papers today. My family would have liked that. They would have even written it on my gravestone, like you do for your loved ones. But that doesn’t matter though. It’s what comes after the grave that matters. And in my case, I’ve been reassured by you that not much good awaits me there.
But you can’t blame me for wishing. I wish I could give you a hug this Eid. I wish I could say “asalamalaikum” and “eid mubarak” to you as well. I wish I could read to you the history of my people and even have you sample my food. But I can’t. That could cost me three years of prison time.
Finally, I also wish my attackers had chosen another date. For you, yesterday was a day to remember. After all, it was twelve years and a day ago that you unleashed your might upon the world by reducing a mountain to ashes. You had invented the weapon to counter all weapons. You detractors were scared, your enemies terrified. For causing yesterday’s incident to dampen your re-living that moment of pride, I apologize. Please accept my condolences.
But you don’t have to. You’ve got other things to do. Why waste your time with me? After all, I am an Ahmadi.
At least fix its fount you lazy team of LUBP!
I wonder which leader, if any, will ever have the courage to undo the damage to the ahmadi community done by the PPP government of 1974. Shame on the PPP. Shame on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his parliament.
@Realist
Im sorry, whats wrong with the fonts? They are displayed properly on my screen.
what is ministry of human right doing ?
Matam Kijiey
“QUOTE”
Allama Abbas Kumaili while offering condolence on Metro TV said “No doubt Quadiyanis are Kaafir [Mussallima Taur Par] but nobody has the right to riddle them with bullets and that too in the House of Worship.
“UNQUOTE”
The line between fundamentalism and democracy is blurred when the so called representatives of the majority begin killing identities, if not people themselves.
quadiyanies are worst creature in world
Thats why Jinnah appointed a Quadiyani as Pakistan First Foreign Minister.
Only Allah knows the real Muslim..World judges will regret on the day of Judgement.The act of killing innocent soul is barbaric and Allah will surely punish the perpetrators…Just wait and see the word come to pass
Dear Qurashi & company
Stop playing God.
There is no religion bigger than humanity.
All human beings are equal in their civic rights.
Mr. Wajahat S. Khan has nicely portrayed ‘I am an Ahmadi’, really my heart is as much hurt as any other Pakistani’s after hearing about terrorism in Lahore, but I disagree with him at certain points. Why do Ahmadis believe they have been targeted because they are Ahmidis, they have been targeted because they are Pakistanis, and whoever hands are responsible do want to see Pakistan as a destabilize state. For that they can blindly target and use anyone anywhere. Everyone knows Pakistan is in great crises and can not dare to strand against India openly even having evidences against involvements of Indian Intelligence in destabilising the country.
I am very surprised to read your narration ‘‘I also wish my attackers had chosen another date’’, you had invented the weapon to counter all weapons.’’ Why don’t you own May 28, if Pakistan is a nuclear state it means you are also a nuclear state citizen.
Also you write ‘I wish I could give you a hug this Eid. I wish I could say “asalamalaikum” and “eid mubarak” to you as well.’
This is an extreme level exaggeration; I have seen many Ahmids exchanging all this with other Pakistanis. Also your family name is Khan, that means for you being Ahmadi is more important than being Pathan or Pakistani.
I am not a religious person but would like to ask Mr. Wajahat, in Quran it is clearly stated Holy Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him is the seal of the prophets (last messenger of Allah) and every Muslims has to believe this then why do not you, why do you behave differently?
Can you deny of being supported by Israel? When you behave differently then you should accept you will be treated differently.
Attacks on Ahmidis are actually attacks on every Sunni, Shia, Punjabi, Pashtoon, Baloch, Sindhi, Memon, Gujrati, Siraiki, Makrani infcat on evey Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Parsi whoever is part of Pakistan.
I would like to listen you and your history; you can anytime write to me at z.ehsan@ymail.com.
@Zehsan
Mr. Ehsan, Wajahat is not part of the LUBP team. Its not likely he will get your message. I encourage you to also post this comment on this own blog.
i agree with you zeeshan
well I am Miss Ehsan, and my name is Z. Ehsan not zeeshan you better click on my name. Could you tell me how to post on one’s blog? I am not familiar with this web and using it for the first time.
Dear Zehsan
I saw your post and would like to explain a few things for everyone’s benefit. Ahmadis have been persecuted in Pakistan since 1953 when the mullahs created disorder in Punjab calling for Ahmadis to be declared non-muslim. For years all the mullah have been saying is that Ahmadis are kafir and therefore they are ‘wajibul qatl’ meaning liable to be killed.
In 1974 the mullahs succeeded in one of their plans and the government declared Ahmadis non-muslim (2nd amendment. http://thepersecution.org/50years/constatus.html). These are the same mullahs who opposed the creation of Pakistan and Ahmadis are the ones who made great sacrifices in Pakistan’s creation and development. In 1984 when they saw that this tactic did not work the mullahs persuaded the government to make it a criminal offence for Ahmadis to pose as Muslims (http://thepersecution.org/50years/paklaw.html). An Ahmadi can get jail term of 3 years and fine (and even life sentence if he is accused to blasphemy) if they say Assalamu Alaikum, call out Azan, say the Kalima, call themselves Muslims, etc (ordinance XX of constitution)
Isn’t this the same treatment that the disbelievers of Mecca met out to the Muslims in Islam’s early days. Many hundreds of Ahmadis have since been killed in Pakistan, many more in languishing in jail because they said the Kalima or said Assalamu Alaikum (peace be on you).
We Ahmadis firmly believe that we are Muslims. No government has the right to take away what is a matter of personal belief.
