What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis?
Related posts: Debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution – by Ali Abbas Taj
Polemics of apostatizing in Pakistan
Recently I read two articles on the systematic murder of Shia Muslims in Pakistan, by Marvi Sirmed (in Daily Times, 5 March 2012) and Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy (in Express Tribune, 4 March 2012).
While I laud the highlighting of Shia genocide (and persecution of other oppressed groups) in Pakistan by the two authors, one common element in the two articles which drew my attention in particular is their stance on the questionable role played by Pakistani Shias against Ahmadiyya Muslims.
Let me provide the exact excerpts:
In fact, both the communities were together against the Ahmedis in the 1950s, and then in the early 1990s. (Marvi Sirmed)
Until recently, Pakistan’s Shias did not have the self-image of a religious minority. They had joined Sunnis in supporting Mr Bhutto’s 1974 decision to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim. But now they are worried. (Pervez Hoodbhoy)
I consider this generalizing account of “the Shia community” joining Sunnis in anti-Ahmadiyya campaign as problematic. Recently, I saw a Shia friend asking the same question: “You know the dirty role the Shias played in the apostatizing of the Ahmadis. The Shia leadership of the 1970s was extremely stupid and evil.”
This then brings me to the million dollar question of what role exactly did Pakistan’s Shia Muslims play against Ahmadiyya Muslims? Should we uncritically accept and circulate the current discourse on Shias’ complicity along with Sunni extremists of Jamaat-e-Islami, Tahaffuz-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat, other Sunni religious (Barelvi, Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith) organizations in causing physical and legal violence against Ahmadis?
At the same time, I am least interested in a revisionist view of history. If any one or more Shia leaders and scholars are found to be involved in hate campaigns against Ahmadiyya Muslms, they must be specifically mentioned and condemned with empirical evidence. Yet, pointing the finger of blame towards entire Shia community may not be factually accurate.
Based on what I have read and seen, the role Shias played against Ahmadi Muslims appears to be overstated and exaggerated. Token participation and appropriation of Shias can also be found in General Zia’s Shura and federal cabinet. Does that mean Shias as a community also played a dirty role in the creation of Sipah-e-Sahaba and anti-Shia Jihadist regime?
So far, I have not come across a fatwa by any authentic Shia scholar (Mujtahid or Ayatollah) declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Similarly, there is no evidence of Shia group or mobs attacking Ahmadis or demonstrating against them (barring one or two token Shias attending the JI or Khatam-e-Nabuwat rallies). This is contrary to the organized and consistent violence by Sunni religious parties (JI, JUI, JUP, now JuD, SSP-ASWJ etc) against Ahmadiyya Muslims since 1950s.
By that account, the Difa-e-Pakistan Council too claims it represents Pakistani Hindus, Christians and other minorities, JI too routinely celebrates Christmas with Pakistani Christians etc. Thus, support by one or two token Shias to anti-Ahmadiyya Sunni groups may not be attributed to Shia Muslims in general. Perhaps we may refer to Shias’ general apathy towards Ahmadis but such apathy is reciprocal and is also found in all communities and groups on numerous issues (e.g., on Baloch and Pasthun genocide etc).
Perhaps it might be useful to exactly specify who amongst Shias and how many Shias were active against Ahmadis, and how and in what capacity etc.
Yes, a few Shia scholars were invited to Pakistan’s National Assembly in 1974 including Shia scholar Maulana Muhammad Ismail Deobandi. A few Shia scholars were also a part of Sunni-led anti-Ahmadiyya movement during 1950s. However, action of one or two individuals cannot and must not be attributed to an entire community. We also need to understand the pressure tactics on minority groups and their token appropriation in the mainstream agendas. This must not be forgotten that Maulana Ismail Deobandi himself used to be a Sunni Deobandi scholar and had converted to Shia Islam after a comparative study of faiths and sects. Indeed, part of his hatred against Ahmadiyya Muslims may also be traced to his education and social conditioning in Sunni Deobandi madrassas.
At the same time, one may not ignore the aspect of token invitation to Shia scholars to the National Assembly before the State formally declared its own citizens (Ahmadis) as non-Muslims. Was any Shia scholar invited to present Pakistan flag to Pakistan’s first legislative assembly? No, it was a Sunni Deobandi scholar Shabbir Ahmed Usmani who was chosen for that celebrated task. Also, can we ignore the fact that though founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah himself was a Shia Muslim, his funeral prayers were led by a Sunni Deobandi scholar? Thus, the aspect of token invitation to hand-picked Shia scholars before the apostatizing of Ahmadi Muslims may not be ignored.
However, what can be and should be condemned is the general apathy of Shia Muslims along with other members of Pakistani society (Sunnis, Christians, Balochs, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Punjabis etc) towards the apostatizing of Ahmadi Muslims in violation of their fundamental human rights.
Isamel Deobandi and Muzaffar Shamsi were two of thousands of Shia mullahs. I remember one Ain Ghain Kararwi who used to support the JI and IJI during late 1980s and early 1990s. I am not sure the whole Shia community can be blamed for the action of one or two Shia mullahs who sold their souls to the Jihado-fascist establishment. I will be happy to revise my opinion if someone could provide a counter-narrative with empirical evidence.
Another issue we may wish to consider is that some elements in Pakistani media and establishment are currently circulating and exaggerating this narrative (Shias too were against Ahmadis) to obfuscate and justify the systematic genocide of Shias which is taking place since 1963 (Thehri, Sindh, 118 killed) etc and also to create divisions within the oppressed groups (e.g., between Shias, Ahmadis etc).
Does Shia massacre in 1963 also have something to do with Maulana Ismail Deobandi’s anti-Ahmadi speech in Pakistan’s National Assembly in 1974? Also, how can we explain the increasing number of attacks on other communities in Pakistan, e.g, Christians, Hindus, Siksh? Did they too participate in the apostatizing of Ahmadis? This tendency of presenting a pretext to the ongoing genocide of Shia Muslims (Pakistan’s most target killed faith group since 1947) is neither honest nor constructive. Indeed, this may be seen as yet another blaming the victim narrative and tactic of Pakistani media and urban elites who, instead of sympathizing with and supporting a systematically a target killed community (Shia Muslims), appear to be interested in rationalizing, justifying or misrepresenting the genocide through false neutral and acontextual analyses. In other words, urban elites in Pakistani media are blaming one oppressed community (Shias) for the miseries of another oppressed community (Ahmadis) while elites themselves remain silent or misrepresent the sufferings of both communities. For example, refer to the most recent issue of The Friday Times which not only misrepresented Shias but also Ahmadis.
Perhaps the othering of not only Shias but also Ahmadis and other communities may be routed back to the Objectives Resolution in 1949 which was a betrayal of the Pakistani social contract presented by Jinnah on 11 August 1947.
What one can learn from the 1974 anti-Ahmadi legislation is that no political, ethnic or faith group in Pakistan has a sense of history. Even Bhutto acted in a politically expedient yet foolish manner, the so-called man with a sense of history. The one or two token Shia scholars who spoke against Ahmadis should have realized that their own community would be the next on the menu. They, however, were probably interested in certain immediate benefits (free Hajj, Umrah, membership in Shura etc). Of course, we cannot blame the entire Shia community for the action of a few sold out souls.
In hindsight, Shias, Ahmadis, others should not have been a part of the Pakistan Movement which was itself based on communal hatred and divisions. In Ghalib’s words: meri tameer mein muzmir he ik soorat kharabi ki (there is an element of self-destruction in the way I have been constructed).
Related posts: Debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution – by Ali Abbas Taj
Polemics of apostatizing in Pakistan
Some of the most vehement anti-Ahmadiyya politicians of Pakistan
——-
LUBP editor meets Ahmadiyya community’s spiritual leader – by Ali Taj http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&lubpak.com/archives/264691
Shia scholar Ammar Nakshawani condemns persecution and massacres of Ahmadis, Christians and Sunni Sufis
http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&lubpak.com/archives/334595
Ismail Deobandi was not a Shia scholar. He was a Deobandi scholar who became a Shia polemic (manaazir) without undergoing any education in any Shia seminary. Similarly, Ali Ghazanfar (Ain Ghain) Kararvi – known to be an establishment tout – does not have any scholarly background.
