Pak Tea House » Democracy, human rights, Law, Liberal Democratic Pakistan » Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?
Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?
By Raza Habib Raja
Democracy is much more than majority
Right now, after 28th May, an issue being increasingly discussed is the status given to Ahmedis through the controversial Second Amendment.
Frankly I would like to say at the onset that I think the Second Amendment is one of the blackest and most shameful acts of legislations ever passed in the National Assembly. Its reprehensible content is reinforced by the fact that it was not an ordinance imposed by a dictator but actually passed by majority through legislative process.
The Second Amendment was passed unanimously and compared to other controversial legal ordinance such as Hadood, appears to have a “democratic’ semblance. In fact at times more than the religious arguments the supporters of the Second Amendment come up with the “democratic” defense.
Supporters say that after all democracy is a game of numbers and if the law was passed unanimously then it reflected the entire collective will of the people. They also say that democracy has to be consistently interpreted and applied. They say that you cannot be “selective” about democratic norms and apply it to your own wishes. The votes cast by the representatives are the most appropriate approximation of the public will and if a bill is passed unanimously then public will has to prevail. The art of legislation is the way of ensuring prevalence of public will.
Though apparently supported by “democratic” credentials, a critical look would reveal that actually this argument is flawed on at least two major accounts.
To begin with, any law duly passed by the legislature does not necessarily possess the direct approval of the populace. This is actually a classical principal agent problem where agents have been given authority by the principal to act on their behalf. In a legislative setting the agents are the members who are representatives. However, once elected it is not possible for them to revert back to public on each and every bill. Generally speaking the assumption is that since public has given them the vote and therefore in some ways also endorsed their manifesto. And here also vote does not necessarily imply that every single point in the manifesto has been endorsed by all the voters. There is thus a perception asymmetry here. Following this logic the only bills which have some implicit approval of the electorate are those which are based on the manifesto of the party. The Second Amendment was not the part of manifesto of the ruling party at that time and therefore the argument that it had direct approval of the electorate is flawed. I admit here that numerous other bills also may also suffer from the same problem but since supporters of Second Amendments often tout “overwhelming” support of the electorate therefore dissection of this argument was needed.
However, skeptics may retort by saying that even if a direct referendum is held there are chances that populace may still decide the same. But then is democracy just numbers?
I think the strongest case against so called democratic credentials of the Second Amendment comes from the philosophical side. Democracy is not merely a game of numbers but at a philosophical level much more than that. DEMOCRACY HAS TO BLEND IN WITH A TOLERANT CULTURE OTHERWISE ITS POPULAR HEGEMONY OF THE MAJORITY. Hitler was also after all apparently democratically elected.
Laws which are contradictory to tolerance and equality, even if completely endorsed by the majority, wont be called as democratic. There is a reason as to why all the civilized democracies have taken extreme care to ensure that while majority does get its way most of the time but not all of the time. Thus democracy in principle while agreeing to majority rule has to enshrine protection of minorities from possible tyranny of majority. Yes, majority is needed for ensuring expression of popular will but it does not mean that majority should coalesce to infringe the basic rights of the minority particularly when the later is defined along religious or ethnic lines.
For example in United States, Bills of Right go extra step to protect basic individual freedom. These catalogue the rights that have to be upheld by the government, thus protecting, the rights of ANY minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy. Essentially the Bills of Right RESTRICT the scope of majority and try protecting the minority.
This idea of prevention of tyranny of the majority was explored in detail by the famous British political philosopher John Stuart Mill. In his most famous essay “On Liberty” , he wrote:
”The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”
The above principle endeavours to ensure that government elected by majority does not end up being an instrument to exercise tyranny by that majority.
The tyranny of the majority (at times brought through voting mechanism) has been one of the most defining features of the last century. The chequered history in this respect has elevated the need for protection of minorities from possible abuse of the majorities as one of the foremost priorities. The UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, defines not just individual rights but also minimum protections for minorities. Article 27 asserts:
“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”
The above clearly shows that democracy is not merely a game of numbers but for any law to be democratic, it has to fulfil the criteria of non violation of basic rights of the minorities. Yes while it is true that majority rule is important as a mean of popular expression but at the same time, it is not the ONLY criteria. Democracy is a complex phenomenon and would require other caveats such as adequate protection of minorities. In a true democracy the dominance of majority is counterchecked by proper protection of minorities.
Following this logic, the Second Amendment can by no stretch of imagination called a “democratic” legislation. The supporters should at least spare the usage of the word democratic while rhapsodizing about the “unanimity” behind passing of that black amendment.
What our society needs to learn is that every privilege in this world comes with a responsibility. Freedom of expression comes with a responsibility that it would not be used to malign others and for hate speech. Authority comes with a responsibility that it would not be abused. And above all, majority comes with a responsibility that it would not be used to impose undue will on the minority.
The Second Amendment merits several questions. Does the majority have the right to assume the power of the Almighty and declare someone as Non Muslim? Does the majority have the right to marginalize a community just because it has different views? Does the majority have the right not only to induce discrimination but institutionalize it in the law of the land? And if a majority imposes its will on a minority, can it justify it as democratic?
These are pressing and uneasy questions and the tragedy is that we know the answer to each one of them. It is a matter of listening to our conscience and mustering enough COLLECTIVE courage.
Filed under: Democracy, human rights, Law, Liberal Democratic Pakistan · Tags: majority, Pakistan, Rights of Minorities, Second Amendment
305 Responses to "Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- MA
said Hehehe, Well-said wolf. Its funny, I mean what th... - real muslim
said tahir is jews agent. we can sacrifice millions of... - Dark Knight
said @Sachbol (May 18, 2012 at 12:19 am)
//...There is... - Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on...
- kaalchakra said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan...
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
@SZ
btw I should mention (because this is now being repeated again and again), it is not proper to call urself “Ahmadis” and us “Lahoris”. It would be like me calling you “Qadianis” and ourselves “Ahmadis”.
OMLK:
You have stated:
“Lets just focus on the issue please. The Lahori Ahmadi position on HMGA’s status as a Prophet is the same as MMA’s position on the matter. Now surely you are well aware of MMA’s position because you have just accused him of changing his position after 1914.”
My question is very relevant in light of your post (reproduced below) that you can find by scrolling above.