The only difference between us and other Muslims is that we believe that the Messiah and Mahdi who was promised to come, has come in person of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908). He revived the faith of Islam, gave us the true meaning of Holy Qur’an and started spreading the message of Islam not through violence or the sword, but through arguments and its inherent qualities. It was a message of peace, love and tolerance – and this is what Islam stands for.
We firmly believe in that the Holy Prophet (saw) is Khatamun Nabiyyeen. We believe in it more than anyone else. Please see the writings of our founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who we call the Promised Messiah (as), in this regard. (http://www.alislam.org/books/essence1/chap3.htm) We also believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian was the Promised Messiah(as) as fortold by the Holy Prophet(saw) and fulfilled all the signs. He has the same status that was conferred to him by the Holy Prophet(saw) – and that status also included that he would be a prophet within Islam. Therefore the Promised Messiah(as) is not a prophet alone but is a subordinate prophet who was given this status only because he believed in the Holy Prophet(saw) and loved him more than anyone else. The Holy Prophet(saw) is the teacher and the Promised Messiah(as) is the student. And he can come because the Messiah of Moses, Isa (as), died a natural death and the one who would reform would come from within the Umma. Islam does not need a prophet from another Umma to come and save it.
We firmly believe that God is with us. He has always supported us – our persecution is the sign of our truth – as all divine messages are persecuted but eventually they succeed as God has decreed. [[58:22] Allah has decreed: ‘Most surely I will prevail, I and My Messengers.’ Verily, Allah is Powerful, Mighty.]
Please take time to read the message of Ahmadiyyat. Please don’t take the word of anyone else – your moulvi, your relatives or friends – this would not be acceptable in the sight of God. On the day of judgement God will ask everyone that I sent a reformer, why did you not accept him and help him. Therefore I beseech you to look at the message closely with an open mind. It is then upto you to accept or reject. All Ahmadis have to take a bai’at / initiation and try to live by the 10 conditions of bai’at. Please see them – you will see that they are a summary of the essence of Islam. http://www.alislam.org/introduction/conditions.html
If this were a false movement it would have finished already but it is divine and as foretold by the it has reached the corners of the earth – now Ahmadiyya Jamaat is established in 190 countries. Ahmadi Muslims live as law abiding citizens with peace and convey the beautiful message of Islam, of peace and tolerance to all around them. You seem like an intelligent guy, I do hope you can see this also. http://www.alislam.org
Mr. Wajahat S. Khan has nicely portrayed ‘I am an Ahmadi’, really my heart is as much hurt as any other Pakistani’s after hearing about terrorism in Lahore, but I disagree with him at certain points. Why do Ahmadis believe they have been targeted because they are Ahmidis, they have been targeted because they are Pakistanis, and whoever hands are responsible do want to see Pakistan as a destabilize state.
For that they can blindly target and use anyone anywhere. Everyone knows Pakistan is in great crises and can not dare to strand against India openly even having evidences against involvements of Indian Intelligence in destabilising the country.
I am very surprised to read your narration ‘‘I also wish my attackers had chosen another date’’, you had invented the weapon to counter all weapons.’’ Why don’t you own May 28, if Pakistan is a nuclear state it means you are also a nuclear state citizen.
Also you write ‘I wish I could give you a hug this Eid. I wish I could say “asalamalaikum” and “eid mubarak” to you as well.’
This is an extreme level exaggeration; I have seen many Ahmids exchanging all this with other Pakistanis. Also your family name is Khan, that means for you being Ahmadi is more important than being Pathan or Pakistani.
I am not a religious person but would like to ask Mr. Wajahat, in Quran it is clearly stated Holy Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him is the seal of the prophets (last messenger of Allah) and every Muslims has to believe this then why do not you, why do you behave differently?
Can you deny of being supported by Israel? When you behave differently then you should accept you will be treated differently.
Attacks on Ahmidis are actually attacks on every Sunni, Shia, Punjabi, Pashtoon, Baloch, Sindhi, Memon, Gujrati, Siraiki, Makrani infcat on evey Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Parsi whoever is part of Pakistan.
I would like to listen you and your history; you can anytime write to me atz.ehsan@ymail.com.
all of the qadians are (edited) , why dont you open your (edited) eyes and see the real world u r worst then the kafirs, posing as muslims when even you yourselves know that you are not, being funded by israel and you call yourselves muslims, you desrve what is happening to you ,still its time open your eyes and come in the real world (edited) you follow him big losers you are .
Dear Mr. Tauseef ,
I would reply you in detail later later this week. I am a bit busy now.
Best Regards,
Zahida EHSAN
http://wis.kuleuven.be/cpa/index.php?page=members&subpage=fiche&name=zahida
PS: Peter, I do not agree with you at all, being a true Muslim you should not use such words for anyone. In fact it is the responsibility of state to protect any of its citizens.
Mr. Tauseef…
”The only difference between us and other Muslims is that we believe that the Messiah and Mahdi who was promised to come, has come in person of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908).”
”We firmly believe in that the Holy Prophet (saw) is Khatamun Nabiyyeen. We believe in it more than anyone else.”
Do U urself know what ur saying?
Khatamun Nabiyyeen means The LAST prophet… Who has sealed the prophet hood…
At one place u say that Holy Prophet Mohammad S.A.W.W is Khatamun Nabiyyeen… nd Na’usubillAh …..(edited)
@PETER
@R. Butt
This forum is happy to provide you an opportunity for free speech if you stay away from abusive and hateful comments. If you are a Muslim, then you must always remember the Quranic principles of qol-e-maroof and husn-e-khulq.
Feel free to present your perspective in a well argued manner. Foul speech will only hurt your reasoning.
