Qusetion for Muslims: The Ahmadiyya

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟468,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
I'm going to quote a very long (often rambly) reddit comment I saw made today on the general subject of Islam's integration with the west. This post asserts that the reason Islamic extremism is prevalent in the UK (just as his example) comes down the to the persecution of the Ahmadis from Pakistan. He asserts that the Ahmadiyya have been pushed out of Pakistan and into the UK and even there aggressive Imams follow them and preach hate and this has morphed into imams preaching against Western culture whereas the Ahmadi's have generally tried their hardest to integrate into the West.

Basically my questions are:

What are the Ahmadiyya?
How do they fit into the Islamic world as a whole?
What is most Muslims perception of them?
Are any of these claims true?

I would like to understand this better, thanks for your contributions.

For reference, the full comment is posted below and out of the way:

Muslim here. As i understand it, a lot of these extremist mullahs that have brought their hateful rhetoric to Britain (from Pakistan) are partially because they drove many Ahmadi Muslims out of Pakistan because of violence and religious oppression specifically dictated towards the Ahmadiyya community. There are many that have literally followed us out of Pakistan. They drove our community leader out through threats of death and violence. When they reached Britain, they continued their hate campaigns against us and then against the wider British culture. Ahmadi's by-and-large are trying to live peacefully among their British brethren, but the mullahs don't want that. They see us as apostates and have many times driven riots and systematic oppression against Ahmadi's. The Ahmadi communty has been speaking out against these very mullahs since at least the 1970's when they convinced the Pakistani government to force all Ahmadi's to declare themselves as non-Muslim if we want to vote or apply for higher offices in the government or military. We are the reason they implemented the blasphemy law in Pakistan. And they've, in more recent years, taken it as justification to attack other minorities, like Christians as Hindus in Pakistan. Mostly because Ahmadi's either hide their faith out of fear of persecution or because we blend in a little better. We have even taken to found our own town, complete with gated walls and personal security to obstruct violence against us in Punjab (in a little town called Rabwah).

if u notice where a lot of the hate preaching in Pakistancomes from, it's usually the districts around the town of Rabwah, where mullahs openly preach hatred against us. These are the same towns and same mullahs that have raised the terror groups that have attacked India in the Mumbai terrorist attack from a few years ago. Ahmadi's live by a code of non-violence and believe that the years where "jihad by the sword is dead" and that any form of jihad necessary towards converting non-Muslims must be done through writings and argumentation. We call it "jihad by the pen". We have integrated into Britain and Europe very well, I'd u ask me...as opposed to our other Muslim counterparts, some of whom still listen to these mullahs. Discrimination directed by these mullahs against us are so well-integrated into the current fabric of Pakistan that even Pakistan's only Nobel Laureate (Dr. Abdus-Salam - Nobel Laureate in Physics) had his gravestone altered by local authorities to remove the word "Muslim" from his headstone. We even had members of our community that have been President of the World Bank and Head of the UN General Assembly. But u'll rarely if ever hear of Pakistani's mention those accomplishments because discrimination is so widespread against us.

Even in this past election in Pakistan, the only "progressive" candidate, Imran Khan, was "accused" of being in "cahoots" with Ahmadi's because it was claimed he had a member of his political party ask our community leader in Britain if the Ahmadi community in Pakistan would support him and throw their votes behind him. He not only had to deny it, but did so by using the pejorative term for Ahmadi's in Pakistan, "Qadiani". Just the fact that he might have wanted our vote led him to face widespread scrutiny.
They really are a name on our existence. They've twice led national riots against us that led to them burning my fathers house down in 1974 by their own neighbors forcing them to move and break all ties with their family. And attacks on many others, including my mothers' house, which was only protected because members of our family guarded our house with about a dozen armed members. I can go on and name at least a half-dozen other anecdotes of people I know whO have escaped from Pakistan to places like Canada and the United states, taking refuge because they were either threatened with very real violence or were victims of violence.
EDIT:to add to my point, just last year or the year before, these same mullah's posted flyers in Muslim stores claiming that any store run by a Muslim that was caught selling so much as a stick of gum to an Ahmadi was going to be boycotted or even worse. As a result, Ahmadi's stopped going to some of their local stores because of this.