QUOTE
July 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm
@Nusrat Pasha
Ref: Questions # 6.
Keeping in mind that many non-Ahmadi Muslims have begun to reject the notion that Isa (AS) is alive in Heaven, I think the primary doctrinal differance between the Non-Ahmadis and (Qadiani) Ahmadis would be that the Qadiani Ahmadis believe that Prophets can continue to come after Muhammad (saws) subordinated to Muhammad (saws); and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was such a Prophet. Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer.
UNQUOTE
Reading your post dated 5 July 2010, it occured to me that the Lahori Jama’at had changed its view as you stated: “not a prophet but a religious reformer”.
Now again there is a visible shift as you are saying in your post dated today (20 July 2010) that: “The Lahori Ahmadi position on HMGA’s status as a Prophet is the same as MMA’s position on the matter”. This to me implies that you take HMGA as a prophet.
I am not sure which position of yours to take as the correct position. I therefore would like to understand your stance clearly as to whether you consider HMGA as a prophet or not. If you consider him as a prophet, then how can you say that your view is different to that of ours?
@OMLK:
Apologies, I will be addressing you onwards as Lahori Ahmadis.
@SZ
Both my statements are consistent. But if I now start a lengthy explanation of how so, then that would be moving away from the topic.
I can understand that you are a bit confused. I have a simle solution for that given the context of the discussion. As the discussion is on your accusation that MMA changed his stance, it is obvious you have a very clear idea of what that stance is (lets say post 1914 for the time being and with no further implications). You could not possibly have accused MMA of changing his stance after 1914 without knowing what that stance is. My solution is that you simply take that stance as the correct stance of the Lahori Ahamdis. Infact I would urge to atleast once state your understanding of it so I can correct you if I feel that you have misunderstood. This would be the fairest, quickest, and “cleanest” way of moving forward. If we start analysing my personal past statments now, it would just be getting distracted from the issue which is based on the statements of MMA which are absolutely independent of any of my statements on the matter.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian made four claims, which essentially amalgamate into one:
1. Mujaddid: A reformer of Islam
2. Masih Mau’ood: Promised Messiah – the prophesied reformer whose advent was foretold by Muhammad the Holy Prophet – prophesied as Esa, Ibn Maryam and Masih.
3. Imam Mahdi: The guided leader whose advent was foretold by the Holy Prophet.
4. Ummati Nabi: A non-law bearing prophet, subordinate to the Holy Prophet and his follower.
@ SZ
“Now again there is a visible shift as you are saying in your post dated today (20 July 2010) that: “The Lahori Ahmadi position on HMGA’s status as a Prophet is the same as MMA’s position on the matter”. This to me implies that you take HMGA as a prophet.”
Just add the words “after 1914″ in front of “MMA’s position” in my statement and then read in light of my previous post and you will see that there is no shift in stance. If you think there is still a shift, then logically speaking you admit that MMA did not change his stance post 1914! However my reccomendation to add “after 1914″ is only to clear the confusion you seem to be having and should not be seen as self incriminating evidence that MMA did change his stance after 1914!
@Bin Ismail
The Ummati-Nabi part is where the disagreement with the Lahori Ahmadis starts. In short Lahori Ahmadis believe that HMGA called himself an ummati and a nabi with a particular significance attached to the word nabi which is in-correctly elevated to the station of a non-law bearing Prophet by the Qadiani Ahmadis. Now I am just plainly stating what we believe here and not arguing that it is necessarily the correct belief. After the current discussion with Shah Zaman reaches a conslusion this issue can be discussed if you so wish.
@OMLK:
My apologies if my comments have caused confusion.
My point was (and is) that prior to March 1914 the Lahori Ahmadi leaders were unambiguous in their statements in accepting the status of HMGA as a prophet appointed by God. I presented 3 references (out of many others that I have), one of Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib, another of Khawaj Kamal ud Din sahib and the third of Maulana Umar Munshi sahib.
The above position has changed subsequent to March 1914 and the original belief is not propagated by Lahori Ahmadis anymore when they are out for preaching. Instead, they refer to HMGA as a reformer. Not just that, it has now come to a stage where the opening statement by a Lahori Ahmadi comprises of a complete denial of the prophethood claim by HMGA and is somewhat along the lines that: “HMGA was not a prophet but a religious reformer”.
The above is what I refer to as change in position by Lahori Ahmadis. Now, one has to drill down to find out what a Lahori Ahmadi believes in when he makes this statement. Of course this shift is because of the worldly pressure and for no love of Allah or of the Holy Prophet or of HMGA. We Ahmadis, on the other hand, are not budged by any fears and we take the pressure and keep our faith categoric and clear, as we deem it is for the love of Allah and that of the Holy Prophet and that of HMGA.
I think you would want to rephrase your sentence – “Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer” – the next time you are explaining your belief to a non-Ahmadi Muslim, as this is not what your elders believed in and this is not what HMGA believed in. If you read the book “Aik Ghalti Ka Azala”, HMGA states this in the opening paragraph that a plain rejection of his prophethood is an incorrect description of the belief of an Ahmadi. Anyone believing in the claims of HMGA should be avoiding that. However, this is not what Lahori Ahmadis do.
Do you want to discuss this point further or want to move on to HMGA’s claim of prophethood in the light of his own writings.
If you wish to proceed furtehr, I think it will require a clear understanding of what does prophethood mean to you and what does it mean to us. Would you mind setting out your belief. My bvelief is set out in my post of 17 July 2010 at 11:43pm.
@OMLK
Re your response to Bin Ismail:
“The Ummati-Nabi part is where the disagreement with the Lahori Ahmadis starts. In short Lahori Ahmadis believe that HMGA called himself an ummati and a nabi with a particular significance attached to the word nabi which is in-correctly elevated to the station of a non-law bearing Prophet by the Qadiani Ahmadis.”
Fuirstly, a small correction. HMGA did not call himself a Nabi. He said that God Almighty time and again referred to him as Nabi in the Divine revelations received by him. I guess there is a small difference between: (a) HMGA calling himself something; and (b) HMGA claiming that God Almighty referred to him as something in Divine revelations. Would you not agree here?