I fully agree with Abdul and also what Abdul has sent me on mail regarding not to abuse “Lofty Religious Figures [of any religion or community]”
I am referring to this message received on gmail.
“quote”
from Abdul Nishapuri
date Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM
subject Re: Hate Speech
8:31 PM (5 hours ago)
Comments by Peter and R. Butt on this thread indeed may be termed as
hate speech. The are sans decent reasoning.
http://criticalppp.com/archives/11662/comment-page-1#comment-10446
We at LUBP must take utmost care that no foul words / abuses are used
against any religion or its key beliefs and sacred personalities etc.
This is my personal opinion.
“unquote”
Ahmedis are Kaafir and there is no doubt about but look at these “FATWAS” because every Muslim is a Kaafir.
Deobandi Mullahs often raise hell from pulpit of the Mosque that Secular Democracy, Anglo Saxon Courts and everything Western is Kufr [Disbelief] till it is not Islamised. But they seldom bother about Islam, Quran and Hadith when the reap benefits from the same “KAAFIR – INFIDEL” Institututions! A note on Deobandis. Deobandis, Sufi Muhammad, Mullahs & Calamity of Takfir (Apostasy) – 3 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/deobandis-sufi-muhammad-mullahs.html
“QUOTE”
High Courts and Supreme Court were ‘Ghair Sharaiee’ institutions and going for appeal in ‘Ghair Sharaiee’ institutions was ‘Haram’. He said Darul Qaza could be approached in case of any reservations on our verdicts, but the final decisions of Darul Qaza not allowed to be challenged in the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Updated at: 1443 PST, Sunday, April 19, 2009
‘Qazis’ verdict can’t be challenged in SC’ Thursday, April 16, 2009 : Sufi says appeals ‘tantamount to betrayal of Islam’
“UNQUOTE”
The Sunnis are divided into two main sects: Non-conformists (ghair muqallid), commonly known as Ahl-i Hadith, and conformists (muqallid), commonly known as Hanafis. The conformists are divided into two groups: Deobandi and Barelvi. Also among the conformists are the various Sufi orders. Now let us see how these sects are declaring each other as kafir.
Fatwas of conformists against non-conformists
“The non-conformist (ghair muqallid) sect, whose distinctive outward manner [of prayer] in this country is saying Amen aloud, raising the hands [during the prayer], folding the arms on the chest, and reciting the Al-Hamd behind the Imam, are excluded from the Sunnis, and are like other misguided sects, because many of their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. It is not permissible to pray behind them. To mix with them socially and sit with them, and to let them enter mosques at their pleasure, is prohibited in Islamic Shari‘ah.” (This bears the seals of nearly seventy Ulama. Reference the book: Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabis from mosques, p. 8.)
“He who calls conformism (taqlid) as prohibited, and conformists as polytheists, is a kafir according to Islamic Shari‘ah, and in fact a murtadd [apostate].” (Book: Discipline of mosques with regard to the expulsion of mischief-makers from mosques)
“It is obligatory upon the Ulama and Muftis that, by merely hearing of such a thing, they should not hesitate to issue fatwas of heresy and apostasy. Otherwise, they themselves would be included among the apostates.” (ibid.)
Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, has quoted the beliefs of all sections of the non-conformists, and given the fatwa:
“All these groups are murtadd and kafir. He who doubts their being kafirs, is himself a kafir.”
(Book Hisam al Haramain)
Fatwas of non-conformists against conformists
“Question: What say the Ulama and the Muftis regarding the conformist (muqallid) group, who follow only one Imam [i.e. Hanafis]. Are they Sunnis or not? Is it valid to pray behind them or not? Is it permissible to allow them into mosques, and to mix with them socially?
“Answer: Undoubtedly, prayers are not permissible behind conformists because their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. In fact, some of their beliefs and practices lead to polytheism, and others spoil prayers. It is not correct in Islamic Shari‘ah to allow such conformists into mosques.”
This bears the seals of nineteen priests. (Reference the book: Collection of Fatwas, pp. 54 – 55)
The late Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan wrote:
“The word polytheist can be applied to conformists, and polytheism can be applied to conformism. Most people today are conformists. The Quranic verse, ‘Most people believe not, they are but polytheists’, applies quite well to them.”
(Iqtarab as-Sa‘a, p. 16)
Not only Hanafis, but all of them:
“The followers of all the four Imams and the followers of the four Sufi orders, viz. Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali, Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, Naqshbandiyya and Mujaddidiyya are all kafirs.”
(Jami al-Shuhood, p. 2)
Fatwa of three hundred Ulama against Deobandis
“The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets, and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is himself a murtadd and kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them, and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grave-yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.”
(See the Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama, published by Muhammad Ibrahim of Bhagalpur)
Deobandis should be declared non-Muslim minority
In March 1953, a poster was put up on walls in Karachi headed: “Demands: Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority”. Among other things it said:
“Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.”
After this it was demanded that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 persons (see Tulu‘-i-Islam, May 1953, p. 64).
Fatwa of Deobandis against Barelvis
Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband has, in his book, tried to show that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir, Anti- Christ of this century, murtadd, and excluded from Islam. (See the booklet Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir.)
The opposite side
Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelvi) has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi (founder of the school at Deoband) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (of Deoband), and then added:
“They are all murtadd [apostate] according to the unanimous view (ijma) of Muslims.”
This fatwa bears the signatures and seals of Ulama of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir:
They deny the finality of prophethood;
They insult the Holy Prophet;
They believe that God can tell a lie.
Hence it is written about them:
“He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.”
(Hisam al-Haramain, pp. 100 and 113)
You will have seen that all the sects, whether Hanafis, Ahl-i Hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi, and all the Sufi orders such as Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, etc., have had fatwas of heresy and apostasy pronounced against them. And not only sects, but the prominent men of these sects have had fatwas directed against them individually.