They also threaten violence against us all the time in Britain and beyond. As of two years ago, all Ahmadi mosques place their own security at their doors at all times to ensure no violence against us. We are doctors and lawyers and business owners who are discriminated by our own diaspora because of discriminatory practices that have followed us beyond the borders of our own home country. We've been warning the British government of these mullahs for years. The current waves of violence are only proof that what we've been saying about them and their practices are true and very real.

EDIT 2: if you read up on the accounts of what happened in 2008 or 2009 in the attack on an Ahmadi mosque in Labore, I believe upwards of 20 people were killed by armed terrorists with grenades and AK-47's, and the police just stood outside while the attack was happening. There was no help for a long time. I know of people who were killed there, and no help came for a while. This only highlighted the violence against us.
Currently, the mullahs control all politics in Pakistan and anyone who even mentions publicly that the blasphemy laws should be repealed or that the government should repeal the law that Ahmadi's should be considered Muslims according to constitutional law is shot dead or run out of office. The governor of Punjab just a year or two ago was shot dead for this very reason. The very act of considering Ahmadi's non-Muslim is enacted into the constitution of Pakistan and very specifically mentions Ahmadi's by the pejorative "Qadiani". This is the kind of discrimination that is now taking hold in Britain by some of these Mullah's, and something all Ahmadi's u speak to will tell you is something that needs to be acted against.
I thank God everyday that my family lives in Canada, where we are free to practice however we want without fear of discrimination, away from these savages who use their ill-gotten influence to terrorize Ahmadi's, Christians, Hindus and other minorities in Pakistan.
 
Jan 25, 2013
3,501
476
✟58,340.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Basically my questions are:

What are the Ahmadiyya?

This is a good, comprehensive article regarding them (and how their views are blasphemous to the Muslims):

Ahmadiyyah (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And here's another one (shorter):

The Exposure of Deviant Groups

How do they fit into the Islamic world as a whole?
Not at all. They're like the Nation of Islam in that sense (and the Baha'is, though they don't claim to be Muslims). Their beliefs go against the fundamentals of Islaam (the fundamentals required to be a Muslim) so even though they may refer to themselves as Muslims, they're not seen as such by the rest of the Muslims.

What is most Muslims perception of them?
They're disbelievers. They're just like the Nation of Islam members to us.

Are any of these claims true?
This guy flatters the Ahmadis a lot/is paranoid. They're so few in number, why would other Muslims care to follow them around the world? Most Muslims from Pakistan who immigrated to the UK did so for work opportunities (or education)....and not because they have a desire to follow the Qadiyanis wherever they go.

And "mullahs" control politics in Pakistan? How does that explain the fact that there is so much secularism in the government as well as the cooperation of the government with non-Muslims against Muslims (including drones)?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sevaka

Raafidhi
Feb 18, 2013
25
2
Dunya (this world)
✟15,163.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
What are the Ahmadiyya?: They are a sect established by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from the city of Qadiyan, Punjab, India. He claimed to be a "non law bearing prophet" after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He claimed to be the "reformer of the age", the "promised messiah" and Imam Mahdi (atfs). These claims are rejected by all other Islamic sects.

How do they fit into the Islamic world as a whole?: لا إكراه في الدين (There is no compulsion in religion) - Quran 2:256. I consider Ahmadi's to be non-Muslims. Most scholars believe them to be non-Muslims. Ayatullah al-Uzzma Yaqoobi believes that they are Muslims but not "mumineen" (believers).