Secondly, if I am not wrong, the Lahori Ahmadis have a problem with the concept of an Ummati Nabi as they are of the view that a Nabi can only be a law bearing (Sharai) Nabi and that there can be no non-law bearing (ghayer Sharai) Nabi. Am I correct?
@SZ
I will reply to you previous posts only once because now we are totally going off on a tangent from the current discussion. So first my response, and then a reminder to return to the issue under discussion (one issue at a time).
You accusation (yet another!) that Lahori Ahmadis are motivated by worldly reasons and Qadiani Ahmadis by purely spiritual reasons is a totally baseless, and may I add a rather self righteous, allegation. I could very well argue otherwise, but that would mean going off the current topic which I do not want to do. In fact if we discuss the current topic through, it would itself indicate if your latest accusation is correct or not. So why don’t we just do that and properly analyze your accusation and evidence against MMA, instead of just throwing out more allegations.
“the next time you are explaining your belief to a non-Ahmadi Muslim, as this is not what your elders believed in and this is not what HMGA believed in.”
I totally disagree. Again we can discuss this in the light of both my elders and HMGA’s writings after finishing the current discussion.
“If you read the book “Aik Ghalti Ka Azala”, HMGA states this in the opening paragraph that a plain rejection of his prophethood is an incorrect description of the belief of an Ahmadi. Anyone believing in the claims of HMGA should be avoiding that. However, this is not what Lahori Ahmadis do. ”
If you read the same book carefully you will see it is not the rejection of prophethood but the plain denial of the usage of the word Prophet by HGMA that is deemed as an incorrect position. Hence the Lahori Ahmadis are sticking fast to the position of HMGA. Again we can discuss this later.
“Fuirstly, a small correction. HMGA did not call himself a Nabi. He said that God Almighty time and again referred to him as Nabi in the Divine revelations received by him. I guess there is a small difference between: (a) HMGA calling himself something; and (b) HMGA claiming that God Almighty referred to him as something in Divine revelations. Would you not agree here?”
I agree absolutely. However, HMGA did call himself a Nabi, and did so on the basis of him being called the same in Divine revelation and also on the basis of the linguistic or dictionary meaning of the word Nabi. And yes he did claim to being called Nabi by God. I think you totally misunderstood my statement which was certainly not a denial of HGMA being called a Nabi by God. The significance of being called a Nabi is of course something we can discuss later.
“Secondly, if I am not wrong, the Lahori Ahmadis have a problem with the concept of an Ummati Nabi as they are of the view that a Nabi can only be a law bearing (Sharai) Nabi and that there can be no non-law bearing (ghayer Sharai) Nabi. Am I correct?”
No you are not correct. There can be non-law bearing Prophets. Again would be happy to discuss this later.
So now that I have answered your queries, can we please get back to the topic at hand? Please refer to my post of July 2oth, 2010 at 6:21 PM.
@OMLK
I guess I have clarified that my point is not directed towards any specific individual (say Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib). I gave you citations of two other people as well. It is the general behaviour of the Lahori Ahmadi community at large that I was referring to. Please show me a publication of Lahori Jama’at post 1914 where they have said something similar to the citations referred to by me.
I guess the bone of contention appears to be the prophethood or the word “prophet” and we need to tease that out in order to fully understand who has deviated from the path.
Gentlemen, forgive me for intruding. Wouldn’t it be more rational to examine the original prophecy before we examine its fulfillment? The prophecy of the advent of a latter reformer, whom the Holy Prophet refers to as Masih / Esa / Ibn Maryam should best be examined with reference to the words of the prophecy. Let us examine two relevant quotations regarding the Promised Esa:
1. Transliteration: “…fa yarghabu nabiyyullaahi eesa wa as’haabuhu ilallaahi ta’aala…” (Sahih Muslm)
Translation: Thus Esa the prophet of Allah alongwith his companions would turn to Allah the Exalted.
2. Transliteration: “…imaamukum minkum…” (Sahih Bukhari)
Translation: (the Promised Messiah) would be your Imam from amongst yourselves.
The first hadees clearly defines the Promised Messiah as “nabiyyullah” which means prophet of God. The second hadees classifies him as someone from among the Ummah, for which there is an alternative term “Ummati”. Put both sayings of the Holy Prophet together, and what you get is an “ummati nabi”.
Whether one awaits the fulfillment of the prophecy about the Promised Messiah in the person of the very same Esa (Jesus) who lived six centuries prior to Muhammad, or one interprets its fulfillment through someone appearing in the spirit of Jesus; in either case the status of the Promised Messiah, as determined by the Holy Prophet would have to be that of an “ummati nabi” or “subservient non-law bearing prophet”.
Ragards.
@SZ
“Bone of contention … word Prophet” is indeed high on priority & interesting. So please withdraw your accusation of post-pre 1914 change of heart on MMA.
So far you are both, winners(!) in a consistantly improving, civilized, focused debate & an example to follow for the kangaroo court of Pak parliment. Btw If there is a link to that ’73 debate itself or of it’s “Re-Enactment” with fake/real beards, fake/real brass and snoozes would be enlightening.
For withdrawing the sideline barnacles of -Permutations of: AC, AB, BC and currency play of word association: Ahmedi, Lahori, Quadiani;
Thank You, May Allah Bless you and All for nice analysis you are showing. Thanks!
@MusaJ
Thanks for your kind comment.
“So please withdraw your accusation of post-pre 1914 change of heart on MMA.”
Sir, I have already clarified that my point is on the change of heart (change of stance) by members of AAIIL. I will be very happy to see if AAIIL has published anything similar to what was published prior to 1914, referred to in my earlier postings.
I am more than happy to discuss the bone of contention, i.e. prophethood or the word “prophet”.
Onus or burden of proof lies with the accuser though? Or (exclusive-or; in mathematical logic notation XOR) XOR accept accusees current position as has been and work with it?