Both Ms. Sirmed and Dr. Hoodbhoy have made unsubstantiated – and factually incorrect – generalizations.
While I am certain there were more than a few token clerics, it is hard to believe that the anti ahmadiya sentiment amongst the urban shia classes is not influenced by the clergy.
And isn’t their deafening silence on the matter during past 50 years, a crime in itself more so by the Hussaini (r.a) teachings than anyone else?
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi Empirical evidence of Shias participation in anti-Ahmadiyya campaign in 1950s please? @marvisirmed
45m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Why don’t you show a statement of Shia clerics condeming the declaration of Ahmedis as non-Muslims? @marvisirmed #Pakistan
43m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi There is none that I could find. Now can you please answer my question directly? 🙂 @marvisirmed
39m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Yes I will answer your questions directly.No Shia cleric opposed 2nd Amendment in 1974. #fact @marvisirmed
36m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi That was not my question, Sir ji. 🙂 @marvisirmed
33m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Sev Shia leaders also signed a statement supporting excommunication of Ahmadis in 74 @marvisirmed
30m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi Please provide a link to Mufti Jafar’s statement against Ahmadis. Thanks. @marvisirmed
rshakoor @rshakoor Close
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi @marvisirmed even if u dont believe shia leaders invlvement in antiahmadi campaign,consider shia treatmnt of bahai
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri
@rshakoor Iranian Shia mullahs treatment of Bahais must be condemned and not be attributed to Iranian Sunnis. @Razarumi @marvisirmed
Mahdi Baloch @MahdiBaloch · Open
@Razarumi Mufti sahib was far far away from such issues, plz refer his books to see his caliber @marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Close
@MahdiBaloch The onus of proof is on the person who alleged Mufti Jafar to be a part of anti-Ahmadiyya mvmt/sttmnt. @Razarumi
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi LOL. Hopefully you can refer to a book, publication, one day 🙂 @marvisirmed
Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain Close
@AbdulNishapuri You are wasting your time bro, Ahmedi was a sunni break-away sect and we were least concerned about their internal matter.
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AliAbbasTaj And how does it change the fact that they WERE a part of 1974 decision? @AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj Close
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi They were in 74 not 52 and not 84. 74 was a technical religious question, never incitement or persecu
Mahdi Baloch @MahdiBaloch · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Ismail daiwbandi was not a Shia scholar, studied from Daiwband & then converted on his own, may be a conspiracy
Mahdi Baloch @MahdiBaloch · Open
@AbdulNishapuri What moulvi Ismail did to Shias, it is also well knwon, ll send u links once find time 2day or tomrw @Razarumi @marvisirmed
Mahdi Baloch @MahdiBaloch · Open
@AbdulNishapuri There is a book of his majlis available online in which takes the credit, ll shar with u when find it@Razarumi @marvisirmed
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri They remained complicit in anti-Ahmadi campaign by sheer silence #Fact @BrolenLentes
Maula Bux Thadani @MaulaBuksh Close
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri @BrolenLentes we all did but that is different from actively participating in apostasizing.
Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@marvisirmed In fact the Shia clergy has historically been on board against the Ahmedis. Its a well known fact. @abdulnishapuri
54m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi Empirical evidence of Shias participation in anti-Ahmadiyya campaign in 1950s please? @marvisirmed
53m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Why don’t you show a statement of Shia clerics condeming the declaration of Ahmedis as non-Muslims? @marvisirmed #Pakistan
50m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi There is none that I could find. Now can you please answer my question directly? 🙂 @marvisirmed
46m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Yes I will answer your questions directly.No Shia cleric opposed 2nd Amendment in 1974. #fact @marvisirmed
43m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi That was not my question, Sir ji. 🙂 @marvisirmed
41m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Sev Shia leaders also signed a statement supporting excommunication of Ahmadis in 74 @marvisirmed
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj Close
@AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed @Razarumi Shias wanted peace, perhaps in error their leadership decided it was best to stay out of it.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed Four misrepresenting articles in one issue of TFT 🙁 Everyone kept quiet. Why? http://t.co/jsV66qHv
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri There is. If you come across any sources depicting that Shias kept themselves aloof from that movement, do share.
1h Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj · Open
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Haffiz Kafayat Hussain speeches published, never a word against Ahmadyia. He did testify on Prophet Last.
1h Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@AliAbbasTaj @marvisirmed Agha Poya & Hafiz Kifayat were two prominent Shia scholars during 1950s and 60s. No anti-Ahmadi speeches by them.
1h Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Nor do we find any speeches against anti-Ahmadi campagn. Doesn’t prove Shias were not part of that campaign. @AliAbbasTaj
59m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@marvisirmed Valid point. Collective silence is reciprocal and cannot be condoned. @AliAbbasTaj
58m Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Shias were more mainstreamed than Ahmadis @AliAbbasTaj
55m Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj · Open
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Admittedly Shia leaders of the time did not speak against Ahmediya persecution. But never spoke for it.
Kamran Shafi @KamranShafi46 Close
@AliAbbasTaj @marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Good comment. Understand too that Shias are a persecuted minority too!!
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri They were together with everyone else when Ahrar started anti-Ahmad campaign in 1950s
1h Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@marvisirmed Thanks. Can you please direct me to a few sources / evidence on this? I think there’s a lot of grey on this topic.
1h Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri There is. If you come across any sources depicting that Shias kept themselves aloof from that movement, do share.
59m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@marvisirmed In fact the Shia clergy has historically been on board against the Ahmedis. Its a well known fact. @abdulnishapuri
57m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi Empirical evidence of Shias participation in anti-Ahmadiyya campaign in 1950s please? @marvisirmed
56m Raza Rumi @Razarumi · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Why don’t you show a statement of Shia clerics condeming the declaration of Ahmedis as non-Muslims? @marvisirmed #Pakistan
53m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@Razarumi There is none that I could find. Now can you please answer my question directly? 🙂 @marvisirmed
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed Close
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi The fact that they did not play a role against anti-Ahmadi campaign, is the point that I made in my article.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed Shias can be alleged of collective silence, the same silence which they themselves have been facing since 1950s. @Razarumi
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj · Open
@AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed @Razarumi Shias wanted peace, perhaps in error their leadership decided it was best to stay out of it.
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed Close
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi it would be unfair to put the onus of anti_ahmadi riots on Shias.
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Nor do we find any speeches against anti-Ahmadi campagn. Doesn’t prove Shias were not part of that campaign. @AliAbbasTaj
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Also you may ask the victims of the 1952 Anti Ahmadya riots. Answer there attackers were not Shia
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Haffiz Kafayat Hussain speeches published, never a word against Ahmadyia. He did testify on Prophet Last.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@marvisirmed What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis? shar.es/gKgfd
1h Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri They were together with everyone else when Ahrar started anti-Ahmad campaign in 1950s
1h Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@marvisirmed Thanks. Can you please direct me to a few sources / evidence on this? I think there’s a lot of grey on this topic.
1h Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri There is. If you come across any sources depicting that Shias kept themselves aloof from that movement, do share.
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj Close
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Haffiz Kafayat Hussain speeches published, never a word against Ahmadyia. He did testify on Prophet Last.
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
@AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed The best case you could make is that the Shia did not speak for the Ahmadiya. Other than that there is nada.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@marvisirmed What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis? shar.es/gKgfd
1h Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri They were together with everyone else when Ahrar started anti-Ahmad campaign in 1950s
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Close
@marvisirmed Thanks. Can you please direct me to a few sources / evidence on this? I think there’s a lot of grey on this topic.
……….
