The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

— latest, 29 October 2014: Usury and Interest? – Rather, Fury and Disinterest of Quran in an Illusory Wealth


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


January 4th, 2010

1974 Pakistan National Assembly hearings

Submitted by Waris.


There is some interesting information about the decision of National Assembly of Pakistan under which Ahmadies were declared Non-Muslim. The relevant discussion is at 12 minute to 15:30 minute.

http://pkpolitics.com/2010/01/03/najam-sethi-special-3-january-2010/

According to this discussion, Qadianis were partly responsible for what happened. According to Hafiz Pirzada this decision could have been avoided if Mirza Nasir Ahmad had not gone to National assembly and said that prophets can come after Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him),

People of my generation who were not born at that time do not know much about the facts of the proceedings of NA. One question that arises in my mind is that whether our jamaat was forced to make presentation in NA or we were given a choice to stay out. Can someone shed some light on this matter?

32 Responses to “1974 Pakistan National Assembly hearings”

  1. I don’t know whether the Qadiani Jamaat or our Jamaat were legally required to appear before the NA, but presumably if they had not appeared the decision would have gone against them anyway.

    The fact is that regardless of whether anyone appeared or not, regardless of what they said before the NA, the decision of the NA would have been the same. The whole procedure was fundamentally flawed and a travesty of justice. The attorney general, Yahya Bakhtiar (father of actress Zeba Bakhtiar), carried out a hostile examination of the Ahmadis, as if he was acting on hehalf of the maulvis, while his duty was supposed to be to determine the truth. Moreover, those who wanted Ahmadis declared as non-Muslim were not questioned by the NA at all about their beliefs.

    The resulting constitutional amendment says that a Muslim must have an absolute and unqualified belief in the finality of prophethood. The anti-Ahmadiyya Ulama clearly don’t have such an absolute and unqualified belief, because they hold that a prophet, Jesus, is still to come. Of course, they try to reconcile this with the finality of prophethood, but this means that their belief in finality is not absolute and unqualified.

    If the Pakistan NA has the authority to determine that a self-professing Muslim is not a Muslim, then how about the NA now sitting down to determine whether the groups carrying out daily bombings in Pakistan are Muslims or not? After all, those groups have their own, separate interpretation of Islam. The NA could question them about it and decide! But of course they won’t because being cowards and bullies they only pick on the weak.


  2. In this interview he says that even the members of the Qadiani jama’at (who had been elected to the parliament) were compelled (by the open stance their Khalifa that prophethood was to continue) to vote for declaring Ahmadis as kafirs. Can anyone else please confirm that I heard him correctly (around minute 15).
    Thanks.


  3. In regards to the staged monkey court proceeding in the national assembly this explanatory pamphlet distributed by Lahore Jamaat is a must read. No intellectually honest person could have voted Lahori Jamaat as non-Muslims. Lord have mercy on all those who voted.


  4. According to (marhoom) Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, spokesman of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement who testified in 1974 National Assembly proceedings, he was of the opinion that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is staging a drama, and he will declare Ahmadis non-Muslim. And that LAM should NOT attend the proceedings. But then Ameer (head) of LAM Maulana Sadar-ud-Din sahib was of the opinion, that at least the occasion will provide chance to represent our LAM beliefs (tabligh).
    Again according to Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, Malik Jaffar Khan member national assembly, from Attock city, and cabinet member of ZAB, was a former Qadiani. He had his high school education in Qadian, and later left Qadiani Jamaat, and even wrote a book against Qadiani beliefs etc. Malik Jaffar Khan was friend of Abdul Mannan Omar sahib.

    First day Abdul Mannan Omar sahib testified, after that on same day ZAB held meeting in evening. Meeting was attended by ZAB ministers, including Malik Jaffar Khan, and religious parties leaders, including Mufti Mahmud (father of Fazal-ul-Rehman). Late night after the meeting, Malik Jaffar Khan came to house of (marhoom) Shaikh Farooq Ahmad sahib in Rawalpindi. Abdul Mannan Omar sahib was staying there.

    Malik Jaffar Khan informed Abdul Mannan omar sahib that ZAB said: “I have listened to whole of testimony today, via audio link in my office. In my opinion we should spare Lahori Jamaat (LAM) and declare Qadianis as Kafir”. At this Mufti Mahmud said, “if we don’t declare Lahoris also Kafir, then Qadianis are bayiman (dishonest in their faith) and they will pretend as Lahoris and continue their activities. At this ZAB asked, “what is population of Lahoris?” Answer was given, “few thousands”. ZAB replied, “okay we can also declare them Kafir”. Malik Jaffar Khan also said, “it has been decided you will be declared Kafir, too. And there is no plan to call you (Abdul Mannan Omar sahib) for testimony tomorrow (i.e. next day)”.

    Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, testified on 2nd day too. On 2nd day, as soon as speaker took his seat and opened the session, Abdul Mannan Omar sahib got up, and referred to adjourned issue from previous day. It was on subject of ‘Punishment of Apostasy in Islam’. Thus he was able to speak on 2nd day.
     
    According to Abdul Mannan Omar sahib, he testified first. Then after him Mirza Nasir Ahmad (Khalifa 3 of Qadiani Jamaat) testified for few days.
     
    Bottom line: It was decided by ZAB and members of NA to declare Ahmadis (both Lahoris and Qadianis) Kafir even before LAM representative finished his testimony.


  5. I think it is legally binding on a person/party to appear before the national assembly if called.


  6. Another pamphlet that was also distributed among members of Pakistan National Assembly, in 1974:
    Aaeen-e-Pakistan aur Musalmaan Firqa Ahmadiyya:
    by Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore
     


  7. This is a link to the English translation of the submission by the Qadiani Jamaat to the Pakistan National Assembly in 1974.

    It was published in 2003 and I downloaded it in 2005 from their alislam.org website.


  8. January 5th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I think the following news in The Nation today (5th January 2010) is to some extent relevant to our discussion above:

    Bangladesh court bans religion in politics

    DHAKA (AFP) – Bangladesh’s dozens of political parties must drop Islam from their name and stop using religion when on the campaign trail following a court ruling, the country’s law minister said Monday.

    The Supreme Court on Sunday upheld an earlier ruling by the High Court from 2005 throwing out the fifth amendment of the constitution, which had allowed religion-based politics to flourish in the country since the late 1970s.

    “All politics based on religion are going to be banned as per the original constitution,” Shafique Ahmed told AFP. The verdict does not affect constitutional amendments that made Islam the Muslim majority nation’s state religion in 1988 and incorporated a Quranic verse in the constitution.

    The main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which is allied with two Islamic parties, said it would appeal the verdict. Bangladesh’s original constitution, drafted by the secular Awami League party after the country became independent in 1971, barred the use of religion in politics.

    “We want to reinstate the original constitution. Secularism was a pillar of the 1972 constitution,” said Ahmed.

    The move follows the Awami League’s sweep to power in 2008 elections, which saw them beat the BNP with a landslide.

    The new government outlawed a controversial Islamic party in October, accusing it of destabilising the country.

    Four other Islamist organisations, including the Jamayetul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), were earlier banned after they carried out a series of nationwide bombings that left 28 people dead in 2005.


  9. It is pertinent to note that when making the religious declaration when registering with NADRA (the central citizenship database of Paksitan), the statement to sign to establish if the person is a Muslim, includes words to the effect (same is applicable to the passport form) that any person claiming to be a prophet “in any sense of the word” is an imposter etc etc. No doubt these words are present there to make sure the Lahoris don’t “become” Muslims.

    Ofcourse then the Ahmadi’s are especially named just to make sure. What one should tell the 160 million Pakistanis signing this form is that by doing so they are basically abusing many venerated sufis who have used the word prophet and also all other persons who have been called prophets in the dictionary meaning of the word. An all together ridiculous situation, and may God have mercy on those people who designed the Muslims declaration knowing fully that to declare the Lahoris non-Muslims many great saints of Islam would have to be abused (not to mention the fact that declaring a Muslim as Kafir is Kufr in itself).


  10. Z.A. Bhutto’s reason behind 2nd amendment.

    1)      Recently Dr. Mubashir Hassan, founding member of PPP, in interview with journalist Najam Sethi (on Dunya TV program, Najam Sethi Special), stated that ZAB was a kind of person, who did not like others in his party, whom Dr. M.H. called number 2, to gain enough political strength that they can pose political challenge to ZAB. In this regard he mentioned names of PPP founders whom ZAB marginalized and kicked out of his party, and even imprisoned some. Couples of names were mentioned such as J.A. Rahim and Miraj Khalid.

    2)      In the same interview Dr. M.H. acknowledged that in 1971 elections PPP was fully supported by Qadiani Jamaat, and he even mentioned names of Qadiani Jamaat Khalifas Mirza Tahir Ahmad and Mirza Nasir Ahmad.