Fatwas against individual leaders
Maulana Nazir Husain of Delhi (Ahl-i Hadith) was called disputant, doubter, follower of base passions, jealous, dishonest and alterer (of the Quran).
Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalavi, along with the above Maulana, was called devil, atheist, stupid, senseless, faithless, etc. This fatwa bears the seals of 82 Ulama of Arabia and elsewhere. (Book Nazar al-Haq)
Maulana Sana-Ullah of Amritsar (Ahl-i Hadith) had fatwas directed against him which were obtained in Makka. It is written about his commentary of the Quran:
“It is the writing of a misguided person, one who has invented new doctrines. In his commentary he has collected beliefs such as re-incarnation and the doctrines of the Mu‘tazila [an early extreme Muslim sect]. It is neither permissible to obtain knowledge from Maulana Sana-ullah, nor to follow him. His evidence cannot be accepted, nor can he lead prayers. There is no doubt regarding his heresy and apostasy. … His commentary deserves to be cut to pieces. In fact, it is forbidden to see it except for the purpose of refuting it.”
(Faisila Makka, pp. 15 – 20)
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi):
Referring to an article of his, the weekly Tarjuman Islam of Lahore carried the following extract in its issue for 10 November 1961:
“Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, Deobandi, was a first-rate scholar and servant of Quran and Hadith. He needs no introduction. But one was very shocked by a letter of his which contained the grotesque idea of the denial of Hadith. This concept goes beyond the Mu‘tazila, and breaks the records of the ideologies of Chakralvi and Pervez.”
All those whose record is said to be broken by Husain Ahmad Madani, have had fatwas of kufr directed against them. This makes it clear that Maulana Madani too is considered a kafir.
Maulana Maudoodi:
Abul Ala Maudoodi and his party have been the subject of fatwas by Ulama of nearly every sect.
Mufti Muhzar-ullah, of Jami Fatehpuri in Delhi, wrote in his fatwa:
“On the very face of it, these things [beliefs of Maudoodi’s party] exclude a Muslim from the Sunnis, and lead to divisions among the believers, and is the basis of making a new sect. But looking closely, these things take one to heresy. In this case, they do not make a new sect, but result in one’s entry into the group of apostates.”
Maulana Hafiz-ullah of Aligarh has written:
“Whatever was the position of the Zarar mosque, similar is the position of this [i.e. Maudoodi’s] party.”
[Note: The Zarar mosque was a mosque built by some hypocrite Muslims in Madina during the Holy Prophet’s time for the purpose of conspiring against Islam].
The word kufr is used about the Zarar mosque in the Holy Quran. Hence the same word applies to these people.
Maulana Izaz Ali, Deobandi, wrote in his fatwa:
“I consider this [i.e. Maudoodi’s] party to be even more harmful for the faith of the Muslims than are the Ahmadis.”
Mufti Sayyid Mahdi Hasan, President-Mufti of the theological school at Deoband, writes in his fatwa:
“If an Imam of a mosque agrees with the views of Maudoodi, it is a hateful matter to pray behind him.”
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi) wrote in a letter to Maudoodi:
“Your ‘Islamic’ movement is against the righteous tradition in Islam. It is like the [extremist] sects of old such as Mu‘tazila, Khwarij and Rafiz. It resembles modern sects such as Qadiani, Chakralvi [deniers of Hadith], Naturi [rationalist], and Baha’i [i.e. the Baha’i religion]. It seeks to make a new Islam. It is based on principles, beliefs and practices which are against the Sunnis and Islam.”
The Committee of Ulama of Maulana Ahmad Ali wrote in a poster against Maudoodi:
“His reasoning is devilry against the Quran.”
It is then added:
“May God save all Muslims from Maudoodi and the evil and deceit of his so-called Islamic Party.”
Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan [prominent Muslim modernist leader and founder of the Aligarh University for Muslims, d. 1898]:
In his biography Hayat-i Jawaid by Maulana Hali, the storm of condemnation and takfir against Sir Sayyid is fully detailed. Read some of these lines:
“Sir Sayyid was called atheist, irreligious, Christian, nature-worshipper, anti-Christ, and many other things. Fatwas that he was a kafir were prepared, and signatures of Maulavis of every town and city were obtained. Even those who remained silent against Sir Sayyid as regards takfir, were called kafir.” (p. 623)
“All the Muslim sects in India, be they Sunni or Shiah, conformist or non-conformist, the seals and signatures of the known and unknown Ulama and priests of all these are on these fatwas.” (p. 627)
A fatwa was obtained from Makka, bearing the seals of Muftis of all the four schools, in which it was written:
“This man is an heretic, or he was inclined to unbelief (kufr) from Islamic law in some aspect. … If he repents before he is arrested, and turns away from his misguided views, and there are clear signs of repentance from him, then he should not be killed. Otherwise, it is obligatory to kill him for the sake of the faith.” (p. 633)
Jinnah and Iqbal [revered in Pakistan as fathers of the nation]:
Sir Sayyid had at least expressed views on religious matters. But these people also called Jinnah as “the great kafir”. Even a true believer like Iqbal had a fatwa of kufr directed against him.
Fatwas of kufr against early savants
The pastime of declaring people as kafir is not a product of the present age. Unfortunately, this disease is very old, and there can hardly be anyone from among the great figures of Muslim religious history who escaped being a subject of such fatwas. Let us look at the great leaders of religion after the age of the Holy Prophet’s Companions.