Mohammad Taqi @mazdaki · Open
@marvisirmed Plenty refs available.Also note, Justice Rustam Kiyani,co-author Munir Report, was a Shia @abdulnishapuri @jvqazi @razarumi
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Close
@mazdaki Question is: Can “the Shia community” be held responsible (other than their silence) for action of one or two Shia scholars?
javedahmedqazi @jvqazi Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
@AbdulNishapuri in my humble opinion not at all @mazdaki
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@mazdaki Q2: Can we ignore the token participation and misappropriation of an oppressed minority group by a hostile fascist state?
javedahmedqazi @jvqazi Close
@AbdulNishapuri here this point is subjective and objective both. for example it is a question of degree how long one can support..@mazdaki
……..
Mahdi Baloch @MahdiBaloch Reply Favorite · Open
@Razarumi @marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri & This is how Moulvi Ismail tried to destroy very basis of shii’at: http://t.co/X63pUcc
View video
17m Mahdi Baloch @MahdiBaloch Reply Favorite · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Here is proof of Moulvi Ismail’s role & history, plz see first lecture pg. 11: http://t.co/qEJxFIX @Razarumi @marvisirmed
……….
Riaz Ali Toori @RiazToori Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Dear Bro @Razarumi kindly 4gve already under attack #Shia -let’s count their role in making & developing #Pak @abdulnishapuri @mahdibaloch
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
RT @MahdiBaloch @Razarumi Generalizing all clerics/scholars in same line wud b difficult but let’s end this discussion in amicable way 🙂
Ali Taj @AliAbbasTaj
@AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed @jvqazi @Razarumi Further resh. 74 Molvi Ismail Deobandi plus few suspect Shia leaders.NOT Formal Shia Clergy
Munir Khan @munir104
@jvqazi They had a backseat role but Shia were not in the vanguard-that was always Sunni! @AbdulNishapuri @mazdaki
Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH
@BashaNazir precisely. Besides actions of Shia ulema are not reflective of Shia community per se which is far more enlightened.
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
Munner Report,P110: Shia leaders stressed in the course of meetings that they agreed with the Ahrar in their demands that @Abdulnishapuri
7m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@marvisirmed I have already thanked @rshakoor for this excellent resource. Shows some Shia scholars were a part of the Sunni-led movement.
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention unanimously resolved to declare Ahmadis non Muslims attended by Shias. Ref:Just Muneer Report PP 77
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Munner Report,P110: Shia leaders stressed in the course of meetings that they agreed with the Ahrar in their demands that @Abdulnishapuri
13m Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
AllMuslimPartiesConvention Lahore once again, had Shia representation. Justice Muneer report PP 79-80 @AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi
5m Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Ok. Apologies for repeating then. I did not see @rshakoor’s tweet.
4m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@marvisirmed @rshakoor Both of you may also consider pressures on minorities (e.g., some Sunnis’ support to Iranian repressive mullahs)
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed Close
@AbdulNishapuri Same can go in favour of ZAB I guess. But there, we all become too stubborn to accuse him :((( @rshakoor
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed ZAB represented the majority party and majority sect. @rshakoor
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed
@AbdulNishapuri A political underdog. He was anti-righ wing religious parties and establishment. That makes him hardly ‘powerful’ @rshakoor
Marvi Sirmed @marvisirmed
+100 RT @BashaNazir @AbdulNishapuri no use finger pointing, better get together righting this massive wrong @rshakoor @Razarumi
rshakoor @rshakoor Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
@abdulnishapuri check out pages 80, 110, 113, 141 of munir report bit.ly/9Jnr2 @RazaRumi @marvisirmed
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed @rshakoor Both of you may also consider pressures on minorities (e.g., some Sunnis’ support to Iranian repressive mullahs)
In reply to Marvi Sirmed
12m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed I have already thanked @rshakoor for this excellent resource. Shows some Shia scholars were a part of the Sunni-led movement.
In reply to Marvi Sirmed
14m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@marvisirmed I agree and support that everyone who played a role in hate-campaign against Ahmadis must be highlighted. @jvqazi @Razarumi
In reply to Marvi Sirmed
18m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@rshakoor Some Sunnis support Iranian authoritarian mullahs; some Shias support Bahrain’s murderous regime. Minorities face many pressures.
In reply to rshakoor
19m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@rshakoor Thanks for this. Shows that some Shia scholars were a part of the Sunni led anti-Ahmadiyya movement.
……..
Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
@AbdulNishapuri article fails to acknowledge that anti-Ahmadi anti-shia movement in Pak is led by Ahraris who were pro-Congress not League.
In reply to Abdul Nishapuri
2h Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
@Laibaah1 this article ignores one basic fact: those killing Ahmadis and Shias were historically against the creation of Pak.
Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH · Open
The first thing in undoing prejudice against Ahmadis is to ensure their rights as citizens – that means abolition of Ord XX by Zia.
29m Basharat Nazir @BashaNazir · Open
@theRealYLH yes, let’s rally round to put the future right; no point debating why Shias then were complicit in enacting this notorious law
Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH Close
@BashaNazir precisely. Besides actions of Shia ulema are not reflective of Shia community per se which is far more enlightened.
Munir Khan @munir104 Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
After ’74 ZAB sent private messages 2 Ahmadi leadership tht he wld reverse decision,but Mullah’s had smelt blood & there was no going back!
Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
What we need is a grand alliance of Shias, Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs on the basis of Pakistaniat. Time is of the essence.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Reply Delete Favorite · Open
@theRealYLH Also of moderate Sunnis (Barelvis, Deobandi) and Ahl-e-Hadith.
Interesting post, and quite informative debate.
@Saad
“And isn’t their deafening silence on the matter during past 50 years, a crime in itself more so by the Hussaini (r.a) teachings than anyone else?”
I agree.
Shias have never took part neither condoned the harassment of Ahmedis. But at the same time shias cannot go about ignoring the plethora of hadiths in their own books regarding the people who do not consider Muhammad (s) to be the final messenger.
And if for this today shias are taking flak from the liberals and the ahmedis. Well that is not a big problem. We have paid with our blood the price for our beliefs.
And that comment about Hussaini teaching. We shias know a thing or two about what Hussain (as) taught, and that very teaching might be the reason why shias dont consider Ahmedis to be Muslims.
Unity or peace does not mean that I will sacrifice part of my faith or accept things that go against my deen.
Shia leaders are constantly making Anti-Ahmadiyya statements. Even when Shias are attacked and we all know who the attackers are, Shia leaders blame ‘Qadiani Agents’ for the attacks.
Here is a video where Shia scholar claims it was Shias who actually made the decision of 1974 against Ahmadis to happen;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW_phferd0w
@Hassan:
“Shias have never took part neither condoned the harassment of Ahmedis.”
Rather a sweeping statement. How can you say that when evidence shows that Shias are always on the side of Sunnis when it comes to Ahmadis?
“But at the same time shias cannot go about ignoring the plethora of hadiths in their own books regarding the people who do not consider Muhammad (s) to be the final messenger.”
Same applies to Shias and its statements like these that help Shias dig their own graves; as on the same principle murderers of Shias can not ignore Shia beliefs. Numerous fatwas have been issued, including from Deoband, declaring Shias to be murtad and we all know what is the punishment of murtad as generally understood. Problem solved. You have justified your own killing.
*Shia murderers = Murderers of Shias, to remove any ambuiguity
@Hassan:
“Unity or peace does not mean that I will sacrifice part of my faith or accept things that go against my deen.”
I am entirely sure murderers of Shia think the same way too. This means they are justified as they also can not sacrifice part of their faith or accept things that go against their deen.
@Malik “Rather a sweeping statement. How can you say that when evidence shows that Shias are always on the side of Sunnis when it comes to Ahmadis?”
When have shias ever attacked any Ahmedi or hell even show me one single instance when shias have stopped Ahmedis from practicing their religion.
As far being on the side of sunnis is concerned, that my friend is pretty simple. Shias and sunnis share the same religious belief/ aqeeda when it comes to the finality of Prophethood. Shias did not side with the sunnis just so that the Ahmedis can be oppressed, as you trying to imply.