    3)      Col Rafiuddin, army liaison during ZAB imprisonment in Rawalpindi, in his book ‘Last 323 days of Bhutto’ (Bhutto Kay Akhari 323 Din), quotes ZAB: Qadianis were becoming King Maker like Jews in America.

    4)      Those who are aware of Pakistan’s national politics, know that in early 70s, Qadiani Jamaat leadership started courting, ZAB fierce critic, Tahreek-I-Istaqlal leader Air Marshal Asghar Khan.
    5)      ZAB knew, well the organizational strength of Qadiani Jamaat.
    6)      To preempt any future alliance of Qadiani Jamaat and Tahreek-I-Istaqlal, ZAB decided to marginalize Qadiani Jamaat in national politics.
    7)      The Rabwah railway station incident, which provoked anti-ahmadi riots, and provided opportunity to defeated religious political parties, in 1971 elections, to gain political capital. 
    8)      These riots provided ZAB, a much-needed opportunity, to discredit and devalue Qadiani Jamaat. And to steal the “glory of service to Islam” from his religious opponent parties, he did what is known as 2nd amendment. Although, according to insiders in Qadiani Jamaat, Rabwah railway station operation was launched after receiving green light from ZAB.
     
    If Qadiani Jamaat leadership had stayed purely a religious organization, and not got involved into politics in the first place i.e. in 1971 elections, 1974 crisis and 2nd constitutional amendment would have not come.


  11. >>It is pertinent to note that when making the religious declaration when registering with NADRA (the central citizenship database of Paksitan), the statement to sign to establish if the person is a Muslim, includes words to the effect (same is applicable to the passport form) that any person claiming to be a prophet “in any sense of the word” is an imposter etc etc.
     
    I wonder when Jesus of Nazareth lands in Pakistan and if he applies for a passport there, what will he declare? If he declares himself a prophet then he is a non-Muslim. If he does not declare himself a prophet then he cannot be Jesus. In principle Pakistani constitution preempts the second return of Jesus and he will not be able to travel to Makkah to perform Hajj or other countries to spread his message.  What a pathetic state of affairs. Such idiocy is only possible in Disney cartoons.
     


  12. Ahmadi Members in Pakistan’s sitting parliament.
     
    “The PPP, PML(N) and MQM selected Christian, Hindu and Ahmedi members in National Assembly and four provincial assemblies want procedural amendment in blasphemy law while PML(Q) stresses on repeal of blasphemy law.”
     
    Does anyone know, who are these Ahmadi members of Pakistan National Assembly?
     
    http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/pakistan-christian-congress-asks-for-repeal-of-blasphemy-law/#more-7219
     


  13. @Ikram

    I guess Jesus (AS) then must make sure not to visit Pakistan when he lands on Earth.  Perhaps the Mullahs need to amend the Muslim declaration in Pakistan otherwise they will miss out when Jesus starts defeating the infidels.


  14. @Usman:

    This is exactly the point that when man tries to invent Islam outside Quran.  Such a religion soon runs into contradictions and cannot stand test of time and logic. All can see the outcome of their definition of a Muslim outside Quran. When seeing the inevitable of their illogic, such inventors instead of revisiting Quran, invariably fall back on using crutches of old soothsayers, traditionalists, priest-craft and garb of blind faith. The collective wisdom of National Assembly of Pakistan did not take time to fall on its face. With termites like Mullahs, Islam does not need external enemies to destroy it.

    7:179: Our Law has committed to Hell numerous people, rural and urban; they are living the life of hell. They have hearts that they use not to understand. They have eyes with which they see not, and ears with which they hear not. They are like cattle. Nay, they are even worse. Such are the people who have chosen to live through life in total darkness of ignorance. [The Qur'an As It Explains Itself, Copyright: Shabbir Ahmed]

    Quran is just not a theoretical rhetoric. This verse predictably came true in Pakistan when read in forward direction and the verse has also manifested in Pakistan when read in reverse i.e. the non-use of reason can render one intellectually deaf and dumb, a morally despicable state of human degeneration.

    Throughout Quran the power of reasoning is considered a blessing and, therefore, it should not be a burden in understanding and following a religion.  It is a burden on followers of blind faith.


  15. Towards infamy – By Ardeshir Cowasjee

    The constitution as it has evolved, with all its wicked amendments (starting with the second) has brought luck and joy to no man who has used it to gain or perpetuate power, nor to the nation in whose name it was made.