What is most Muslims perception of them?: The sect which LoveBeingAMuslimah belongs to (Bakrism, Umarism, Nasibism, Wahhabism, Sunnism, etc) believes that their blood is halal (permissible). They believe that it is incumbent on every single Muslim to kill as many Ahmadi's as possible. They also believe that it is required for Muslims to disrespect Ahmadi's by referring to them as Qadiyani's. Personally, I disagree. Read the above verse from the Quran. Allah will judge them. It is not permissible for a Muslim to kill somebody for apostasy until the Imam Mahdi (atfs) returns to lead us. Until then, their punishments are suspended. They are peaceful. Let them live in peace.

Are any of these claims true?: In short, yes. But it's not just Ahmadi's. These same Mullah's have been killing Muslims (Shias) for 1,400 years. They follow a man named `Umar al-Khadab and a woman named `Aisha bint Abi Bakr al-Humaira. These two individuals believed that violence is the answer to everything and that you must kill anybody that disagrees with you. This is evident if you read their histories. `Aisha tried to kill the successor to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) - Imam Ali (as). `Umar killed everybody, including his own son.
 
Upvote 0

TG123

Regular Member
Jul 1, 2006
4,964
203
somewhere
✟14,469.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a good, comprehensive article regarding them (and how their views are blasphemous to the Muslims):

Ahmadiyyah (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And here's another one (shorter):

The Exposure of Deviant Groups

Not at all. They're like the Nation of Islam in that sense (and the Baha'is, though they don't claim to be Muslims). Their beliefs go against the fundamentals of Islaam (the fundamentals required to be a Muslim) so even though they may refer to themselves as Muslims, they're not seen as such by the rest of the Muslims.

They're disbelievers. They're just like the Nation of Islam members to us.

This guy flatters the Ahmadis a lot/is paranoid. They're so few in number, why would other Muslims care to follow them around the world? Most Muslims from Pakistan who immigrated to the UK did so for work opportunities (or education)....and not because they have a desire to follow the Qadiyanis wherever they go.

And "mullahs" control politics in Pakistan? How does that explain the fact that there is so much secularism in the government as well as the cooperation of the government with non-Muslims against Muslims (including drones)?
Assalamu Alaikum, ILoveBeingAMuslimah.

Thanks for the input, and I can see how and why most Sunni and Shia Muslims would see Ahmadiyaa as being disbelievers.

I don't think the author is being "paranoid" in describing the persecution of them in Pakistan. It does seem to happen, and happen a lot.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, groups which are very credible and have a good reputation for the work that they do and which have done a great job documenting abuses by Israeli and American soldiers in Palestine and Iraq and Afghanistan- report hate rallies against Ahmadiyyaa being attended by political leaders, deadly attacks on their places of worship, demolition of their places of worship, discrimination, as well as verbal and physical attacks.

I am not sure if mullahs are in charge of Pakistan, but if I am not mistaken, its non-Muslim citizens are not allowed to run for the office of President. Muslims do have a political advantage over their non-Muslim counterparts in the country.

Also, keep in mind that the perpetrators of the murderous and disgusting drone attacks that the Pakistani government collaborates with are American, not Pakistani, non-Muslims.

Document - Pakistan: Killing of Ahmadis continues amid impunity | Amnesty International

Document - Pakistan: Amnesty International condemns the twin attacks on Ahmadi places of worship in Lahore | Amnesty International

Pakistan should protect Ahmaddiya community against threats of violence | Amnesty International

Pakistan: Prosecute Ahmadi Massacre Suspects | Human Rights Watch

Pakistan: Massacre of Minority Ahmadis | Human Rights Watch
 
Upvote 0

TG123

Regular Member
Jul 1, 2006
4,964
203
somewhere
✟14,469.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What are the Ahmadiyya?: They are a sect established by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from the city of Qadiyan, Punjab, India. He claimed to be a "non law bearing prophet" after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He claimed to be the "reformer of the age", the "promised messiah" and Imam Mahdi (atfs). These claims are rejected by all other Islamic sects.