Abu Hanifa: He was disgraced, called ignorant, inventor of new beliefs, hypocrite and kafir. He was imprisoned and poisoned. He died in 150 A.H. [circa 768 C.E.].
Imam Shafi‘i: He was called devil and imprisoned. Prayers were said for his death. He was taken in captivity from Yemen to Baghdad, in a condition of humiliation and degradation. He died in 204 A.H. [circa 820 C.E.].
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: He was kept in prison for 28 months, with a heavy chain around his feet. He was publicly humiliated, slapped and spat upon. Every evening he used to be flogged. All this was because of the controversy regarding whether the Quran was ‘uncreated’ or ‘created’.
Imam Malik: A resident of Madina, he too was imprisoned and flogged.
Bukhari [Collector of Hadith]: He was exiled and died in 256 A.H. [circa 871 C.E.].
Nasa’i [Collector of Hadith]: He was disgraced and beaten in a mosque so much that he died.
Abdul Qadir Jilani [Saint of Baghdad, d. 1166 C.E.] was called kafir by the jurists.
Muhiyud-Din Ibn Arabi [great philosopher and saint, d. 1240 C.E.]: The Ulama issued a fatwa against him saying: “His unbelief is greater than that of Jews and Christians”. All his followers were declared kafir, so much so that those who doubted his unbelief were called kafir.
Rumi, Jami and Attar [now world famous Muslim saints and writers of Persia] were called kafir, and anyone not calling them kafir was also called kafir.
Imam Ghazali [philosopher and mujaddid, d. 1111 C.E.] was called kafir, and burning his books and cursing him was declared a good deed.
Ibn Taimiyya [Muslim philosopher and mujaddid, d. 1327 C.E.]: The King of Egypt asked for a fatwa to put him to death.
Hafiz ibn Qayyim: imprisoned and exiled.
Shaikh Ahmad of Sirhind [d. 1624 C.E., mujaddid in India]: called kafir.
Shah Wali-ullah [d. 1763 C.E., mujaddid in India]: called inventor of new beliefs and misguided.
Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi [d. 1831 C.E., mujaddid and military leader in India]: called kafir.
Shah Ismail Shaheed [deputy of above mujaddid]: Fatwas of heresy against him obtained from Makka.
FATWAS AGAINST PERVEZ
Ghulam Ahmad Pervez, founder of the movement which publishes Tulu‘-i-Islam, from which the above extract has been taken, was himself the subject of fatwas such as those quoted below:
“Ghulam Ahmad Pervez is a kafir according to Islamic Shari‘ah, and excluded from the pale of Islam. No Muslim woman can remain married to him, nor can a Muslim woman enter into marriage with him. His funeral prayers cannot be said, nor is it permissible to bury him in a Muslim grave-yard. This applies not only to Pervez, but to every kafir. It also applies to any person who is a follower of his in these heretic beliefs. As he has become an apostate (murtadd), it is not permitted by the Shari‘ah to have any kind of Islamic relations with him.
Signed: Wali Hasan Tonki, Mufti and teacher, Muhammad Yusuf Banori, Shaikh al-Hadith, Madrasa Arabiyya Islamiyya, New Town, Karachi.”
An organ of Maudoodi’s Jama‘at-i Islami gave the following fatwa about Pervez’s followers:
“If they say that Shari‘ah is only that which is contained in the Quran, and all that is besides this is not Shari‘ah, then this is clear heresy. It is the same kind of heresy as the heresy of the Qadianis. In fact it is worse and more extreme than that.” (article by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi, in the daily Tasneem, Lahore, 15 August 1952, p. 12)
“UNQUOTE”
Barelvis and Shias enjoy similarities, lets read as to what Barlevis have to say on Deobandis and lets read as what Barelvis have to say about Shias. Barelvis/Shias, Sufi Muhammad, Mullahs & Calamity of Takfir (Apostasy) – 4 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/barelvisshias-sufi-muhammad-mullahs.html
“UNQUOTE”
The Sunnis are divided into two main sects: Non-conformists (ghair muqallid), commonly known as Ahl-i Hadith, and conformists (muqallid), commonly known as Hanafis. The conformists are divided into two groups: Deobandi and Barelvi. Also among the conformists are the various Sufi orders. Now let us see how these sects are declaring each other as kafir.
READ AND LAMENT
“Fatwa of three hundred Ulama against Deobandis
“The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets, and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is himself a murtadd and kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them, and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grave-yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.”
(See the Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama, published by Muhammad Ibrahim of Bhagalpur)
Deobandis should be declared non-Muslim minority
In March 1953, a poster was put up on walls in Karachi titled:
“Demands: Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority”.
Among other things it said:
“Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.”
After this it was demanded that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 persons
(see Tulu`-i-Islam, May 1953, p. 64).
Fatwa of Deobandis against Barelvis
Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband has, in his book, tried to show that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir, Anti- Christ of this century, murtadd, and excluded from Islam.
(See the booklet Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir.)
The opposite side
Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelvi) has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi (founder of the school at Deoband) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (of Deoband), and then added:
“They are all murtadd [apostate] according to the unanimous view (ijma) of Muslims.”
This fatwa bears the signatures and seals of Ulama of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir :
1.They deny the finality of prophethood;
2.They insult the Holy Prophet;
3.They believe that God can tell a lie.
Hence it is written about them:
“He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.”
(Hisam al-Haramain, pp. 100 and 113)”
(Tulu’-i-Islam, August 1969)
Late. Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi on everybody!!!!!!
“QUOTE”
“The Ahl’ul Sunnah have an ijma that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab was a Khwaarijee and baghi (rebel) whoever holds this Najdee belief is an enemy of Islam” [Ahmad Sayyid Kazmi his book “Al Haq al Mobeen page 10-11 and Amjad Ali in “Bahar Shariath Volume 1 page 46”]
“The Wahabis are worse than Jews, Christians, Magians, Hindus, and more damaging to Islam they are worse than Murthads”.
