The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

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

June 30th, 2012

Becoming a Muslim under the 1974 Constitutional amendment in Pakistan

The following are real events known to me first hand.

1969: A Sunni (meaning non-Ahmadi Sunni) Muslim faces a court case in Pakistan brought by some other Sunni Muslims regarding a personal issue. He submits a false statement to the authorities. He and his friends also ask an Ahmadi to back up the false statement by making a false statement himself. The Ahmadi refuses since he believes that it is against Islam to give false evidence, and moreover he advises them that the party against them are also Muslims and it is wrong to do injustice to your own brethren whether they are your actual relatives or other Muslims.

1974: Ahmadis are declared as non-Muslim by the government of Pakistan. The very same Sunni gentleman (who made a false statement against other Sunnis for his personal advantage) advises Ahmadis that it is absolutely essential, in fact the most important thing in life, to be known as a Muslim, and therefore they must declare that they are not Ahmadis so that they are legally recognised as Muslims. He himself is proud to be a Muslim according to the Pakistan constitution and even wishes that the Ahmadi who refused to give false evidence should declare himself such a “Muslim”.

Strange isn’t it, that to be recognised as “Muslim” under Pakistani law is so very important, but there is nothing wrong with giving false evidence which deprives another party of Muslims (who are Sunnis) of their just rights! And even stranger, that it was an Ahmadi, one who was declared a non-Muslim from 1974 onwards, who refused to give false evidence which would damage that other party’s rights!

Comments are closed.