How do they fit into the Islamic world as a whole?: لا إكراه في الدين (There is no compulsion in religion) - Quran 2:256. I consider Ahmadi's to be non-Muslims. Most scholars believe them to be non-Muslims. Ayatullah al-Uzzma Yaqoobi believes that they are Muslims but not "mumineen" (believers).

What is most Muslims perception of them?: The sect which LoveBeingAMuslimah belongs to (Bakrism, Umarism, Nasibism, Wahhabism, Sunnism, etc) believes that their blood is halal (permissible). They believe that it is incumbent on every single Muslim to kill as many Ahmadi's as possible. They also believe that it is required for Muslims to disrespect Ahmadi's by referring to them as Qadiyani's. Personally, I disagree. Read the above verse from the Quran. Allah will judge them. It is not permissible for a Muslim to kill somebody for apostasy until the Imam Mahdi (atfs) returns to lead us. Until then, their punishments are suspended. They are peaceful. Let them live in peace.

Are any of these claims true?: In short, yes. But it's not just Ahmadi's. These same Mullah's have been killing Muslims (Shias) for 1,400 years. They follow a man named `Umar al-Khadab and a woman named `Aisha bint Abi Bakr al-Humaira. These two individuals believed that violence is the answer to everything and that you must kill anybody that disagrees with you. This is evident if you read their histories. `Aisha tried to kill the successor to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) - Imam Ali (as). `Umar killed everybody, including his own son.
Salaam Alaikum, Sevaka.

I agree that persecution of Ahmadiyaa in Pakistan is a horrible crime.. as is the persecution of Bahaii in Iran. Religious persecution, perpetrated by anyone for any reason is wrong.

I have never witnessed ILoveBeingAMuslimah calling for anyone's blood online or stating it's ok to kill Ahmadiyaa or anyone else.

What does the word "Qadiyani" mean?

Take care.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 25, 2013
3,501
476
✟58,340.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Assalamu Alaikum, ILoveBeingAMuslimah.

Thanks for the input, and I can see how and why most Sunni and Shia Muslims would see Ahmadiyaa as being disbelievers.

Wa Alaikum & you're welcome

I don't think the author is being "paranoid" in describing the persecution of them in Pakistan. It does seem to happen, and happen a lot.
I meant paranoid about the Muslims from Pakistan following the Qadiyanis into Britain.

Yes, the Ahmadis are good at preaching their religion, but they're not a huge threat. So I just found it funny that the person on reddit would claim that that it is the Sunnis who 'followed' the Ahmadis into the UK who are the source of all problems in the UK (because of their intense dislike for Ahmadis).

Also, I would be interested in knowing who these mullahs are as well as the proof that they followed the Qadiyanis to the UK.


They ARE mocked in Pakistan and at times have been attacked, which I don't agree with. I do definitely agree with them being declared disbelievers and not being able to spread their falsehood in Islaamic countries, but not the attacks.

I am not sure if mullahs are in charge of Pakistan, but if I am not mistaken, its non-Muslim citizens are not allowed to run for the office of President. Muslims do have a political advantage over their non-Muslim counterparts in the country.
No, non-Muslims cannot, which is actually Islaamic. But that doesn't mean that "mullahs" have control of Pakistan. They don't in the least.

Also, keep in mind that the perpetrators of the murderous and disgusting drone attacks that the Pakistani government collaborates with are American, not Pakistani, non-Muslims.
That's what I meant. No sincerely religious Muslim would work with non-Muslims to kill other Muslims unjustly.
 
Upvote 0

Sevaka

Raafidhi
Feb 18, 2013
25
2
Dunya (this world)
✟15,163.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Salaam Alaikum, Sevaka.

I agree that persecution of Ahmadiyaa in Pakistan is a horrible crime.. as is the persecution of Bahaii in Iran. Religious persecution, perpetrated by anyone for any reason is wrong.