“Whoever is a Wahabi and follows Rashid Ahmad Gangohi is a kaffir”.
“From the Shaytan Wahabis is Ashraf ‘Ali Thanvi”
“Whoever doubts the kufr of Ashraf Ali Thanvi is also a kaffir, his followers are all kaffirs and it is a sin to read his book Bahishti Zewar”.
The Sunni scholar Naasir Sunniyath Abu Tahir Muhammad Thabib Siddiqui Dhana Purri, writes as follows:
“the Ulema of Deen, and scholars of the Law are faced by the problem of Wahabis, Deobandis….Najdhis kufr beliefs, and this book addresses how Muslims should deal with them”. [“Tajhahib Ahl ul Sunnah” by Naasir Sunniyath Abu Tahir Muhammad Thabib Siddiqui Dhana Purri, published Markazi Anjuman Huzbul Aynaf Lahore, Bareylvi Electorate Press 1361 Hijri]
“A reply to question one
“The followers of Muhammad bin Najdi are called Wahabis. Shah Ismail Dehlavi under “Al Iman” in which there lots of kufr translated his book “Tauhid” in India. Whoever follows the Wahabis is a kaffir.
“Deobadiyaat is a form of Wahabiyath their ideology is to disrespect the Saints, every Deobandi is a Wahabi, and not every Wahabi is a Deobandi. Deobandi’s become Hanafi and those that are not Deobandis call themselves Ahl-e-Hadith. They possess a great deal of kufr beliefs. The Wahabis and Ahl e Hadith tend to adhere to the work “Taqwiyat ul Iman” and call it the truth. The Deoband apostates acknowledging their kufr beliefs still call them Muslims, under Islamic Law they are therefore both kaffir and should be punished accordingly” [“Tajhahib Ahl ul Sunnah” by Naasir Sunniyath Abu Tahir Muhammad Thabib Siddiqui Dhana Purri, published Markazi Anjuman Huzbul Aynaf Lahore, Bareylvi Electorate Press 1361 Hijri]
“Oh God send your curse who refuted your beloved, disrespected him and identified faults in him and send your curse on those who loved and supported Abdul Wahab because such people are apostates”.[“Tahjanib Ahl’ul Sunnah un Ahl’ul Fitna (published Bombay by Anjumaun Tablighi Sadaqat): page 657]
“Verily there is no doubt that the Wahabi Najdis are kaffir and according to Sharí’a they are apostates if they die without repenting, they will be the first to perish in the fire”. [“Tahjanib Ahl’ul Sunnah un Ahl’ul Fitna (published Bombay by Anjumaun Tablighi Sadaqat): page 263]
In the same above book the scholar names the guilty party with the following titles:
Ibne Saud, Kahazala Malik al Mabuud (page 257)
Ibne Saud, Kujha al Malik al Wuddod (page 259)
Murdood Ibne Saud (page 268)
Khubsa Najad (page 258)
Mullah Una’y Najad (page 259)
Kafara Najad (page 259)
Murdha Najad (page 260)
Kuffar Najad (page 263)
Murthadeen ay Najad (page 264)
Maloon e Najad (page 268)
Shayaatheen au Deoband (page 268)
“Tahjanib Ahl’ul Sunnah un Ahl’ul Fitna (published Bombay by Anjumaun Tablighi Sadaqat)
Ahl ul Sunnah work “fitnah Najdiyaat” by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi writes:
“Mufti Azam Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan says who is Ibne Saud but a sales man of Haram Shareef that invests his profits on illicit luxuries, appeaser of the British, fired bullets on Muslims”[“fitna Najdiyaat” by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi”, publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 252]
In the same book Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi writes:
“If at any time Ameer Faysal turns against the British they have an alternative Crown Prince Ibne Saud on the pay roll taken from the speeches of Mufti Azam Muhammad Ali, published Delhi, Ghunni Muthaba, Delhi Volume 2 page 68″[“fitna Najdiyaat” by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi”, publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 76]
“Wahabis are greater kaffirs than Jews and Christians we have heard from our ancestors that even the Jews and Christians didn’t deny their Prophets but these filthy individuals are against their own Prophet (taken from Munkuul As Azad ki Kahani page 351)”[“fitna Najdiyaat” by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi”, publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 98]
“As far as I recall he said that marriage with a Wahabi is not permissible – Azaz ki kahani”[“fitna Najdiyaat” by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi”, publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 173]
“Those that follow Abdul Wahab are called Wahabi in our country and consider themselves la madhabi. They claim that it is shirk to follow any of the four Imams, those that do are polytheists and consider Ahl’ul Sunnah women as captives, and deem it halaal to murder Sunni’s. These are Wahabis a group of Khwaarjis as deemed Allamah Shaafi”.[“fitna Najdiyaat” by Haji Nawabdeen Golarvi”, publishers Makathaba Ghosia, Thala, Ganag Road, Chakwaal, page 108]
“Deobandis books should be spat upon and urinated on”[Fatawi Razooba, Volume 4 page 183]
“The kufr of Ismail has been proven by the Ulema – quoting Mufti Azam Allamah Shah FuzulAllah Badhyawni (ra) – 10 – 13 Hijri”[Fitnah Wahabiyaath page 36 Haji Nawabadeen and Maulvi Fazl Haq Sahib Khayr Abadi, in their commentary “Tahqeeq al Fatawi Fi Abthal at Thaqhi Kamal Sharra wa basath” – pages 18-20]
“Ismail Dehlavi according the Sharia is a Kaffir and his killing is a duty. Whoever doubts his Kufr is also kaffir and cursed”.[Haji Nawabadeen and Maulvi Fazl Haq Sahib Khayr Abadi, in their commentary “Tahqeeq al Fatawi Fi Abthal at Thaqhi Kamal Sharra wa basath” – page 20]
“The scholars of Ahl’ul Sunnah and the Ulema of Ka’ba, Arabs and non Arabs have a united Fatwa that Ashraf Ali Thanvi is kaffir whoever doubts this is also a kaffir”.[“Private Matters of the Muslim League” page 7 by Muhammad Miyaar Qadri]
Shias are also not spared
“QUOTE”
Munir Report on Fatwas of Kufr
One of the most famous public documents in the history of Pakistan is known commonly as the Munir Report, its official title being: Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. The disturbances referred to were instigated by a number of religious leaders (ulama) in pursuance of their demand that the government officially classify Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority community, and take certain other actions against members of this movement.