@Malik “Same applies to Shias and its statements like these that help Shias dig their own graves; as on the same principle murderers of Shias can not ignore Shia beliefs. Numerous fatwas have been issued, including from Deoband, declaring Shias to be murtad and we all know what is the punishment of murtad as generally understood. Problem solved. You have justified your own killing.”
True, and the same could be said of Ahmedis. Why dont you dissociate with Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. Why do you risk harassment by believing in his prophethood? Dont you justify your own harassment by believing in some random man to a Prophet of God? Hell why dont we all do away with our “innovations” and become debobandi or wahabi. That way we would be saved from alot of trouble.
If you havent noticed we shias are not in the business of changing or twisting our beliefs just so that we could please the king and his masses.
We could have accepted Muawiya and Yazid to be a righteous sahabis, or the caliphs to be rightful rulers and saved ourselves from all the killings but we didnt. Centuries of prosecution, from the days of banu Ummaya to days of Saddam and Zia but we didnt budge from the teaching of Ahlebait (as), and no shias worth his salt would do so now.
@Malik The thing is my friend, you are going about it the wrong way.
You cannot go about trying to convince the sunnis and shias of this country that Ahmedis are Muslims. For religious people believe in their scripture. And if the scripture says that Muhammad (s) was the last, they sure as hell are not going to believe you. So it would do Ahmedis no good, rather it would open another can of worms and tensions would flare up even more. In the same way of the Yazid fanboys aka wahabis wont ever consider us Rafdis as Muslims.
The correct way and the only way to solve this problem is to establish the rule of law in this country. No one no matter what his belief is can take the life of anyone in his own hand.
So I might be a shia who hates a wahabi, or an Ahmedi who hates a Sunni, or a Deobandi who despises a barelvi but I am not allowed to take his life. That imo is the only solution.
@Hassan: You don’t get my point, as I think most Shias too.
As long as you are happy for Shia haters to kill Shias in the name of religion then that is fine, no worries. However once Shais start complaining about it then one can ask Shias to change their faith too to escape the persecution as Shias expect Ahmadis to do so. One rule for all. What is good for goose is good for the gander. As long as you apply the same principle on both Shias and Ahmadis then all is fine.
@Malik “Shia leaders are constantly making Anti-Ahmadiyya statements. Even when Shias are attacked and we all know who the attackers are, Shia leaders blame ‘Qadiani Agents’ for the attacks.”
How did I miss this gem. Absolute BS!
“So I might be a shia who hates a wahabi, or an Ahmedi who hates a Sunni, or a Deobandi who despises a barelvi but I am not allowed to take his life. That imo is the only solution”
Then where do the question of beliefs come in all this?
“If you havent noticed we shias are not in the business of changing or twisting our beliefs just so that we could please the king and his masses”
I don’t know. There is a thing called Taqiyya which is especially associated with Shias. Also when it came to actually fighting the religion of King we don’t find any Shia leaders in the fight, where were they? Funny that;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnDXUOgIja4
@Hassan:
“How did I miss this gem. Absolute BS!”
Right. Newspapers must be lying when they report on Shia leaders. Either that or you are lying.
@Malik You don’t get my point, as I think most Shias too.
As long as you are happy for Shia haters to kill Shias in the name of religion then that is fine, no worries. However once Shais start complaining about it then one can ask Shias to change their faith too to escape the persecution as Shias expect Ahmadis to do so. One rule for all. What is good for goose is good for the gander. As long as you apply the same principle on both Shias and Ahmadis then all is fine.
I truly hope your only acting this naive.
I’ll make it simple for you.
Do Shias think that Ahmedis are Muslims? No.
Do Shias want Ahmedis to change their faith? No.
Do Shias believe that Ahmedis should be persecuted for their belies? Hell No.
“As long as you are happy for Shia haters to kill Shias in the name of religion then that is fine, no worries. ”
Bravo!
@Hassan:
“When have shias ever attacked any Ahmedi or hell even show me one single instance when shias have stopped Ahmedis from practicing their religion.”
It’s hard to know which sect one belongs to in a mob but since Shia leaders are inciting hatred against Ahmadis just as sunnis are so its fair to believe that at least some Shias would be taking heed to the words of their leaders.
Right. Newspapers must be lying when they report on Shia leaders. Either that or you are lying.
Link or it didn’t happen? 🙂
Dude seriously get a life. Now you’re acting like one of those wahabi trolls.
“Do Shias believe that Ahmedis should be persecuted for their belies? Hell No.”
And yet Shia leaders still keep spewing hatred against Ahmadis? How do they think it will help? I have to say I don’t think many Shia leaders agree with you, exceptions aside.
@Malik “And yet Shia leaders still keep spewing hatred against Ahmadis? How do they think it will help? I have to say I don’t think many Shia leaders agree with you, exceptions aside.”
Show me a fatwa of any Shia Mujtahid/Ayatollah, hell any half decent shia scholar who says Ahmedis should be persecuted. That their life and property is halal.
The thing that doesn’t help is your lack of knowledge about the term you are using the most….Shia Leaders. Can you tell me who are/were the main shia leaders?
For shias around the world the senior scholars of the Najaf (Iraq) and Qumm (Iran) seminaries are a source for religious verdicts/fatawas. They in a way are the shia leaders.
And to the best of my knowledge they have never ordered or allowed any violence against the Ahmedis. This is despite the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahamed is supposed to have said a few not so flattering things about Imam Husain (as).
Anyway if you have evidence to prove your claim please share.
“Show me a fatwa of any Shia Mujtahid/Ayatollah, hell any half decent shia scholar who says Ahmedis should be persecuted. That their life and property is halal.”
Taqqiya already? I need to show YOU what your scholars say and you are deaf and blind as to not know what goes own in your own community?
OK, here is just one of many incidents where Shias are spewing hatred against Ahmadis;
http://vidpk.com/16451/Allim-online-calls-for-murder-of-Ahmadis/
And what do you know, two Ahmadis did get killed after this programme aired as someone in the public got the message after listening to the terms like “wajibul-qatl”.
“Shia Leaders. Can you tell me who are/were the main shia leaders?”
The ones who come in media and no Shia denounces them.
“This is despite the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahamed is supposed to have said a few not so flattering things about Imam Husain (as). ”
Feel free to post what you think is objectionaanle from an Islamic point of view but in full context ie not just one or two sentences out of context.
ahmadi are not shia and muslims… as they dont believe in our holy prophet as the last one. but they are far better then so called Sunnis because of following reasons because ahmadi didnt make any killings and fasad..
firstly they believe in greatness of maveeya who fought against ALI and sunni haven’t decided their views and knowledge.
they are in fovour of the system which was developed by ommovis..
they say nothing about yazeed who was the most notorious enemy of Islam.
sunni always deem themselves as masters of islam even they are wrong in many aspects.
but we are not afraid of these things… ALLAH will accompany the right ones.
@saleh:
See this video of Deobandi founder, you’ll be surprised;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfde2WGvf3w
These Deobandis are real bigots, not to mention extremists who are killing everyone else including Deobandis, like a snake that eats its own children.