    Read…


  16. @ Cowasjees article posted by Ikram

    Apparently some Parlimentarians recently told the press that even if the amendments to the constitution are reverted, the Islamic ones would not be changed.   A prominent human rights lawyer told the media that the said Parlimentarians are “Uloo ka Pathas” for saying this!  I do not know an appropriate translation for Ulloo ka Patha so apologies to Non-Urdu speakers.

    Here is the link:

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26514

    It is to do with a certain article 62-f of the constitution.


    Note by Blog Admin: “Uloo ka Pathas” = fools.


  17. @Usman – drew attention to 62(f) under Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) i.e. “he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen”

    Being a members of parliament, each member of the Senate committee is already “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen,” but then being knight-hooded as “Uloo ka Pathas” is also true for what they are doing.

    Essentially then, in Pakistan being “Uloo ka Pathas” is equivalent to being “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen” and not just being a “fool.” That is a tell-tale sign of a Banana Republic.

    I wonder if anyone in Islamic history including Muhammad PBUH ever made a claim to be “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen.” I cringe on the very thought that each member of the parliament is carrying such a certification and morally living with it.

    If the said committee is termed “Uloo ka Pathas” for keeping the above clause in the Constitution, imagine what they might be called by Mullahs for not putting in the following Islamic clauses:

    62 (i): he is not a hypocrite;

    62(j): he is not ignorant;

    62(k): he eats with his right hand;

    62(l): he washes with his left hand;

    62(m): he does not back-bite;

    62(n): he can demonstrate his belief in jinns;

    62(o): he is afraid only of Allah, and plugs his ears at the sound of music;

    62(p): he has always knocked before entering another’s home;

    62(q): he holds current certification on regular alms giving;

    62(r): he has never hidden the truth;

    62 (s): he does not indulge in pleasure and enjoyment of life to forget his duty to Allah;

    62 (t): he does not believe or repeat rumours against chaste believing women;

    62(u): he is neither extravagant nor parsimonious;

    62(v): he eats of the good things, but not inordinately (over-eating); and

    62 (w): he is moderate in his volume of voice (the most hateful of voices is the braying of asses).

    The above clauses excerpted from: Article 62(zzz)


  18. I think most politicians in the world would fail this test; belonging to a banana (or mango!) republic or not. That is why personal spiritual development is so important, as that automatically brings Islam into politics and government. Purely secular democracies are on one extreme and the Mullahs on the other. In both cases the results are similar.  In Pakistan the problem is compounded due to poor governance; while in the west with good governance the problem is mitigated but not solved.


  19. Nowadays politics is synonymous with misrepresentation and even underhandedness, whereas Muhammad PBUH defined politics as strategy. For a case in point is the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, which proved that strategy needs patience, fairness, honesty of purpose, good will for all parties and the foresight of a statesman, while chicanery is for hypocrites. To see a living example of the latter one does not have to look farther than the parliament of Pakistan.


  20. Speaking about the many amendments to the constitution of Pakistan (beginning hours after it was promulgated) that effectively changed the original character of the document to suit various vested interests, I am reminded of the book Animal Farm by George Orwell.  Although the book was a politcal satire on communism it also fits the Pakistani situation.  In the book (it has been a long time so feel free to correct me if I get some point wrong) the pigs declare (after seizing control of the farm) that “All animal are equal”.  But then they realise that this declaration could be a problem for them so they quickly introduce the amendment “but some are more equal than others”!!!!!



  21. It is possible that after reading ‘Letter to Madam Speaker of Pakistan’ on PTH blog (link provided by Usman), some readers get interested to check this thread. To help them better understand LAM point of view I am posting links to booklets distributed by LAM to Pakistani Parliamentarians in 1974.
     
    1) National Assembly Pakistan kee Special Committee ka Roobaroo Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore ka Wazahati Bayan: by Maulana Sadr-ud-Din
     
    2) Aaeen-e-Pakistan aur Musalmaan Firqa Ahmadiyya: by Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore
     
    3) Qaumee Assembly kee Khidmut Mein: by Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore


  22. Justice Samdani Commission Report.
     
    In the aftermath of incident that took place on Rabwah Railway Station, in 1974. Punjab Chief Minister Hanif Ramay appointed Justice Samdani of Lahore High Court to hold inquiry. He did and report was submitted to Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. But it was never made public.
     
    According to Qadiani jamaat members who had inside information, the operation took place on encouragement by Prime Minister Bhutto. Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa III and IV Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Mirza Tahir Ahmad were friends of Bhutto.
     