The disturbances were eventually quelled by the authorities, and a public court of inquiry appointed with Justice Muhammad Munir as president and Justice Kayani as member to investigate the causes of the trouble. The inquiry went into the underlying issues behind the events, carrying out an incisive analysis of the ulama’s concept of an Islamic state. Its 387-page Report, which soon became a historic document, was presented in April 1954.
Referring to the ulama’s call for Pakistan to be run as an official `Islamic’ state, and to their demands against Ahmadis, the Report says:
“The question, therefore, whether a person is or is not a Muslim will be of fundamental importance, and it was for this reason that we asked most of the leading ulama to give their definition of a Muslim, the point being that if the ulama of the various sects believed the Ahmadis to be kafirs, they must have been quite clear in their minds not only about the grounds of such belief but also about the definition of a Muslim because the claim that a certain person or community is not within the pale of Islam implies on the part of the claimant an exact conception of what a Muslim is. The result of this part of the inquiry, however, has been anything but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be. Below we reproduce the definition of a Muslim given by each alim in his own words.”
(p. 215)
There then follow in the Report the answers given by various ulama to the question, What is the definition of a Muslim. At the end of the answers, the Report draws the following conclusion:
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else.”
(p. 218)
After this, under the heading Apostasy, the Report refers to the belief held by the ulama that, in an Islamic state, a Muslim who becomes a kafir is subject to the death penalty. The Report says:
“According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i-Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, if Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri or Mirza Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, or any one of the numerous ulama who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautiful tree in the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 14, were the head of such Islamic State. And if Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi were the head of the State, he would exclude those who have pronounced Deobandis as kafirs from the pale of Islam and inflict on them the death penalty if they come within the definition of murtadd, namely, if they have changed and not inherited their religious views.
“The genuineness of the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 13, by the Deobandis which says that Asna Ashari Shias are kafirs and murtadds, was questioned in the course of enquiry, but Maulana Muhammad Shafi made an inquiry on the subject from Deoband, and received from the records of that institution the copy of a fatwa signed by all the teachers of the Darul Uloom, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi himself which is to the effect that those who do not believe in the sahabiyyat of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and who are qazif of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa and have been guilty of tehrif of Quran are kafirs. This opinion is also supported by Mr Ibrahim Ali Chishti who has studied and knows his subject. He thinks the Shias are kafirs because they believe that Hazrat Ali shared the prophethood with our Holy Prophet. He refused to answer the question whether a person who being a Sunni changes his view and agrees with the Shia view would be guilty of irtidad so as to deserve the death penalty. According to the Shias all Sunnis are kafirs, and Ahl-i-Quran, namely, persons who consider hadith to be unreliable and therefore not binding, are unanimously kafirs, and so are all independent thinkers. The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim. If the constituents of each of the definitions given by the ulama are given effect to, and subjected to the rule of `combination and permutation’ and the form of charge in the Inquisition’s sentence on Galileo is adopted mutatis mutandis as a model, the grounds on which a person may be indicted for apostasy will be too numerous to count.”
(p. 219)
Hence this extensive inquiry found that if the fatwas of the ulama are relied upon to determine whether a sect is Muslim or kafir, then no sect at all will be left which could be called Muslim.
“UNQUOTE”
Barelvi and Deobandi Maulvis on Shias being Infidels [in Urdu.]
Sufi Muhammad’s Religious Edict against Saudi Arabia & Iran
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/05/maulana-sufi-muhammads-fatwa-decree.html
As per the News International Dated:Sunday, May 03, 2009
“QUOTE”
Jihad not mandatory in Kashmir: Sufi Sunday, May 03, 2009 News Desk
Chief of Tehrik Nifaz Shariat-e-Muhammadi Maulana Sufi Muhammad has said: that there was no Islamic Shariah system in Saudi Arabia and Iran
“UNQUOTE”
Quite familiar Fatwa of Takfir (Apostasy) was also issued by Osama Bin Laden against Saudi Arabian Rulers and he didn’t even spare the Scholars of Saudi Arabia which resulted in this
When Saddam invaded Kuwait – [Immediately a Fatwa was issued against Saddam – “During the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi Arabia bankrolled the Saddam Hussein regime with the express approval of Washington DC which at that time saw Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Shia fundamentalism. It came as a terrific shock to the Saudi Royals when Saddam Hussein turned his attention to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Again, the Royal family turned to the Ulema and obtained (with difficulty) a Fatwa, permitting the use of non-Muslim foreign troops on Saudi soil to defend Saudi Arabia against a foreign invader – one the Ulema regarded as a secular apostate. Thus the Saudi Royal family invited the USA to send it its troops for Operation Desert Storm- the operation to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait – largely at Saudi expense.” As per 9/11 Commission Report “In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, [Saudi Fatwa issued in 90s against Osama Bin Ladin – http://abdurrahman.org/jihad/binlaadin.pdf Usama Ibn Ladin Al-Kharijee (our position toward him and his likes) – By Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullaah Ibn Baz [PDF] – Taken from http://www.troid.org/%5D and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.”