Raza Rizvi آپ اپنی تمام مزہبی پوسٹ میں شیعہ کو احمدی کے ساتھ جوڑ دیتے ہے۔ اور پھر یہ بھی کہہ دیتے ہے کہ اقلیتوں کے ساتھ ظلم ہورہا ہے ہے۔ ہمیں (شیعہ) کو اقلیتوں کے ساتھ جوڑنا غلط ہے۔ ہم اس ملک کا 20 فیصد حصہ ہے، اس ملک میں ہر پانچواں شخص شیعہ ہے۔ آپ ہمیں (شیعوں) کو احمدی سے نا ملائے۔ احمدی اس ملک کا 2فیصد بھی نہیں مگر ہم 20 فیصد ہے۔ ہمارا اس ملک کے ہر ادارہ میں ایک رول ہے ۔ اس کا مطلب یہ نا سمجھے گا کہ احمدیوں سے ہمیں کوئی پرہشانی ہے۔ میں بطور شیعہ میں تمام مذاہب کا احترام کرتا ہوں اگر ایسا نہیں کرونگا تو میں اپنے مزہب کے اصولوں سے نافرمانی کرونگا۔
مگر یاد رکھے ہم (شیعہ) اقلیت نہیں۔ ہماری آبادی 20 فیصد ہے۔ اس کا مطلب پاکستان کا ہر پانچواں شخص شیعہ ہے۔
Abdul, I have to agree with you. Significantly, it is only NOW that so much is being written about the alleged Shia complicity in anti-Ahmadi movements of 1953 and 1974. It is one way to give the Shias their bad karma. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that during those movements, we dis not see active Shia opposition to antiAhmadi fascists. In those times, the Shias were better organized and influential. They could have made some difference.
Hassan says:@
I am an AHMEDI MUSLIM and believe on Finality of Prophit MUHAMMAD(PBOH) and i believe that Quran is final divine book or Sharia…I pray five times a days…now hoe can some one declare me non Muslim….all other sect of Islam are waiting for a reformer or Mehdi and we believe that has already arrived…this is only difference….now as a Shia sorry to say your reformer is hidden in some secret cave you are waiting for his arrival…while other are waiting for a reformer to be descended from skies..but still i believe that i have no right to declare some one non Muslim who is not agree with my beliefs then how any one can declare me non Muslim ????? ” if you will declare some one non Muslim while he or she is claiming to be Muslim it means you are opening the gates of hell on your self because a time will come when some one will declare you non Muslim ” This was a warning given by our community head at that time when National Assembly was declaring us as non Muslim and results are in front of your eyes…
Hassan says: @
If i want i can give dozens of examples from your Shia beliefs and your Shia text books which are quit contrary to Basic Islamic teachings…but..i dont want to hert your feelings about your beliefs…we Ahmedies use to cry on the day of tenth of Muharam after remembering the incidence of that sad days…and i believe that i have more respect for Imam HUSSAIN(RA) as compare to you as we Ahmedies believe that IMAM HUSSAN (RA) and IMMAM HUSSAIN (RA) will be the leaders of youth in Junnah….so i will advise you to leave this Muslim non Muslim issue on ALLAH we should all wait for the day of judgment…
کیا کسی کو گھوڑے اور اس پر بیٹھاآدمی نظر آ رہا ہے کہ نہیں– اگر آ رہا ہے تو جان جائیے اکثریت اور طاقت ہی معاشرے میں کسی عمل کی منظبوتی اور تحریک کو دوام بخشتے ہیں اور اگر ایسا نو ہو تو برائے مہربانی وکی سے لنک لگوانے والوں سے درخواست کریں کہ کیوں پینو کی شادی پپپو سے نہیں ہو گی——
مزید تفصیل کے لئے بیت الخلا میں موجود چونچ والے آلے سے استفادہ کریں ضرور افاقہ ہو گا—-
@Omar Khattab:
“In those times, the Shias were better organized and influential. They could have made some difference.”
I don’t know what are basis of this statement. But it is a well known fact that Shias had no national platform and leadership until early 80s. It was great mobilisation against Zia’s Zakwat ordinance who made shias to think about their cause otherwise they lived in their own world. Ever after Zakwat ordinance, the movement stopped but then again Zia announced enforcing Hanafi Fiqqah so Shias called for a platform of their fiqah if the system was to be implemented and they named the movement “Tahreek Nifaz Fiqah Jafferia (TNFJ)”, the objectives are clearly visible from the name.
Ragarding Shia-Ahmadi relations, in the times of the second Ahmadi caliph Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad, Ahmadis wrote a book against Shia beliefs, the main theme of the book was Shia beleifs “God, Justice, Prophethood, Imamamat & day of judgement are not in the Quran” as Ahmadi & sunni beleifs are. It is pertinent to mention that sunni & Ahmadi beliefs are same also their sources like based on 6 kalimas, atleast this was their claim. At that time, Ahmadis were saying that they have common beliefs with Sunnis as compared to Shias. Moeover, claiming Mahdi was also a direct attack on Shias as either they believe in him or refute him, but Shias never came in the forefront. Since iniatially Ahmadis were offshoot of sunnis (or ahal hadiths) so Shias thought it was their home matter so they never induldged in it.
The only Ayatullah in IndoPak in these two centuries Syed Ali Naqi Naqvi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Naqi_Naqvi wrote rebuttal, . Ahmadis responded to Allama and Allama again wrote the rebuttal’s rebuttal, finally all four responses were published in a book namely “Shia Aqaaid aur un per aitrzaat ka tajzia” published by Imamia mission Lahore & Lukhnow. I have the book in my home but unfortunately can’t find it on internet.
Allama responded all the questions and even asked them questions but never uttered a word on their status of muslimhood. Instead of that it were Ahmadis who attacked Shia beliefs and I have listned Mirza Nasir Ahmad(previous Ahmadi caliph ) saying that Shias are paying the price of being against them. Shia clerics are not infallible and have did many blunders but can anyone aving status of Mirza Nasir or much lesser can go to the extent of him? Never.
Ragarding Ahmadis were involved in any violence or not? as some friends are saying this for Shias, let’s revisit Pakistani history of early 50s and 60s that who was attacked and who attacked others instead of blaming others.
For Taqqiya and supporting and opposing Birtish govt. , Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own writings are recommended to avoid any controversy..!
Shia scholars have supported violence against Ahmadis. Shias also use very derogatory and contemptuous language against Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Khulafa. This is a fact and I have posted two videos above as evidence. The fact that no single Shia authority has approved it does not mean that Shais are not doing it. If this is not accepted by majority of Shias then where are Shia scholars and individuals who condemn these acts and fatwas, and disassociate themselves from them? This is a major point and requires responding to by the Shia majority. Of course Shia liberals don’t count, as it seems as in the rest of society liberal Shias are also scarce. Also note that despite major incitement to hatred and promotion of violence from Shia scholars, Ahmadis have not retaliated in kind neither do they believe in it.
As for academic debate on beliefs, that is both a right of all and should be done to clarify the facts and determine what could be the correct path to follow. No complaint can be made there. It would be really lame to use academic debates as pretext for incitement to violence or undue criticism amounting to hatred.
As for British issue, feel free to bring any non-Ahmadi (both Sunni and Shia) scholars who have fought the religion British were trying to spread, the Christianity, as vehemently as Ahmadis; and non-Ahmadi scholars admit to that. See the video I posted above on the subject. Anyone can make any claim but proof is in the pudding. However, its one thing to defend the faith which Ahmadis did better than any other sect but it’s entirely another thing to create fitna which is prohibited by Allah. Several prophets like Isa (as) and Yousaf (as) lived under non-conforming rulers and did not raise sword. In the words of Isa (as) “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”. There was freedom of faith in British era so it was not justified to raise sword. Heck Ahmadis don’t raise sword even when persecuted in Pakistan or elsewhere so can’t blame them for any special treatment towards British. I suspect Shias were also generally more secure and free religious freedom wise in British era than they are now.
Malik sahib you are mixing so many things together, Ahmadis have right to declare others kafirs, write hate pamphlets, Kindly refer to the derogatory language against Shias in 1930s (if you call them academic, I am sorry for you), Khalipha sahib tells us that Shia deserve that violence but are peaceful but kindly show us Shia literature exclusively against Ahmadis or a high authority level of Mirza Nasir justify violence, Shia masses are already running for their life but even then you don’t forgive them.
M Baloch says: @ dont distort the history..Ahmedis have never declare any one non Muslim….we Ahmedi believes that every one full right to call himself or her self as Muslim…but if some declare other as non Muslim then as per Hadhrat MUHAMMAD (PBOH) he him self will become non Muslim..i can provide you reference of this Hadhis and every sect of Islam believe on this…now i challenge every one on this forum to provide any reference with date which shows that it was Ahmedis who have declared other Muslim sects as non Muslim…please go in to history and find out who have started all this Muslim and Non Muslim thing…it was not Ahmedis rather is was other Muslim sects….