Any takers for references on ’73 debate in Pak parliment? If any one has any info please document it so it may be reconstructed to see its flaws or otherwise in that discussion? Also see how it’s quality compare with this discussion underway here.
how did an article titled “Can You Declare Anyone Non Muslim Through Legislation?” lead to the current debate ensuing between shah zaman and OMLK
@SZ
The mere absence of a certain proclamation after a certain date does not necessarily mean that the one not proclaiming has changed his beliefs. To prove that you need to produce proclamations from either side of the date and show the contradiction; which you have failed to do so far. It is like someone says that “stealing is a crime” in 2007 and then dies in 2009, and today a person accuses him of changing his stance on stealing after 2008 because he never said “stealing is a crime” again after 2008 and challenges any one to show such a statement to prove the innocence. This may not be an exact example, but does drive home the point that that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. So you need to show that the citation you have given contradicts the post-1914 stand of MMA, and I have no obligation to fish out any post-1914 statements to show that he did not change his stance. Although I do have the intention of doing just that; but for the time being would first like you to actually make a valid case before I present the defense. If you do not understand what MMA’s exact position on the matter was, then withdraw your accusation on grounds of insufficient lack of knowledge regarding the accused on your part.
After we are done with MMA, if you wish, we can also examine the statements of other persons as well and analyse if they changed their beliefs after 1914 or not.
@Bin Ismail
It may very well be more rational to do what you are suggesting. In fact I was initially reluctant to enter the debate that is currently going on. But, SZ and Moosa insisted that the issue currently under discussion was a relevant point and that it would “demolish” my claims. Of course now that a specific charge on Maluana Muhmmad Ali (and others) has been publicly laid and evidence (incomplete so far) presented, it must be answered properly before we move to the many other topics and points intermittently raised by SZ, Moosa and yourself. As I keep on saying, one issue at a time…please!
@
skarlok
It is interesting debate though.
Evolving ideas are commendable in an open market, and personal freedom for themselves! As long as this change does not cost any loss of anothers life or property. Else it is a crime and can/should be debated in the Greatest Equalizer, the Internet, so we make best of our lives and all evolve. Until we encounter another intelligent life, these debates are next best thing to evolve.. Pls do take up the topic at hand, how the Legislature slipped into a block hole? Thanks.
@sharlok
OMLK’s comment on 5 July 2010, discussed below, triggered the debate.
@OMLK:
Brother, it is frustrating that I have to emphasis on the same point a few times. I re-emphasise my point again as follows:
My charge was not against a specific person and that is why I provided statements from 3 scholars of Lahori Ahmadi community dating pre 1914 where they had categorically and unequivocally referred to and accepted that HMGA was a non-law bearing prophet (ghayer shara’i Nabi) appointed by God Almighty.
As to the contradictory statement post 1914, the following statement by yourself (OMLK) on 5 July 2010 is the evidence:
QUOTE
OMLK
July 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm
@Nusrat Pasha
Ref: Questions # 6.
Keeping in mind that many non-Ahmadi Muslims have begun to reject the notion that Isa (AS) is alive in Heaven, I think the primary doctrinal differance between the Non-Ahmadis and (Qadiani) Ahmadis would be that the Qadiani Ahmadis believe that Prophets can continue to come after Muhammad (saws) subordinated to Muhammad (saws); and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was such a Prophet. Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer.
UNQUOTE
And this is not the first or the only statement made by a Lahori Ahmadi. You will hear this view from most Lahori Ahmadis. How is this in line with the pre 1914 position?
And it was precisely the above claim (i.e.: “Of course the position of the smaller Lahore Ahmadi community is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was not a Prophet but a religous reformer.”) that stands demolished in light of the writings of Lahori Ahmadi leaders dating back prior to 1914. This is the change in stance.
Brother, I know that you will now want to get into the anatomy of “prophethood” and the word “prophet”. And sensing that I had voluntarily offered you to discuss this point.
I hope this clarifies.
Natural scientist Newton with his Gravitation Inverse Square law united heaven & earth, still limited his theories to move a planet only. Newton ever demnanded to be worshiped, though we all do, when building wind-turbines, electric cars, generators from bikes. While Religious scientists with total disrespect for billions in China, billions of non God believers, 400 exoplanets and life forms, for everyone else, with ?questionable knowledge of nature, offering to define or Re-define God & God’s Prophets, might be trivial arrogance? Not! Only one watching seems to be Freud. One Freudian slip bares it all: “demolish”, “Demolish..”
Dopamine effect of domination, u did dooke out ur smaller brother, Aha! 4urself. Greed is a self-righteous, judicious maximizer of self interest, no different, here, than Pak parliment. Not what I wanted but I get it. We need Big evolution in our thinking, and reasonings, don’t we?
@MusaJ
Brother, I will be extremely grateful if you would write things in simple English, for the benefit of people like myself who are not mentally as refined as you are. I always struggle to follow you.
We dont need human made law when we have Qur’an and Sunnah telling us who is and who is not Muslim. Its important to know and to differentiate between the two. Secularists, democrats, hindus, sikhs, qadianis, ismailis are not Muslim, by compromising and not declaring them as such makes confusion, when there is none.
@Abdullah,
Would you please cite the Quranic / Hadith source which defines Muslim and makes you believe that Ahmadis are non-Muslim?
Erratum….. *which defines a Muslim*
@ Abdulla
Do you propose another amendment to the constitution to declare secularists,democrats and Ismailis as non Muslims?
@Iqbal, I don’t believe in the constitution of Pakistan, they already are disbelievers from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
@Abdullah,
No one is interested in your crap unless you bring something from the Quran and / or Hadith.
It is such a shame that bigots like you have no knowledge of Islam and they start distributing certificates of Mussalmani…
SZ
Ok, so now you have changed the nature your accusation. From discussing if Maulana Muhammad Ali and two others changed their stance after 1914 or not, now you want to discuss if a statement by OMLK made in 2010 contradicts a statement made by Maulana Muhammad Ali in 1904, and then you want to use this comparison to make a sweeping indictment of the Lahori Ahmadis. I do not have a problem with that per se, but please realize that a sweeping generalized perception of the Lahori Ahmadis can never be debated for precisely the reason it is so generalized. The only way to come to a conclusion is to nail the issue down, which I tried to do by saying:
“Well I can only respond to what I have been given, which is one citation from one person. However, I suppose if the other citations are more or less similar, this discussion can apply to them as well. But that decision can come later.”
Notwithstanding the fact that weblinks to two other citations are also present, the point still remains that only by analyzing each citation one by one can we come to a conclusion (and we got the ball rolling by identifying MMA’s statment to begin with). Just saying that your accusation is not against a specific individual and is generalized to an entire community does not in itself carry any weight, as I can simply answer this by saying that you are wrong! To prove your accusation you must be open to analyzing the specific instances that you have quoted. If the specific instances are proven, only then can you begin to make the case against the whole community. Are you ready to do that?