Despite all the rantings of Maulana Sufi Muhammad of TNSM and other such Khariji Anarchists, Islam discourages Fatwa Mongering of Takfir [declaring someone Apostate].
“The judgement of apostasy and expelling someone from the religion is only appropriate for the people of knowledge who are firmly grounded in knowledge, and they are the judges in the various Sharee’ah law courts, and those who are able of giving legal verdicts. And this is just like the other matters, and it is not the right of every person, or from the right of those who are learning, or those who ascribe themselves to knowledge, but who have deficiency in understanding. It is not appropriate for them to make judgements of apostasy (upon others). Since, mischief will arise from this, and sometimes a Muslim might be judged as an apostate but he is not actually so. And the takfir of a Muslim who has not committed one of the nullifications of Islaam contains great danger. Whoever says to his brother “O Kaafir” or “O Faasiq”, and he is not like that, then the words will fall back upon the one who said them. Hence, the ones who actually judge with apostasy are the legislative judges and those who are able and fit for giving legal verdicts. And as for those who enforce the judgements they are the leaders of the Muslims (wullaat al-amr). As for whatever is other than this, then it is mere confusion.”
“Meting out the punishments is only appropriate for the leader of the Muslims and it is not for every person to establish the punishment, since confusion, and corruption necessarily follows from this, and also the cutting off of the society, tribulations and provocations occur. Establishing the punishments is appropriate (i.e. befits only) to the Muslim leader. The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, “Pardon each other for the punishments that are between you, but when the execution of the punishment reaches the [authority of the] Sultaan, then Allaah curses both the one who seeks intercession and the one who grants the intercession [i.e. to revoke the punishment]”. And from the responsibilities of the Sultaan in Islaam, and from those matters that befit him is the establishment of the punishments after they have been established legislatively, via the Sharee’ah law courts, upon the one who fell into the crime for which the legislator has designated a specific punishment, such as for stealing. So what has been said is that establishing the punishments (i.e. meting them out) is from the rights of the Sultaan, and when the Muslims do not have a Sultaan amongst them, then they should just suffice with commanding the good and forbidding the evil, and calling to Allaah, the Might and Majestic, with wisdom, good admonition and arguing with that which is best. And it is not permissible for individuals (in the society) to establish the hudood, since that, as we have mentioned, will bring about chaos, and also provocations, and tribulations will arise, and this contains greater corruption than it contains rectification. And from amongst the Sharee’ah principles that are submitted to is, “Repelling the harmful things takes precedence over bringing about the beneficial things”.
Al-Khawaarij http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/05/maulana-sufi-muhammads-fatwa-decree.html
@Aamir Mughal Excellent research, Aamir. In you and Omar Khattab, we have two best researchers against Islamofacism, More power to your pen!
Thanks and read this:
An advice from Altaf Hussain Hali’s Collection [Mussadas-e-Hali]
کرے غیر گربت کی پوجا تو کافر
جو ٹھرائے بیٹا خدا کا تو کافر
جھکے آگ پر بہر سجدہ تو کافر
کواکب میں مانے کرشمہ تو کافر
مگر مومنوں پر کشادہ ہیں راہیں
پرستش کریں شوق سے جس کی چاہیں
نبی کو جو چاہیں خدا کر دکھائیں
اماموں کا رتبہ نبی سے بڑھائیں
مزاروں پہ دن رات مذریں چڑھائیں
شہیدوں سے جاجا کے مانگیں دعائیں
نہ توحید میں کچھ خلل اس سے آئے
نہ اسلام بگڑے نہ ایمان جائے
گناہوں سے ہوتے ہو گویا مبّرا
مخالف پہ کرتے ہو جب تم تبرّا
نہ سنی میں اور جعفری میں ہو الفت
نہ نعمانی و شافعی میں ہو ملت
وہابی سے صوفی کی کم ہو نہ نفرت
لمقلد کرے نا مقلد پہ لعنت
رہے اہلِ قبلہ مین جنگ ایسی باہم
کہ دینِ خدا پر ہنسے سارا عالم
کرے کوئی اصلاح کا گر ارادہ
تو شیطان سے اس کو سمجھو زیادہ
hi,
I would like to remove my comments from this web, can anyone tell me how to do that?
@Zehsan:
Read this;
Why Pakistan’s Ahmadi community is officially detested
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8744092.stm
Simple, because its the Pakistanis who are killing them not foreigners. Only yesterday Mubashar Lucman’s Point Blank has declared them Wajibul-Qatl. Now these Ulema and Mubashar Lucman are not foreigners. Neither is Aamir Liaqat or Hamid Mir who spew hatred against Ahmadis.
Point Blank: Ahmadis are heretics (worthy of killing), more Ahmadi deaths to follow
http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20100617/Sub_Images/1100971618-1.gif
Y4CNKP zmvrugdvvkct, [url=http://sqrneaspyruv.com/]sqrneaspyruv[/url], [link=http://alplacqadbkl.com/]alplacqadbkl[/link], http://usrylnykgome.com/
@nisha
Identity killing is wrong, and anyone who fears Allah should always strive to be honest when making a comment on the beliefs of anyone, regardless of whether they are Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, Hindu, Bhuddist, Jew, Christian, Baha’i or any other belief.
I applaud your courage for demanding honesty.