Baloch Sahib one can easily argue if a single higher religious authority is even required. In the history of Islam how many times there was such an authority? Individual scholars certainly command authority over their respective followers. The more important point is if such things are being said by those claiming to be Shia scholars with some following then where is the opposition either from some higher Shia authority or from the Shia community challenging them; to exemplify that such people command no respect among Shia community?
What Khalifa Sahib meant was what most of us already believe; what goes around comes around. He is right in that arguments, procedures and mindset used against Ahmadis are also now being used against Shias to persecute and even kill them. His point is not that Ahmadis have anything to do with it but that Shias have got themselves into this venerable position. This is an academic point but an important one to make as it affects the lives of the people. With some Shia scholars still inciting hatred and even calling for murder of Ahmadis can you blame the Khalifa for highlighting how dangerous this strategy can prove to Shias themselves?
My above comment is for M Baloch Sahib.
“What Khalifa Sahib meant was what most of us already believe”, Sir you said everything:)
For me, I differ at several points with Ayatullah Khamnae and Sistani, the molvis in the videos are far away…!
Happy living sir, wish you prosper and safe life wherever you are! We have survived from Ibn Ziad to Ottaman empire, more recently Saddam to Zia, so this too shall pass 🙂
Baloch Sahib Ahamdis have to survive Shia scholars’ threat of murder as well among others, while Shias have no such threat from Ahmadis.
No, two/three Shia molvis’ hate speech infact, but on the other hand Shias have already dealt with hate speech of atleast two Ahmadi Khalifas (My count is as per my studies & listened speeches, ll have to listen others), and we don’t count how many molvis in the cadre have courage to differ the khalifas’ views 🙂 .
How many Shias have been killed by Ahmadis? None. Do Ahmadis even believe in it? No.
At least one Shia scholar was part of the TV programme which caused killing of two Ahmadis. There isn’t any significant Shia scholar/leader/authority who has come out and condemned the act.
All non qadianis were declared kafir and jahannumi long before 74 and not by bhutto but the Punjabi prophet mirza Ghulam qadiani
‘Allah has revealed to me that he who does not follow me is jahannumi (doomed to hell)’.
Collection of Posters, Vol 3, Page 275
@Pakistan Flag:
No, no you are mistaken. All non-Ahmadis were declared kafir by each other centuries ago. Islam even has an almost 1400 years history of various groups (Sunnis, Shias etc.) killing each other too. Please don’t distort history.
“‘Allah has revealed to me that he who does not follow me is jahannumi (doomed to hell)’.
Collection of Posters, Vol 3, Page 275”
Any prophet would say that otherwise he is not a prophet. Can you quote a single prophet who has not said that?
@all non qadianis
The one who has no belief in our ultimate victory is fond of becoming bastard and he is bound to be product of fornication.
Mirza qadiani
Roohani Khazain, V9 P31
All Muslims regard my books with reverence and care and benefit from their sublime thoughts except those who are the offspring of prostitutes who do not accept me.
Mirza
Roohani Khazain
V5
P 547
@Malik
Read this..
http://yfrog.com/klynngfj
……….
Ahmadiyya Muslims declare other Muslims as kafir?
From about the year 1911 Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (second khalifa of the Qadiani Movement) started to put forward the doctrine that it is not sufficient for a person to declare belief in the Kalima Shahada in order to be a Muslim because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had now appeared as a prophet and belief in him must be acknowledged as well.
According to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, it is no longer sufficient for the existing Muslims to believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad and all the prophets before him. Now they must also declare that they believe in the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as well. Otherwise they cannot remain Muslims but become just like those Jews and Christians who believed in the previous prophets but failed to accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote a book A’inah-i Sadaqat, published in 1921, which was translated into English and first published in 1924 under the title The Truth about the Split. In this book, while acknowledging his beliefs, he writes:
“(3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his [i.e. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] Bai’at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.”
— The Truth about the Split, Rabwah, 1965, pp. 55–56. The 2007 edition of this book is available on the Qadiani website from the link http://www.alislam.org/books/. See page 56 for this extract.
See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 1].
In this book, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also gives a summary of his first article expressing these views which had earlier appeared in April 1911. He writes regarding this article:
“The article was elaborately entitled — ‘A Muslim is one who believes in all the messengers of God.’ The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that ‘those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah’. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah were not Muslims.”
— pages 135–136 of the 1965 edition. In the 2007 online edition at http://www.alislam.org/books/ see page 144.
“Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims.” (pages 137–138 of 1965 edition; page 146 of online 2007 edition)
“…not only are those deemed to be Kafirs, who openly style the Promised Messiah as Kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai’at, have here been adjudged to be Kafirs.” (pages 139–140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)
“And lastly, it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable Kafirs.” (p. 140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)
See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 2].
According to these views, the only Muslims in the whole world at any time are those who have taken the bai‘at of the Qadiani leader of the time. In the last quotation above, the closing words given as “veritable Kafirs” are “pakkay kafir” in the original Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat. The word pakkay conveys the significance of ‘real, true, absolute and full-fledged’, meaning that all other Muslims are kafir in the fullest sense without the least doubt.
Views of M. Mahmud Ahmad’s brother Bashir
For the views of Mirza Bashir Ahmad, younger brother of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, see this link.
Qadianis disallow funeral prayers for other Muslims.
Since the Qadiani belief is that all Muslims outside their community are non-Muslims, just like a Christian or a Hindu is a non-Muslim, the Qadiani leader Mirza Mahmud Ahmad forbade his followers from saying the funeral prayers of other Muslims. This instruction is given by him quite clearly and forcefully in his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published October 1916. At the end of the section where he deals with this question, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes as follows:
“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said. This leaves the question that if a man who believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be true but has not yet taken the bai‘at, or is still thinking about joining Ahmadiyyat, and he dies in this condition, it is possible that God may not punish him. But the decisions of the Shariah are based on what is outwardly visible. So we must do the same thing in his case, and not offer funeral prayers for him.”
— Anwar-i Khilafat, page 93 of original edition; underlining is ours.
This book is available online at the Qadiani website in the collection Anwar-ul-‘Uloom, v. 3, no. 5 from the link http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3. See pages 150–151.
See original Urdu text below from the book Anwar-i Khilafat [Urdu 3].
It is quite clear and plain from these instructions that the Qadiani belief is that all other Muslims, including the children of those Muslims and even including those Muslims who believe in the truth of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad but have not taken the pledge to join the Movement, are unbelievers (kafir) and non-Muslims just as people of other religions such as Hindus and Christians.
Original Urdu texts of above quotations
Title page of first edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat:
Images below are from the online edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat at http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=6 (book no. 5). We have used red-lining to indicate the words being referred to.
Urdu 1:
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 35 original edition; p. 110 online edition)
Urdu 2:
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 84 original ed., p. 149–150 online ed.)
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 85 original ed., p. 150 online ed.)
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 86 original ed., p. 151 online ed.)
(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 86 original ed., p. 151 online ed.)
Title page of first edition of Anwar-i Khilafat:
Urdu 3:
Anwar-i Khilafat, p. 93 original edition, p. 150–151 online edition. Image above is from the online edition of this book at http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3 (book no. 5)
http://ahmadiyya.org/qadis/takfir1.htm
Passing blame on clergy for not opposing constitutional discrimination against Ahmedis is just a bid to pass the blame. Can someone enlight me how many progressive poets like Faiz / Jalib , writers , journatlist forcefully and boldly wrote against it ?
@Pakistan Flag: Post actual Urdu/Arabic text. Don’t post a translation of your own making. This is what you bigots do; when you have no point you mis-quote and mis-translate… among other things that you do.