If you are, then please inform if you:
1 – Want to compare the pre and post 1914 positions of the cited individuals (namely Maulana Muhammad Ali) to see if they changed their stance or not.
2 – Want to compare the statement made by OMLK in 2010 (as quoted by you) and the statement by MMA (and others) in 1904.
If you take option 1 then please stick to statements of MMA himself and ignore what I may have or may have not said.
If you take option 2, then keep in mind that this, at best, can only be argued (assuming without prejudice that such an argument can be made) to show that current Lahori Ahmadis have beliefs at odds with what their leaders used to say pre-1914. However, this will not necessarily prove that MMA himself changed his beliefs after 1914. To do that you need to revert to option 1. If you still want to discuss Option 2 (i.e. current Lahore Ahmadiyya beliefs vs. pre-1914 statements of MMA and others), then first you must withdraw your accusation against MMA (that he changed his stance) and admit the accusation was wrong on account of being based on incomplete information. If you want your accusation to stand, then let us stick to statements of the actual individuals being accused (i.e. pick option 1).
Keep in mind that I am open to discussing all options, but am not open to abandoning the defense of MMA (because you have already laid a charge publicly and presented evidence) unless you withdraw the accusation as stated above. So what do you want to do? My suggestion would be to stick to option 1 (which we have already started to discuss before getting side tracked) and after you have proven your case then move on to option 2 which would actually be proven then almost by default presuming that the current Lahori Ahmadi beliefs = MMA beliefs post-1914.
No we can’t declare anyone non muslim who accepts and follows islamic faith.
@ Shah Zaman (July 24, 2010 at 4:42 pm)
“…..they start distributing certificates of ‘Mussalmani’…..”
You may like to be more cautious with that word in future. “Mussalmani” is a term used also for “circumscission”, in our part of the world.
Regards.
for enabling notification.
@OMLK:
Apologies, as I am traveling these days with intermittent access to the internet.
Firstly, as stated many a times, my charge is against all Lahori Ahmadis as a Jama’at and not against any person in particular. You are not the first one giving a sweeping statement that HMGA was not a prophet. I have relatives and friends who are Lahori Ahmadis and they also give such statements while projecting their belief.
If you think my “sweeping indictment” of the Lahori Ahmadis is too generalised, will you please answer the following question a simple “YES” or “NO”: WHETHER HMGA WAS A PROPHET APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY? Please reply plainly in either a “YES” or a “NO”.
In my posting of July 12, 2010 (at 4:27 pm), appearing above, I had provided you with a complete quotation from one of the writings of Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib that appeared in July 1904 edition of the “Review of Religions” which included the following:
QUOTE
It was only because people had come to know that drinking was abhored by God Almighty Whose Messenger, they reckoned, was the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Such a prophet is needed in the world and not a priest who does not know anything but cursing the righteous. Such a prophet has now been appointed by God Almighty, but people have rejected him in the same fashion as they rejected the previous prophets….This prophet is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who has shown hundreds of thousands of signs in his support and whose followers today are more than two hundred thousands.
UNQUOTE
Now you should check what was published in “Paigham-e-Sulah” edition of 12 April 1914 (after the death of Khalifa 1) with Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib as its editor. I reproduce the relevant excerpts in my own translation for ease of reference. You can find the original pdf document in Urdu by navigating the website of aaiil dot org. It said and I quote:
QUOTE
Al-Fazl says: “According to Curzon Gazette HMGA was not a prophet, therefore his son should be his successor. This is its mistake. Mirza Sahib was a prophet and his successorship should be settled in the same manner as it was settled for earlier prophets.”
We wanted to write about this issue in detail, but will confine ourselves to a short note for the sake of brevity. It is surprising that Al-Fazl in its earlier issue had accepted that Mirza sahib was a zilli Nabi but now it regards him to be a prophet similar earlier prophets. Were all earlier prophets of the same nature as Mirza sahib; were they all zilli Nabi?
Zilli Nabi is only a term for saints. None of the earlier prophets claimed to be a zilli Nabi or clarified his prophethood with explanations and neither has anyone claimed incomplete or partial prophethood
Zilli Nabi is only a term used by saints. They have also differentiated in Shara’i Nabuwwat. In the Quran or Hadith or in any book of any earlier prophet is a reference to this term.
UNQUOTE
You can see the twist in view. In the Review of Religions in 1904, HMGA was directly compared against other prophets by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib. In April 1914, a similar comparison by Al-Fazl was attacked and labelled as an incorrect view and the status of HMGA was simply reduced to that of earlier saints.
If the above is not, then what else would you call a twist in view?
I will be very happy to see if the views appearing in April 1914 had been expressed prior to the demise of Khalifa 1 in March 1914?
@ Bin Ismail
Bro, the incorrect use of a word in a particular section of the society should not change its meaning in the real sense. I was once in an east asian country where in the local language our Urdu word “nahee” (No) stood for vagina and our Urdu word “hum” (us) stood for testicles! Would you stop using these words? It was a funny time we had there as the use of these words could not be fully avoided
@Shah Zaman (July 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm)
Good one.
@SZ
As it so happens I am also due to travel today and all next week…I will only give a prelimenary reply now, and then more detailed response when I can find the time, so please just bear with me for the next 9 days or so.
First a few calrifications:
“my charge is against all Lahori Ahmadis as a Jama’at and not against any person in particular. You are not the first one giving a sweeping statement that HMGA was not a prophet”
Well we already know what your charge against the Lahori Ahamdis is. In fact this is where we started out from! But you yourself later laid a differant and more sepcific charge against specific persons, a charge which you said would demolish the claims of the Lahori Ahmadis; and that specific charge is what we are currently discussing. There is a big differance in saying that a community’s beliefs are at odds with that of its founder, and saying that one of the elders changed his beliefs at a point in time due to wordly interests.
“If you think my “sweeping indictment” of the Lahori Ahmadis is too generalised, will you please answer the following question a simple “YES” or “NO”: WHETHER HMGA WAS A PROPHET APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY? Please reply plainly in either a “YES” or a “NO”.”