I have never witnessed ILoveBeingAMuslimah calling for anyone's blood online or stating it's ok to kill Ahmadiyaa or anyone else.

What does the word "Qadiyani" mean?

Take care.

wa alaikum as-salaamu, TG123

I could not agree more. Bahai's are the only religion that is actively persecuted in Iran and it's sad indeed. Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are "protected minorities" which means that their rights are guaranteed by the constitution. All other religions are NOT protected, but they still practice their religion openly without any repercussion. Baha'is are the only ones that are persecuted.

I never said that she personally does that. I'm saying that her sect believes in it.

Qadiyani is a derogatory term (used by the sister in this thread) which means "from Qadiyan". Qadian is the city in Punjab, India where Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was born and lived. It would be akin to calling Christians "Nazarities" in order to dehumanize them.
 
Upvote 0

TG123

Regular Member
Jul 1, 2006
4,964
203
somewhere
✟14,469.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wa Alaikum & you're welcome
Same to you

I meant paranoid about the Muslims from Pakistan following the Qadiyanis into Britain.

Yes, the Ahmadis are good at preaching their religion, but they're not a huge threat. So I just found it funny that the person on reddit would claim that that it is the Sunnis who 'followed' the Ahmadis into the UK who are the source of all problems in the UK (because of their intense dislike for Ahmadis).
Thank you for clarifying what you meant.

Also, I would be interested in knowing who these mullahs are as well as the proof that they followed the Qadiyanis to the UK.
I didn't make that claim and I can't say I have too much knowledge on that. I'd be curious too. :)

They ARE mocked in Pakistan and at times have been attacked, which I don't agree with. I do definitely agree with them being declared disbelievers and not being able to spread their falsehood in Islaamic countries, but not the attacks.
I am glad you are against the attacks. What about mocking? I am assuming you believe this is wrong also?

I know many Muslims are opposed to non-Muslims being allowed to prosyletize in Islaamic countries and I have to say this is one of the reasons I disagree with Islam. Muhammad preached his religion wherever he went, both to the pagans who persecuted him and Christians like Negus who welcomed him. Yet many Muslims deny non-Muslims this right in their countries, while preaching Islam in non-Muslim countries. I find this quite hypocritical, not unlike non-Muslims who denounce terrorism when committed by Muslims but ignore and support terrorism committed by their governments.

No, non-Muslims cannot, which is actually Islaamic. But that doesn't mean that "mullahs" have control of Pakistan. They don't in the least.
Out of curiousity, if a country passed a law that made it illegal for its Muslim citizens to run for the office of President or to pass laws, would you be opposed to that or would you support it or not care either way?

That's what I meant. No sincerely religious Muslim would work with non-Muslims to kill other Muslims unjustly.
Would a sincerely religious Muslim work to end attacks and mocking of Ahmadiyyas and other non-Muslims in Pakistan?

The political and military leaders in the US who launch drones are murderers and are not following Jesus, even if some of them call themselves Christians.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

simplegifts

Newbie
Jul 7, 2012
1,085
26
✟8,886.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What about anti-Jewish and anti-Christian comments in the Quran? Can the comments of Mohammad be repeated, are they protected?

When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"

Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

What about saying in truth - the Quran says you can beat your wife if you have tried the first steps with no results and still think she is misbehaving?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 25, 2013
3,501
476
✟58,340.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
I didn't make that claim and I can't say I have too much knowledge on that. I'd be curious too. :)

I know, just didn't want to make a new post asking that question.