@Hamza Balouch:
I have not read the whole but what is your point? Are Ahmadis calling for murder of Shias like Shias are calling for murder of Ahmadis? How is an academic debate ever be justification for murder? However if beliefs are excuse for attacks and murders then attackers of Shias are perfectly within their rights to attack and murder Shias. If you can clarify what you are trying to prove here then we can best discuss this.
As for prophethood, one cannot believe in a prophet and yet still think that opponents of the prophet are also on the correct path. Do you not also have this faith? If not let me know.
@Pakistan Flag:
You are clearly a shameless bigot. You mis-quote text but once a response is given instead of discussing it or accepting that you were wrong you run away from that point and then do another mis-quote. You are clearly not interested in any knowledgeable discussion but is just one of the religious bigots who try to misguide people with their lies and thus create sectarian issues.
@qadiani terrorists here
NO Thank You! not interested in having no religious debate with ignorants like you. You Qadianis do not have any scruples at using profainities to try to ridicule, intimidate, or threaten people who do not accept the false claim . Calm Down! im only showing you the mirror and you have no option but to face it.. [EDITED]
“My enemies are dirty swine and their women are more wretched than bitches.”
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 14, P. 53; Najmul Huda, P. 10, 53)
“There is nothing more foul than a pig in the world. But the ulema who oppose me are more foul than pigs.”
(Anjam-i-Atham, P. 21)
“You have inflicted pain on me with your foulness. You are not truthful. I pray that you die in shame, you son of a harlot.”
(Anjam-i-Atham, P. 288)
“This bastard of a doctor does not thread the straight path.”
(Anwar-ul-Islam, P. 30)
Here comes the most interesting and puzzling thing, mirza himself wrot:
“I have never abused anyone.”
(Moahiburahman, P. 18)
“He is worst who is abusive, his heart is as filthy as Latrine.”
(Sar-e-Sumain, P. 74)
what the heck…
“Abuses and rebukes are not the acts of a believer and a believer can not be a curser.”
(Azalat-ul-Auham, P. 66)
Is this how a Prophet or even a rightly guided individual would speak?
Shia and Ahmadiya are wurse then hindoo sawar ke aulaad.
We have peace only in Pakistan is we are treu Muslim.
All the problem come from munafiq Shia and Ahmadiya.
Allahu Akhbar!
Pakistan Paindabad!
Those people who take Pride in Khatm-e-Nabuwat, please go and ask your Muftis What the qadyanis did your 39 Respected,long beard and big belly Muftis and Mullah in 1974? Your 39 Muftis were engaged for 80 hours in manazera with the students of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad…You people were not able to prove them Kafir BECAUSE “Barelvis”, “Deobandis” and “Ahle-Hadith” they are themselves kafir for each other…
Common dear Sunni Brothers 80 Hours but no Result….Then what happened??? Ask your Ulemas…..
Then your 39 Muftis called the Shia Ulema namely MAULANA MUHAMMAD ISMAIL DEOBANDI and few others for control the Kafir Ahmadis….and we proved them kafir in few hours….Sunni Brothers U know Y it was easy for shia ulemas?????
Because we have the perfect believe in Khatm-e-Nabuwat…..that Prophethood is ended on Muhammad (PBUH & His Progeny, after Prophet, now is the Era of Immamat till the day of Judgement and no Prophet will come. This is why we have Imam Mehdi (A.S).
Our this believe was bullet for Ahmadis….Sunni Brothers do not believe in Immamat thats Y sects Like Ahmadis evolves and attack the sunni belief and unfortunately, my sunni brothers can not prove Khatm-e-Nabuwat thats Y 80 hours but no Result in manazera with Ahmadis in 1974.
Wakeel-e-Aal-e-Mohammad, Hazrat Mubaligh-e-azam Moulana Mohammad Ismael was a re-known Shia Scholar and Leader. His services to expand and secure Shia Religion are immense. Lets Pay a Tribute to this Great Personality.
Hazrat Mubaligh-e-Azam Moulana Mohammad Ismael (1901-1976)
The Profile holds the memorandum for the most influential Shia Scholar and leader of the Subcontinent in the twentieth century. MUBALIGH-e-AZAM MOULANA MOHAMMAD ISMAEL ( Wakeel-e Aal e Mohammad and Wakeel-e Zahra) . It was due to his efforts that SHIAISM Got its roots in Pakistan. His outstanding achievements include his 700 Unbeatable Munazra’s Against Anti Shia Scholars and Communities. He was the one who lead the delegation in order to declare “Ahmadis” as Non Muslims in National Assembly ( 1974). He Converted hundreds and thousands of people into shiaism through his remarkable Speeches and Debates. The Shia Nation on account of his brilliant services titled him as WAKEEL E AAL E MOHAMMAD, SULTAN UN MUNAZEREEN, WAKEEL E ZAHRA , and MUHAFIZ E WILAYAT E ALI.
shia, barelvi and qadiani are not muslim .
LUBP is unsuccessfully trying to exonerate the Shias from a task which is worthy of Praising i.e Decalring Qadiyanis non-muslims. LUBP just wants to prove its liberal credentials by supporting the Qadiyanis. In reality Qadiyanis regard the Shias in the same way as other Muslims.
Qadiyaniat is a political issue it should not be mixed with religious freedom etc. If today another company is formed by the name of Coca-cola and start producing its own products then whatwill be the popular reaction against it? The legal system will not allow it to happen. If this thing applies on a company then How some imposter can establish his own version of Islam out of the blue. So if sanity and common sense prevails then whitout going into religious debate Qadiaynis are proved wrong.
who did what is of less concern, what matters is why they did it????
if what was done is correct then this argument of whether is should have been done or not, goes out of the window….
Correction:
Shia’s are not a religious minority.
They are Muslims first and last. The difference between the Shia and the rest in on Inheritance not of Dogma, Beliefs, Obligations or Tenets. They adhere to all.
There are no sects in Islam, only Schism. All Muslims adhere to all that is required.
I wish people do some research before writing such nonsense.
Qadiani/Mirzai/Ahmadi are a religious minority.
Debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution – by Ali Abbas Taj
In his recent article in ET, Pervez Hoodbhoy talks about Shia and Ahmadi persecution in Pakistan.
I don’t agree entirely with the article and differ with many of Hoodbhoy’s hypotheses:
1. That Shias are now a ‘minority’ implies this is now a Shia-Sunni conflict. It is not. It is extremist Deobandis attacking Shias.
2. His statement that “Shias had joined Sunnis … to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim” is incorrect and unsupported by any facts, e.g. names of Shia groups or ulama who thus “joined.”
3. He says that the situation in Kurram and Hangu is two-way Shia-Sunni killing. Again it is a case of false neutrality and misrepresentation.
4. And then he sweeps it under the carpet by saying ” …. Shias are numerous enough to put up a defence.” Of course, Shias are not numerous or strong enough to save themselves from an ongoing genocide by those who are institutionally trained and supported by the Jihad Enterprise.
Another important fact that is generally overlooked – including by Hoodbhoy – is that while Shias are under attack by an extremist Deobandi fringe supported by the military, Ahmadis’ attackers also include the otherwise moderate Barelvi sect.
Debate on facebook
The debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution has also proliferated to facebook groups. In one such group, a Shia friend thus presented his views:
No Shia scholar was consulted by the parliament in 1974. The one Shia scholar, Hafiz Kifayat Hussain, who was consulted by the Munir Commission in 1954 limited his input to Shia viewpoint on Hazrat Muhammad ibne Abdullah (sawas) being the Last Prophet, without apostatizing Ahmadis or any one else.
Some friends stated thatnot one shia alim condemned or protested the ahmediya mosque massacre of 2010, is not true. Maulana Raja Nasir Abbas, Secretary General of Majlis-e Wahdat-e Muslimeen (MWM), a major group of Pakistani Shia ulama and intellectuals, issued a statement condemning the attacks in Model Town and Garhi Shahu the same Friday they occurred.
Shia ulama have spoken not just against cruelty perpetrated on Ahmadis, but any of the ‘mustazaaf’ (oppressed) communities in Pakistan.