I think you misunderstood what I said. The Lahori Ahamdi position is well known, and is right there, spelled out clearly, in our numerous literature and on the website, so I don’t see the point of your question. Nevertheless, the (forced) one word answer to your question would have to be a big and resounding “NO”. Now I would be happy to discuss wheather this is a correct understanding of HMGA or not, in HMGA’s own writings, but after we finish discussing the very specific charge laid on Maulana Muhamamd Ali of changing his beliefs post-1914.
Now your basic contention here is that the two cited quotes of MMA show a change in his beliefs. However, a careful reading of the two quotes in context actually shows that this is not the case.
I will write in more detail on this, but for now, in summary, the post 1914 quote is not attacking al-fazl for comparing HMGA to a Prophet (as you are saying), but is attacking al-fazl for saying he WAS a prophet. In fact MMA points out that al-fazl itself accepted HMGA as zilli nabi earlier….so interestingly it appears that the Qadiani Jammat changed its beliefs. This should be discussed when the current discussion is over.
In short, there is no contradiction beteween MMA comparing HMGA to a prophet and him attacking al-fazl for saying he WAS a prophet, because being compared to something, and in reality actually being that thing, are two seperate issues altogether and are not mutually exclusive. As for MMA’s use of the word Prophet for HMGA, he himself explained many times, that just like HMGA used this word, it is used in a metaphorical sense or in the dictionary meaning of the word in Arabic. This can be seen clearly from how MMA used the word Prophet before 1914 and after 1914.
I will be giving references next to show this, and will also be making clear the context of the given quotes to remove the confusion on MMA’s use of the word Prophet and in what sense it was used; basically proving that he used it in always the same sense both (much) before and after 1914. Once again as I do intend to elaborate and explain every thing in due course, I ask you to allow me to complete my disussion.
The anti-Ahmadi legislation was enacted and passed basically and perhaps solely to cool down the “Islamic” opposition to Z.A. Bhutto, as was the declaration of Friday as the weekly holiday. It has resulted in many violations of human rights and has given the so-called Islamists just another cause to exploit the feelings of the largely illiterate masses for personal and political gains. It has been of little service to Islam.Please note that Jame Azhar has yet to excommunicate the Qadianis as kafirs.
@OMLK:
While I am more than happy to wait for you to complete your argument, I just have a couple of observations on your comment above.
Firstly, my charge was always against the Lahori Ahmadi Jamaat and your own categoric reply to my question proves that. It was solely because of your insistence that I started looking for the change in stance in the words of Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in specific and AlhamdoLillah I found and reported that in my last posting addressed to you.
In response, you have stated:
QUOTE
In short, there is no contradiction beteween MMA comparing HMGA to a prophet and him attacking al-fazl for saying he WAS a prophet, because being compared to something, and in reality actually being that thing, are two seperate issues altogether and are not mutually exclusive.
UNQUOTE
I think I need to refresh your memory here. What was said in 1904 was NOT a comparison of HMGA to earlier prophets. It was a categoric statement that HMGA was (is, then) a prophet appointed by God who had (has, then) been rejected in the same way as were earlier prophets. Only the rejection of his claim of prophethood was compared to the rejection of the prophethood of earlier prophets. I once again reproduce the quotation from July 1904 edition of the Review of Religions for the benefit of readers:
QUOTE
Such a PROPHET has now been APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY, but people have rejected him in the same fashion as they rejected the previous prophets….This prophet is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who has shown hundreds of thousands of signs in his support and whose followers today are more than two hundred thousands.
UNQUOTE (emphasis is mine)
I don’t thing there is any copmparison being drawn here. The only comparison is between the traits of prophets and the treatment meted out to them by their opponents
You have also stated that:
QUOTE
As for MMA’s use of the word Prophet for HMGA, he himself explained many times, that just like HMGA used this word, it is used in a metaphorical sense or in the dictionary meaning of the word in Arabic.
UNQUOTE
Unfortunately, the statement of July 1904 by Maulana sahib is way too clear on the subject and does not leave any room for a misunderstanding.
In any case, as mentioned, I will be happy to know if Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib or any of the elders of the Lahori Ahmadis had issued a similar explanation prior to the demise of Khalifa 1!
While I am happy for you to complete your answer, I know the debate is going to end at the dissection of the word prophet. Sensing this, I had already suggested that we focus on that point.
Bro Moosa, are you following this or have you left us? Please accept my sincere apologies for requesting you not to write posts. I just did not want the discussion to get distracted. I hope you understand that there was nothing against you. Please confirm your existence! You are more than welcome to contribute
Since in all likelihood, the absorbing debate between SZ and OMLK will last till God-knows-when, I thought I might make an interlude. Essentially, there are three questions in this debate, that need to be examined:
1. What status was assigned to the Promised Messiah by the Holy Prophet himself?
2. How does Ahmad of Qadian himself define the term “nabi”?
3. What kind of a nabi (prophet) does Ahmad of Qadian claim to be?
Q#1: What status was assigned to the Promised Messiah by the Holy Prophet himself?
As quoted in an earlier comment by me, two very pertinent sayings of the Holy Prophet must be taken into account. One is from Sahih Bukhari and the other from Sahih Muslim, both very authentic sources, collectively known as “Sahihain” meaning ‘the two authentic sources’. Both these sayings of the Holy Prophet pertain to the status of the Messiah whose advent was foretold by the Holy Prophet.
a) “…imaamukum minkum…” (Sahih Bukhari). Translation: “(The Promised Messiah would be) your leader from among yourselves”. The Holy Prophet was addressing his ummah. Therefore “minkum” meaning “from among yourselves” would imply “from among the ummah”. A shorter expression for “from among the ummah” is “ummati”.
b) “…fa yarghabu nabiyyullahi Esa wa as-haabuhu ilallahi ta’aala…” (Sahih Muslim). Translation: “Thus Esa the prophet of God and his companions would turn to Allah the Exalted”. “Nabiyyullah” means “prophet of Allah”. In this particular hadees, the Holy Prophet has spoken of the Promised Messiah as “nabiyyullah” not just once, but four times in a row. A single testimony from God’s Messenger would have sufficed, but he made sure to proclaim this four times.
In the first hadees, quoted from Bukhari, the Holy Prophet declares the Promised Messiah an “ummati”. In the second hadees, quoted from Muslim, the Holy Prophet declares the Promised Messiah a “nabi”. If you put the two sayings together, what emerges is an “Ummati Nabi” or “Follower Prophet”. Hence, the status assigned to the Promised Messiah by the Holy Prophet is that of an “Ummati Nabi” or “Follower Prophet”.
Q#2: How does Ahmad of Qadian himself define the term “nabi”?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian defines the term “nabi” or prophet as: “someone blessed with an abundance of Divine Discourse and to whom knowledge of the unseen is frequently revealed”.
Q#3. What kind of a nabi (prophet) does Ahmad of Qadian claim to be?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be:
a) an “Ummati Nabi” – someone who is simultaneously a follower of the Holy Prophet and a recipient of Divine Revelation.
b) a “Ghair-shaari’ Nabi” or a non-law bearing prophet – a prophet sent not with a new law/book but only to serve and revive the law revealed to an earlier prophet – in this case his leader, mentor and master – Muhammad the Holy Prophet.
c) a “Zilli Nabi”. The term “Zill”, in Arabic means shadow. Just as a shadow does not exist of its own accord, but owes its existence to the real object, a “Zilli Nabi” is not an independent prophet, but owes his spiritual status to the fact that he has immersed himself in the love and obedience of the Holy Prophet, attaining the status of “fana-fir-Rasool” or effacing oneself in devotion towards the Holy Prophet.
@Bin Ismail:
I from the very beginning knew that my discussion with OMLK would end up on the anatomy of the word prophet and the claim of prophethood. However, my learned brother has chosen to first defend the indefensible, i.e. the change of stance by Lahori Ahmadis.
Do you or anyone else following this discussion has a comment to make on my discussion with OMLK. That might help cut short the discussion and take us to the root!
@SZ
I am still traveling and had intended to reply, as stated earlier, in detail (with references) to elaborate and establish my points; but you have raised a number of points which need to be addressed to set the record straight:
You said:
“I from the very beginning knew that my discussion with OMLK would end up on the anatomy of the word prophet and the claim of prophethood. However, my learned brother has chosen to first defend the indefensible, i.e. the change of stance by Lahori Ahmadis.”
This is quite interesting. I don’t know what you are trying to prove here, but if you knew “from the very begining” where this discussion would go, then why did you insist on focusing the debate on the alleged change of stance by elders of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement? A discussion on the meaning of the word Prophet as found in the writings of HMGA would have been the direct route to a debate, but it was you, despite my early reservation on going down this route, who wanted to focus the discussion on the change of stance; some thing which you thought would demolish my claim. Now you seem to be of the opinion that in the end the claim would have to be decided on a dissection of the word Prophet. I actually agree with you here, and wish we could cut to the chase. But since you have chosen to publicly lay a false charge on the intergrity of Maulana Muhammad Ali, I have no option but to set the record stright here before proceeding further. The choice was made by you, not me!
You said:
“I think I need to refresh your memory here. What was said in 1904 was NOT a comparison of HMGA to earlier prophets.”
This is quite interesting. The 1904 statement was most definitely a comparison. Also please keep in mind that if I see a statement differently than you, you should allow me the time to explain the reasons, instead of jumping to conclusions and blaming it on my faulty memory. In fact with reference to the 1904 statement let me refresh your memory; you said:
“In the Review of Religions in 1904, HMGA was directly compared against other prophets by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib”
So first you said MMA compared HMGA to prophets in 1904, and now you are saying the opposite.
“What was said in 1904 was NOT a comparison of HMGA to earlier prophets.”
Perhaps you made the first statement by “mistake”! But if it was a mistake, all I can say is you erred on the right side!!! I will not accuse you of changing your stance!!!!!! Now if you give me some time, I will show from the context of the quotes given by you, and other writings of Maulana Muhammad Ali (before 1914) that explain his use of the word Prophet (as we are now discussing, as per your insistence, MMA’s change of stance), and will prove that his stance on the issue was same before 1914 and after 1914.
@OMLK:
My dear bro, I think we can leave it to the readers to decide as to whether the statement in 1904 was an umbrella comparison or only a comparison in terms of rejection of the claim of prophethood. As the text of the statement is available, there is no point in me and you arguing over the interpretation of this statement.
I am certainly interested in other pre 1914 statements of Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib where he explained HMGA’s claim of prophethood in a similar way as he and other leaders of lahore Ahmadiyya movement did after 1914….
If you want to remain stuck on this point, I can provide you with other statements of Maulana sahib dating back to pre 1914 era and relating to the claim of prophethood of HMGA, should you so desire.
On a totally separate note, Bro Bin Ismail has set out a good summary of HMGA’s claim…
@SZ
“As the text of the statement is available, there is no point in me and you arguing over the interpretation of this statement.”
So you can quote a text to level an accusation, but do not want me to present arguments to show that the accusation is not correct. If the presence of a text in enough for readers, then why argue over any thing at all; I mean the writng of HMG are also present for any one to read and draw their own conclusions without us arguing; or atleast that is what your logic suggests. Well it is up to you if want to actually discuss this further.
“If you want to remain stuck on this point, I can provide you with other statements of Maulana sahib dating back to pre 1914 era and relating to the claim of prophethood of HMGA, should you so desire.”
As long as you keep leveling accusations against Maulana Muhammad Ali, I will continue to provide counter arguments and prove your allegations incorrect. Remember you started this point, in fact insisted on starting it; I ofcourse had no choice but to respond as the allegation was a most serious one. It is actually up to you if you want to remain stuck on this point or not!
@OMLK:
“So you can quote a text to level an accusation, but do not want me to present arguments to show that the accusation is not correct. If the presence of a text in enough for readers, then why argue over any thing at all”
Brother, neither we are discussing Mirza Ghalib’s poetry nor are these the verses of the Holy Quran. What we have before us is simple statements in plain Urdu which are self explanatory.