I am glad you are against the attacks. What about mocking? I am assuming you believe this is wrong also?
Our general rule:

And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allāh, lest they insult Allāh wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fair[bless and do not curse]seeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do. (Al-An'am 6:108)

I know many Muslims are opposed to non-Muslims being allowed to prosyletize in Islaamic countries and I have to say this is one of the reasons I disagree with Islam. Muhammad preached his religion wherever he went, both to the pagans who persecuted him and Christians like Negus who welcomed him. Yet many Muslims deny non-Muslims this right in their countries, while preaching Islam in non-Muslim countries. I find this quite hypocritical, not unlike non-Muslims who denounce terrorism when committed by Muslims but ignore and support terrorism committed by their governments.
1.) We never claimed total equality, total freedom of speech, etc. As you once agreed, God has the right to command which He wills because He is God and we are not. He is the Most-Knowledgeable, we are not. So why would we go against His laws and say our laws are better?

2.) If you think this is wrong, you should also think that the blasphemy/apostasy laws that existed in your own religion should be wrong since people were punished, but non-believers were encouraged to join your religion.

Out of curiousity, if a country passed a law that made it illegal for its Muslim citizens to run for the office of President or to pass laws, would you be opposed to that or would you support it or not care either way?
1.) Well, I'd actually be happy in a sense because if a Muslim generally ruled by laws other than God's, then that takes him out of the fold of Islaam. So that's less of a chance for a Muslim to commit an act of major disbelief.

2.) If a country made it illegal for me to practice Islaam, I'd leave if I could since:

Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you?" They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on earth." They (angels) say: "Was not the earth of Allāh spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?" Such men will find their abode in Hell - What an evil destination! (An-Nisa 4:97)

- though I would definitely mention (when leaving) how the West is not following its own laws and that it should no longer call itself "the land of the free" with equality because that's false advertisement.

3.) Though there might not be any laws prohibiting a Muslim from becoming the leader, it's just not going to happen. The vast majority of all the U.S. presidents have been WASPs. The exception is Obama (who is still half-white & Christian)....and even still you can see how much of an outcry there was over him becoming a President by the far-right. They demanded his full birth certificate because they simply could not believe that he was a U.S. citizen. And they often mention his middle name in order to try to say that he's a Muslim (which is so laughable). And people had to "defend" him by saying he's not a Muslim. So while we're not legally banned from becoming president, we're pretty much socially banned. The only case I could POSSIBLY see (with a lot of squinting) happening is an ultra-non-religious Muslim who is only Muslim by name becoming president.

4.) An Islaamic nation is a theocracy. It wouldn't make sense for a non-Muslim to be the leader of an Islaamic theocracy. You don't see us trying to become the leader of the Vatican.

Would a sincerely religious Muslim work to end attacks and mocking of Ahmadiyyas and other non-Muslims in Pakistan?
Maybe they might give a lecture or two, but seeing as how that isn't the main concern in Pakistan right now, I don't think it would be a huge priority on list of things to work for.

The political and military leaders in the US who launch drones are murderers and are not following Jesus, even if some of them call themselves Christians.
I understand. Christians like you (who actually believe in pacifism even when in self-defense as your religion states) are far and few in between. In fact, I think you're the first Christian I've come across who professes belief in it (let alone acting on it, as your blog about Palestine showed).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TG123

Regular Member
Jul 1, 2006
4,964
203
somewhere
✟14,469.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Our general rule:

And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allāh, lest they insult Allāh wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fair[bless and do not curse]seeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do. (Al-An'am 6:108)
Fair enough. Would this also mean that it is not permissible for Muslims to mock the Ahmadiyyaas founder?


1.) We never claimed total equality, total freedom of speech, etc. As you once agreed, God has the right to command which He wills because He is God and we are not. He is the Most-Knowledgeable, we are not. So why would we go against His laws and say our laws are better?
God has the right to make such commands, but people do not. Jesus never told Christians to silence non-believers from preaching their ideas. Paul and other disciples engaged and debated with people of opposing religions, they never tried to shut down the discussion by calling for their arrest.