    My assessment is that it is very much possible Bhutto-Khalifas connection came up during inquiry. And perhaps Bhutto’s encouragement to Khalifas also came to light. And this became reason for keeping Samdani report a secret to this day.


  23. Jennifer Musa (1917-2008)
     
    She was member of Pakistan National Assembly in 1974 on ticket of ANP (formally NAP) of Wali Khan from Baluchistan Province. Faith wise she was Christian.
     
    Abdul Hafiz Pirzada has mentioned her name in his interview with Najam Sethi tv program on Dunya tv aired on January 3, 2010.
     
    In 1974 during trial of Ahmadis in National Assembly, while Abdul Manan Omar sahib was testifying on behalf of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, member national assembly Maulana Mufti Mahmud blurted ‘Mirzai murtad hein, aur yeh wajab-ul-qatal hein’ (Ahmadis are guilty of apostasy, and they must be killed). Abdul Manan Omar sahib replied that in Islam there is no punishment for apostasy. This reply got attention of then speaker of National Assembly, Sahibzada Farooq Ali sahib and he asked Abdul Manan Omar sahib to expand on his reply. In the discussion that ensued, Abdul Manan Omar sahib asked Mufti Mahmud sahib to support his Fatwa with Holy Quran verse. Mufti Mahmud replied, that there is no verse in Holy Quran that supports this, but Hadith supports this. Abdul Manan sahib asked Mufti sahib to quote that Hadith. Mufti sahib quoted a Hadith. Abdul Manan sahib asked Mufti sahib to please also translate it in Urdu. Mufti sahib translated it into Urdu, ‘Jis nay apna deen tubdeel kia, wooh wajab-ul-qatal hein’ (who so ever changes his religion, must be killed).

    At this reply Abdul Manan sahib turned to Ms. Jennifer Musa and addressed her, “Muhtarma, Mufti sahib is scholar of Islam. If you ever get impressed by his speeches on Islam and decide to convert to Islam, then I would advice you to say final good-bye to your family members, because with one hand Mufti sahib will bring you into the fold of Islam and with other hand he will chop your head off”. According to Abdul Manan Omar sahib the whole house laughed. Anyways, discussion continued and finally decision was made that there is no punishment for apostasy in Islam. On Abdul Manan Omar sahib request, Mr. Speaker placed the decision on record of National Assembly.
     
    Link to an article on Jennifer Musa:
    http://pakistaniat.com/2010/01/12/jennifer-wren-musa/
     


  24. Bismillah ar-Rehman ar-Raheem
    Pakistani Constitutional Amendments of 1974
    Declaring Qadianis as a non-Muslim Minority
    by
    Dr. Syed Rashid Ali
    Events that led to the Constitutional Amendments
    declaring Qadianis to be non-Muslim Minorities
    Bhutto becomes the Prime Minister
    Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan in the election of 1970 and Qadianis hoped to get a good reward for their unflinching support to the Pakistan Peoples Party in this election and for their loyalty to Bhutto.


    Lengthy article truncated by Blog Administrator.


  25. NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
    NOTIFICATION
    Islamabad, the 7th September 1974
    This bill was introduced in the National Assembly on the 7th September 1974,
    N.A. Bill No. 29 of 1974.

    A Bill further to amend the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
    Whereas it is expedient further to amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the purposes hereinafter appearing;
    It is hereby enacted as follows:–

    Short title and commencemnet. –

    (1) This act may be called the Constitution (Second Amendment) Act, 1974.
    (2) It shall come into force at once.
    Amendment of Article 106 of the Constitution. — In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution, in article 106, in clause (3) after the word “communities”, the words and brackets “and persons of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who called themselves ‘Ahmadis’) shall be inserted.
    Amendment of Article 260 of the Constitution. — In the Constitution, in Article 260, after clause (2), the following new clause shall be added, namely:–

    (3) A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon Him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (peace be upon Him), or recognises such a claimant as a prophet or a religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or Law.


    Lengthy article truncated by Blog Administrator.


  26. SORRY I MISSED QADIYANI ARE NOT MUSLIMS,
    MUST SEE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNDaBhtvwN8
    ALL PARTS


  27. Mr Saifi, I have truncated two of your postings above, which were articles of very long length that you have merely pasted in. You should have just given the links to those articles, and then made some comments of your own. On this blog, we discuss our own thinking and views in our own words. We comment on views of others in our own words.