Shia view on kufr (apostasy) or eimaan (faith) of any person is clear, and that is that only Allah or those authorized by Him can determine who is, and who is not, a kaafir. According to Shia faith, it is not for the parliament of any country or for any religious scholar – Shia or otherwise – to decree who is or who is not a Muslim. Rather attempting to do so shall be an attempt to intervene in an exclusively Divine prerogative, and thus itself a polytheist act according to Shia viewpoint.
During my search of the Internet, I found this saddening fact: on the official website of the Ahmadiyya community, it is stated in an official document that Shias, naudbillah, believe in the divinity of Hazrat Ali (a.s) and in his, naudbillah, being superior to the Holy Prophet Muhammad ibne Abdullah (sawas). It is such falsehood and slander that has become the basis of killing of thousands of Shia Muslims in Pakistan by brainwashed terrorists.
Read the section on Shias in the penultimate chapter of Mahzarnama http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mahzarnama/Mahzarnama.pdf
However, to my knowledge, no Shia religious scholar (Ayatollah or Mujtahid) (barring any orator or zakir) ever did takfeer of the Ahmadiyya community. No Shia scholar has ever responded in coin to this slander by the Ahmadiyya community and not protested against their own takfeer in an official document of the Ahmadiyya community. Or shall we be proven big hearted only if we rose in defence of the community that openly and officially attacked our status as Muslims.
For the record, Shias are not a minority sect as compared to those who have attacked them, i.e. a lunatic fringe of Deobandi sect. Rather their attackers are a minority.
In Shia Islam anyone who claims to be a Muslim has to be accepted as one! All Infallible Imams (AS) of the Progeny of Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and the theologists and scholars who follow in their footsteps accept this! If any speaker from Shia School says anything different than he/she is a fitnah monger not a scholar!
It is a part of Shia faith that no temporal authority has the right to determine eimaan or kufr of any person. That applies to the second amendment to the constitution of Pakistan as well.
However, is it not a bit rich that a community that officially did takfeer of Shia Muslims prior to the passing of the second amendment, a takfeer that has never been returned in coin by any Shia scholar, would remain unsatisfied until those whose takfeer it has done protest against its own takfeer through the second amendment?
(Counter-view: pleae read carefully “belief of other sects…” in the Ahmadi document, it quotes from sunni books labelling shias and others kafirs- quoted by jamat that not to open pandora box. It was to tell the assembly members that each sect had at one time or the other (except) ahmedis have called each other kafir and that should not be the basis of deciding-)
Debate on Twitter
There was also an extensive debate on Twitter in response to an LUBP post on this topic: What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis?
Some extracts from the debate are provided below:
Marvi Sirmed
All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention unanimously resolved to declare Ahmadis non Muslims attended by Shias. Ref:Just Muneer Report PP 77
a day ago
Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri why shia could not support Ahmadis in 74 read page 187 also other sects. http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mahzarnama/Mahzarnama.pdf
Ali Taj
@marvisirmed More resrh Shia/Ahmadi. Un provoked takfeer of Shia by Ahmadis,difficult to support in 74 @AbdulNishapuri http://www.facebook.com/groups/jaagpakistanijaag/332213016829718/
13 hours ago
Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi They were in 74 not 52 and not 84. 74 was a technical religious question, never incitement or persecu
a day ago
Ali Taj
@Razarumi @AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed Shia leaders had an Islamic gun to their head just like Bhutto did. Granted it was wrong.
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AliAbbasTaj And how does it change the fact that they WERE a part of 1974 decision? @AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention unanimously resolved to declare Ahmadis non Muslims attended by Shias. Ref:Just Muneer Report PP 77
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri And I hope you understand that I’m neither a Shia nor a Sunni. I’m a dhimmie to be frank :(( @Razarumi
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi But saying that Shias were not a part of it and kept complete mum, is also a bit of overstatement.
a day ago
Raza Rumi
@AbdulNishapuri Sev Shia leaders also signed a statement supporting excommunication of Ahmadis in 74 @marvisirmed
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi The fact that they did not play a role against anti-Ahmadi campaign, is the point that I made in my article.
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi it would be unfair to put the onus of anti_ahmadi riots on Shias.
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri Nor do we find any speeches against anti-Ahmadi campagn. Doesn’t prove Shias were not part of that campaign. @AliAbbasTaj
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@mazdaki Question is: Can “the Shia community” be held responsible (other than their silence) for action of one or two Shia scholars?
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed I agree and support that everyone who played a role in hate-campaign against Ahmadis must be highlighted. @jvqazi @Razarumi
a day ago
Ali Taj
@Razarumi @AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed Shia leaders had an Islamic gun to their head just like Bhutto did. Granted it was wrong.
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed I agree that sheer silence should be treated as complicity. @BrolenLentes
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed My comment was not aimed at your person or column. Perhaps condemnation is not the right word, highlighting silence is.
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
RT @MahdiBaloch What moulvi Ismail did to Shias, it is also well knwon, ll send u links once find time 2day or tomrw @Razarumi @marvisirmed
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
Ismail Deobandi (Shia) RT @MahdiBaloch There is a book of his majlis available online in which takes the credit, ll shar with u when find it
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
RT @MahdiBaloch @Razarumi It wasn’t Mufti Jaffar but Moulvi Ismail Daiwbandi a newly convert to Shiiat from Darul uloom Deobnd @marvisirmed
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@Razarumi LOL. Hopefully you can refer to a book, publication, one day 🙂 @marvisirmed
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed If we condemn Shias’ silence on anti-Ahmadi campaign, how can we condone our own silence on misrep. of Shia genocide? 🙁
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@Razarumi Please provide a link to Mufti Jafar’s statement against Ahmadis. Thanks. @marvisirmed
a day ago
Ali Taj
@AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed @Razarumi Shias wanted peace, perhaps in error their leadership decided it was best to stay out of it.
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed Valid point. They should have. Similarly Ahmadis, Sunnis should have spoken against Shia massacre in 1963. None did. @Razarumi
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed Shias can be alleged of collective silence, the same silence which they themselves have been facing since 1950s. @Razarumi
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi it would be unfair to put the onus of anti_ahmadi riots on Shias.
a day ago
Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Admittedly Shia leaders of the time did not speak against Ahmediya persecution. But never spoke for it.
a day ago
Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Shias were not part of the organized attack mobs in the riots is my only point.
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed Valid point. Collective silence is reciprocal and cannot be condoned. @AliAbbasTaj
a day ago
Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri Nor do we find any speeches against anti-Ahmadi campagn. Doesn’t prove Shias were not part of that campaign. @AliAbbasTaj
a day ago
Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Also you may ask the victims of the 1952 Anti Ahmadya riots. Answer there attackers were not Shia
a day ago
Abdul Nishapuri
@AliAbbasTaj @marvisirmed Agha Poya & Hafiz Kifayat were two prominent Shia scholars during 1950s and 60s. No anti-Ahmadi speeches by them.
a day ago
Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Haffiz Kafayat Hussain speeches published, never a word against Ahmadyia. He did testify on Prophet Last.
a day ago
…………
Appendix: Ahmadi Muslims’ Fatwa against all other Muslim sect (Unfortunately similar fatwas are found in almost all other sects which do not help the cause of the unity of the oppressed.)
https://pakistanblogzine.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/debate-on-shia-role-in-ahmadi-persecution-by-ali-abbas-taj/
What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis? Abercrombie Fur Hoodies Lady http://www.abercrombiecanada.ca/abercrombie-fur-hoodies-lady-c-441 What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis?
I am a Shia muslim, if there is such a thing. I am not a learned scholar but just a concerned citizen.
When I had to get my passport, I had to sign the application that clearly stated that if I sign, I agree to the FACT that Ahmadis are non muslims. So, it really does not matter what anyone say, just the fact that anyone, shia or not, signs an affidavit agreeing with the policy is directly involved in the status quo.