2.) If you think this is wrong, you should also think that the blasphemy/apostasy laws that existed in your own religion should be wrong since people were punished, but non-believers were encouraged to join your religion.
True, although this was before God revealed that He no longer accepts killing of enemies. Also, during the time when God ordained that people who leave the faith are to be killed, He didn't state there is no compulsion in religion.

1.) Well, I'd actually be happy in a sense because if a Muslim generally ruled by laws other than God's, then that takes him out of the fold of Islaam. So that's less of a chance for a Muslim to commit an act of major disbelief.

2.) If a country made it illegal for me to practice Islaam, I'd leave if I could since:

Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you?" They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on earth." They (angels) say: "Was not the earth of Allāh spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?" Such men will find their abode in Hell - What an evil destination! (An-Nisa 4:97)
Fair enough. Are you opposed to the protests against the stupid French policy against Muslim women not being able to wear hijabs? Shouldn't the answer according to the Quran be for them to emigrate? BTW I was and still am opposed to this and did take part in protest against it when it was announced. It also affected Jews and Christians.

BTW you can rest assured if my country tried to pass laws that discriminate against you on the basis of your faith, I would stand up for you and other Muslims, and so would many of my Christian friends.

- though I would definitely mention (when leaving) how the West is not following its own laws and that it should no longer call itself "the land of the free" with equality because that's false advertisement.
Fair enough. Although I guess that their answer could be the same as yours... equality isn't total so it does not apply to everybody, only some.

3.) Though there might not be any laws prohibiting a Muslim from becoming the leader, it's just not going to happen. The vast majority of all the U.S. presidents have been WASPs. The exception is Obama (who is still half-white & Christian)....and even still you can see how much of an outcry there was over him becoming a President by the far-right. They demanded his full birth certificate because they simply could not believe that he was a U.S. citizen. And they often mention his middle name in order to try to say that he's a Muslim (which is so laughable). And people had to "defend" him by saying he's not a Muslim. So while we're not legally banned from becoming president, we're pretty much socially banned. The only case I could POSSIBLY see (with a lot of squinting) happening is an ultra-non-religious Muslim who is only Muslim by name becoming president.
Interesting observation. I would probably agree with you.

4.) An Islaamic nation is a theocracy. It wouldn't make sense for a non-Muslim to be the leader of an Islaamic theocracy. You don't see us trying to become the leader of the Vatican.
I think a difference is that the Vatican doesn't have any non-Catholic citizens. Many non-Muslims live in Islamic countries.

Maybe they might give a lecture or two, but seeing as how that isn't the main concern in Pakistan right now, I don't think it would be a huge priority on list of things to work for.
I think "giving a lecture or two" is a pretty pathetic response to injustice being committed by one's own people. They should make persecution of non-Muslims one of their main goals. As they drive out non-Muslims who kill Muslims, they should also do the same to Muslims who kill non-Muslims.

When I was in Palestine, I worked with many Israelis and Jews who stood up for the Palestinians. There are many problems that Jews and Israelis face... they include poverty and social problems that every other society does, as well as anti-semitism (defined as a racial and religious hatred of Jews, not criticisms of Israel's crimes). They did not and do not ignore these problems. Yet they make combating the injustices being carried out in their name one of their top priorities.

Some, like Emily Henochowicz, a Jewish American girl who was shot in the face with a teargas cannister just a few weeks before I arrived, can only see now out of one eye.

Emily Henochowicz: artist to pro-Palestinian activist | World news | The Guardian

I understand. Christians like you (who actually believe in pacifism even when in self-defense as your religion states) are far and few in between. In fact, I think you're the first Christian I've come across who professes belief in it (let alone acting on it, as your blog about Palestine showed).
There are very many Christians who follow Jesus' commands to love one's enemies and not strike back, even when attacked.

Have you heard of Martin Luther King? African American churches played a huge role in the non-violent struggle against racism. Black Christians were shot, teargassed, sprayed with water cannons, beaten, bit by dogs yet to a very large extent were not violent.