    Perhaps you will care to comment on the following points:

    1. The Pakistan National Assembly of 1974 had been elected in 1970 as a part of the NA of the combined Pakistan. The other 55% of that assembly separated in 1971 to join Bangladesh. So the majority of the NA elected in 1970 did not declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim.

    2. Political leaders of the PNA of 1974 were responsible in 1971 for the break-up of Pakistan, a country created in the name of Islam. They suffered a military defeat at the hands of those whom they derided as “idol-worshipping, cow urine drinking Hindus”. So what kind of Muslims were they, that Allah humiliated them at the hands of these opponents? They deserved to be tried in court for crimes against Islam and against Pakistan much more than Ahmadis.

    3. Why were the proceedings of the Assembly barred by the government from publication for 25 years? And even after that limit expired, they have not been published!

    4. Members of Bhutto’s party had been declared kafir by the Islamic parties before the 1970 election. Bhutto himself had been declared kafir. Please tell us if they were still kafir during the 1974 assembly proceedings.

    5. Again, after his removal from power by the same parties, Bhutto was called “Muslim in name only” by them. This means in 1974 also he was a Muslim in name only.

    6. If the Pakistan NA can declare one group as non-Muslim, it means they can declare some other group as kafir as well. Do you agree that they have this power? Should they now declare as kafir anyone who disagrees with the blasphemy law, and anyone who condemns the murder of Salman Taseer?

    7. As quoted by you, the Pakistan constitution declares an Ahmadi as “not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or Law“. That doesn’t mean “not a Muslim according to Quran and Hadith”!

    8. The amendment says “A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad”. As most Muslims believe that Jesus, who is called a prophet in the Quran, is going to return to this world after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, how does this constitute an “absolute and unqualified” belief that the Holy Prophet was the final prophet? This belief places a condition and qualification on the finality of prophethood.


  28. No intellectual confusions about NA proceeding about qadianees. The questions are available and they can reply now. another thing, as per their belief their caliph has divine power where he was debated for 14 days and he could not answer. qadianees r good in creating confusion. I have not met a single qadiani who has read books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. they love to debate but have not read books of MGA.
    Secondly, did any body read their own expelsion orders from jamat. they make their expelled untouchables


  29. October 11th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
    From imran khawaja:

    mirza ghulam ahmed qadiani and all of his followers are stray dogs.i see their dooms day as all of them are burning in hell with their head dog(mirza ghulam ahmed qadiani).


  30. There is no confusion regarding finality of prophethood.no new prophet nabi or rasool will come after muhammad saw .jesus is not a new prophet he became prophet centuries before birth of islam.he will come again on the islamic doctrine not anything new because there message is same.dont try to confuse anyone.instead clear your own brains if u have


  31. Khayyam stated – "jesus is not a new prophet he became prophet centuries before birth of islam.he will come again on the islamic doctrine not anything new because there message is same.dont try to confuse anyone.instead clear your own brains if u have."

    On his good advice I set forth to clear my brain far away from any Quranic verse, because if I pick Quran, then I find Jesus (PBUH) dead like any other mortal and no mortal returns to this earthly life after his/her death. In this quest to clear my brain I came upon the following argument by Maulana Muhammad Ali:

    … strong evidence is that prophethood has come to an end with Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) and Jesus Christ was a prophet according to the Qur'an. It is, therefore, not possible that he should appear after the Prophet Muhammad. If he does come then Jesus Christ, and not the Prophet Muhammad, will be the khãtam al-nabiyyin (the seal of the prophets). Obviously, prophet hood will come to an end with a prophet who comes last of all. The thought, that although Jesus Christ would appear last of all but as the Prophet Muhammad was the last in his appointment, therefore he was indeed the last of the prophets, is groundless. If a battle has to be fought and won, only that general would be called the last general who has won it irrespective of the date of his appointment. If A and Z were two generals appointed for this post, A being appointed before Z, and A was still alive when Z died and at last it was he who won the battle, then every wise person would call him the last general. Similarly if Jesus Christ, the prophet of God, would come after Muhammad and the final victory and dominance of Islam would take place at his hand, then he would be called the last of the prophets. The correct view, therefore, is that no prophet, neither new nor old, shall appear after the Prophet Muhammad. [Promised Messiah and Mahdi, p. 12, link]

    That cleared my brain for sure that Jesus (PBUH) cannot return to this life, else he is the last prophet and (Allah forbid) Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is not.


Leave a Reply