I doubt if our readers here have read much about HMGA or his claim. Accordingly, it is only fair if we present before them the relevant statements. They will require clarification when the statements will probe their minds and they will feel (and I am sure they can feel) that the claim of HMGA is against what they have been taught since childhood. That is then the point where we need to educate them about what is taught in text books and what is actually there in the Holy Quran and in Ahadith that has also been clarified by Aulia Ikram (saints) of the earlier centuries. Our references on the death of Hazrat Isa (AS) can also include the Quranic reference that all prophets prior to the Holy Prophet (pbuh) have passed away, particularly verse 144 of Sura Al-Imran that was recited by Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique (RA) on the demise of the Holy Prophet. On Imam Mehdi, we again can provide detailed references including verses 2 to 4 of Sura Juma’ – the Congregation. We can then tell them what is written in Ahadith about Imam Mehdi and provide references, including that set out by bro Bin Ismail in his posting.
The above is where explanations come into play. I don’t thinkk simple statements made in plain language require any interpretation.
*Notwithstanding the above*, if you wish to dissect the statement made by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in 1904 and then the other statement in April 1914 (in which he attacked what was published in Al-Fazl), I think it would be appropriate to first compare the statement made by Maulana sahib in 1904 to that published in Al-Fazl (which was attacked by Maulana sahib in April 1914). This is important as I believe that the statement published in Al-Fazl was *consistent* with what Maulana mihammad Ali sahib had himself written in 1904.
In July 1904, Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib says and I quote (again):
QUOTE
Such a PROPHET has now been APPOINTED BY GOD ALMIGHTY, but people have rejected him in the same fashion as they rejected the previous prophets….This prophet is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who has shown hundreds of thousands of signs in his support and whose followers today are more than two hundred thousands.
UNQUOTE (emphasis is mine)
The gist of the above statement is that HMGA was a prophet appointed by Almighty God and his claim has been rejected in the same way as the claim of earlier prophets was rejected.
What was puibliched in Al-Fazl in 1914 was as I quote below (again):
QUOTE
According to Curzon Gazette HMGA was not a prophet, therefore his son should be his successor. This is its mistake. Mirza Sahib was a prophet and his successorship should be settled in the same manner as it was settled for earlier prophets.
UNQUOTE
The gist of the above is that HMGA was a prophet and the matter of his successorship should be dealt with in the same way as it was settled for the earlier prophets.
In both the statements quoted above, HMGA has been referred to as a prophet. So what is the difference in the two statements?
The only difference is that in the first statement, Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib is comparing HMGA’s rejection to that of earlier prophets, while in the other statement Al-Fazl is comparing HMGA’s successorship to that of earlier prophets. Anyone reading the two statements together will vouch for me that the comparisons made in both the statements are in fact identical and they point to the same direction, i.e. the acceptance of HMGA as a prophet.
Accordingly, I think the attack by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in April 1914 on what was published in Al-Fazl is essentially an attack on Maulana sahib’s own position that he had stated in July 1904.
I have set out my understanding of the statements made by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib. It will be fair if now you put up your defence on the above and prove my understanding as incorrect
@SZ
You are basically repeating the same thing you did earlier, to which I have begun to reply and will complete it next week once I get back home.
However, as usual you have (unnecessarily in my opinion) raised a number of new issues which need clarification.
“Brother, neither we are discussing Mirza Ghalib’s poetry nor are these the verses of the Holy Quran. What we have before us is simple statements in plain Urdu which are self explanatory.”
I don’t think it is only poetry or the Quran that can be cited without context to the topic and the authors own submission on the matter at other places. You deem it fit to quote and explain to support your point, but appear to be reluctant to let me have the opportunity to show you where you are mistaken in doing so by saying the quote is “self-explanatory”; well it may or may not be so, but your explanation of it is decidedly wrong and I will show that as soon as I get back (next week).
“if you wish to dissect the statement made by Maulana Muhammad Ali sahib in 1904 and then the other statement in April 1914 (in which he attacked what was published in Al-Fazl), I think it would be appropriate to first compare the statement made by Maulana sahib in 1904 to that published in Al-Fazl (which was attacked by Maulana sahib in April 1914). This is important as I believe that the statement published in Al-Fazl was *consistent* with what Maulana mihammad Ali sahib had himself written in 1904″
Nothing can be farther from the truth. In any case I am not going to dissect MMA’a statement any more than you have. Establishing context and the authors intended meaning, actually does not take a lot of dissection when the author has been clear and cosnsitent on the matter before and after 1914; as I will soon show. If you want to change the angle of discussion now that I have started to reply to your particular argument, then I beg to differ as I think it is only fair to finish one point first and then move on to the next.
Dear Gentlemen Shah Zaman & OMLK,
May I very humbly suggest that your debate has indeed reached its climax, beyond which both participants would begin to sound repetitive. The pinnacle one can aim at, in the course of an academic debate, is to clearly put across one’s viewpoint, which in my humble estimation, you both have successfully done, with courtesy and civility. In discussion and dialogue, the Quran lays little responsibility on its followers beyond conveying and delivering the message – a task both of you have already carried out. Man is only responsible for delivering his honest opinion. None of us could conceivably be more accountable than the Messenger of God himself. We read in the Quran:
1: “And We have not made thee a keeper over them, nor art thou over them a guardian.” [Quran 6:107]
2: “Admonish therefore, for thou art merely an admonisher. Thou art not a magistrate over them.” [Quran 88:21-22]
3: “On Our Messenger lies only the clear conveyance of the Message.” [Quran 5:92]
Well done, both of you for setting an example in how to pursue an intellectual discourse without being swept away by ego and emotions.
Regards.
With reference to the original question, “Can you declare anyone non-Muslim through legislation?”, the Quran, very lucidly, lays down a very simple principle:
“And do not say to anyone, who even says ‘salam’ to you, ‘you are not a believer’ ” [Quran 4:94]
A beautiful principle, isn’t it.
Finally Nusrat you have hit the nail on its head. I wrote this article to point out that it is not parliament’s job to declare someone as non muslim. of course since we were in majority, we did it but it was simply misuse of the numerical majority.
Let Allah decide who is Muslim and who is not.
Simply proves people want more control in Life, first through improving definitions of God easy uh!, if that pulls Clergy’s leg then through Legislation as it comes handy for a majority, -still that does not help the country’s lot; -then blame America, till realizing one has to -learn to swim, , harness -wind & -solar energy, rooftop -soil-less gardening, -internet commerce & save life, solve -natural science problems or as they ultimately say: “its the economy stupid”!