I would recommend reading also about Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, and of the anabaptists. I am by far not the only Christian who is pacifist, and there are very many who have put themselves in harm's way and responded to violence the way Jesus taught His followers to. Some have paid a much higher price than a broken nose and have achieved far more than I have.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jan 25, 2013
3,501
476
✟58,340.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Fair enough. Would this also mean that it is not permissible for Muslims to mock the Ahmadiyyaas founder?

I don't know. Especially considering that Mirza is not their God (though he claimed to be at one point, I seek refuge with Allaah).

But I think I didn't use the more applicable verse in this situation. This should've been the one I used:

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided. (An-Nahl 16:125)


God has the right to make such commands, but people do not.
Exactly. And those are God's commands.

Jesus never told Christians to silence non-believers from preaching their ideas. Paul and other disciples engaged and debated with people of opposing religions, they never tried to shut down the discussion by calling for their arrest.
Yes, but he still at one point (according to the Christian belief) called for the execution of apostates/blasphemers.

True, although this was before God revealed that He no longer accepts killing of enemies. Also, during the time when God ordained that people who leave the faith are to be killed, He didn't state there is no compulsion in religion.
1.) La ikraaha fid-deen only applies to those raised as non-Muslims. Not Muslims.

2.) My point was that if you call this aspect of my religion hypocritical, you should call that aspect of your religion hypocritical.

Fair enough. Are you opposed to the protests against the stupid French policy against Muslim women not being able to wear hijabs? Shouldn't the answer according to the Quran be for them to emigrate? BTW I was and still am opposed to this and did take part in protest against it when it was announced. It also affected Jews and Christians.
No, I'm not opposed to protests. I also believe that they should point out that while the West wants Muslim women to be more integrated (which is a stereotype in itself to say that we're not), all they're doing is pushing Muslim women to stay at home because they would rather do that then abandon their niqaab.

But if trying to bring about change fails and they are still forced to abandon religious practices, then they should leave.

Also, my sisters in France are quite creative, mashaAllaah, and have found loopholes to the niqaab ban:

[youtube]ZAMx5yomJXg[/youtube]

BTW you can rest assured if my country tried to pass laws that discriminate against you on the basis of your faith, I would stand up for you and other Muslims, and so would many of my Christian friends.
: )

Fair enough. Although I guess that their answer could be the same as yours... equality isn't total so it does not apply to everybody, only some.
But they claim that they don't discriminate based on creed.


I think a difference is that the Vatican doesn't have any non-Catholic citizens. Many non-Muslims live in Islamic countries.
Well, I don't know if they allow non-Christians to live in the Vatican City, but even if they did, how likely do you think it would be that they'd allow a Muslim to become the leader of it?

No Muslim can ever become Pope. And no non-Muslim can ever become the Caliph.

I think "giving a lecture or two" is a pretty pathetic response to injustice being committed by one's own people. They should make persecution of non-Muslims one of their main goals. As they drive out non-Muslims who kill Muslims, they should also do the same to Muslims who kill non-Muslims.
Their priority should be spreading the message of Islaam and making their country Islaamic. Everything else follows (and will fall into place after).

There are very many Christians who follow Jesus' commands to love one's enemies and not strike back, even when attacked.
Was just telling you my personal experience.

Have you heard of Martin Luther King? African American churches played a huge role in the non-violent struggle against racism. Black Christians were shot, teargassed, sprayed with water cannons, beaten, bit by dogs yet to a very large extent were not violent.
Yes, though Malcolm X is more to my liking (not just because of his religion or his drastic change, but because of his philosophy on self-defense - it's a whole lot more practical to me).

I would recommend reading also about Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, and of the anabaptists. I am by far not the only Christian who is pacifist, and there are very many who have put themselves in harm's way and responded to violence the way Jesus taught His followers to. Some have paid a much higher price than a broken nose and have achieved far more than I have.
I'm sure.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums