Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Sunday,
February 24, 2013 | Amman Message Added March 27, 2015 | Backgrounder
on Qadiani added September 18, 2018
Chicken
coming home to roost for the Shias of Pakistan
Part-I,
Part-II,
Part-III,
Part-IV,
Part-V,
Part-VI,
Part-VII,
Part-VIII,
Part-IX,
Part-X,
Part-XI,
Part-XII
In reaction to
the ongoing targeted Shia killings in Pakistan as the new “kafirs”
(see Some
Context for Shia Killings in Pakistan
and The
New SAVAK in Pakistan),
while researching the role of fanatical Sunni sects in condemning the
Qadianis previously as the original "kafir" in 1973-74
under ZA Bhutto's Islamization drive to neutralize the American
sponsored religious right, I stumbled upon the following gem. Watch
this video clip, at time 1m 55 sec:
Chicken
coming home to roost for the Shias of Pakistan?
Caption Quoting
the late Pakistani Shia scholar, Allama Irfan Haider Abidi,
(translation is mine): “All
the Muslims in the world would not have been able to declare Qadianis
kafir if 'Ali Waale' were not present!” (Allama
Irfan Haider Abidi, Qadiyani Aur Sunni Main Farq?, 1990s, time
1m 55s,
translated by Zahir Ebrahim)
Caption
Quoting the late Pakistani Shia scholar, Allama Irfan Haider Abidi,
why the Shia pulpit is protected from officially being declared
'kafir' in Pakistan; which perhaps explains the psychology behind why
it was easy for the 'Ali Waale' (video above) to team
up with the fanatic Sunni pulpits against the Qadianis' political
disenfranchisement orchestrated by ZA Bhutto in 1974 ––
when they could have just as easily recused themselves from the
political charade even if no one rationally dare declare Shias
'kafir' (translation is mine):
“I am
speaking from both Shia and Sunni point of view. In Islam, there is
no concept of majority and minority. In Islam only non-Muslims are
called minority. (Some instructions to the listeners to pay close
attention and to stop sloganeering) In Islam the Muslims are always
in the majority (by definition); even if among 200 non-Muslims there
are only 2 homes (that are Muslim). And minority is 'scheduled
caste'; the non-Muslims are called the minorities. And responsible
citizens are sitting here. Our Mr. Shah sahib participated in the
formation of the 1973 Constitution, and he knows better; he is also
an advocate, and he is very experienced; he has studied
constitutional law. Our Mr. Qizalbash sahib is also sitting here; and
he also knows. And other law experts must also be present here.
The
1973 Constitution had clearly written the words “non-Muslim
minorities” in reference to Personal Law. Meaning, those
minority communities which are not Muslim. Personal Law was only for
them. We don't except the Western terminology of Personal Law and
Public Law.
The
1973 Constitution made it clear-cut that Personal Law will only be
for minorities. After that, during the military dictatorship rule
when the 1973 Constitution was disfigured, this clause was removed.
And then every (Muslim) sect was given freedom to do whatever they
want under Personal Law. Every sect does not need freedom in Personal
Law to do whatever they want. I am not going to bury my dead by
asking the government first. It is my right.
Pakistan's
1973 Constitution was subverted and disfigured through amendments
during the military era. Go pick up copies of the Constitution and
examine it. This reference to Section 227 that is often made; it was
subverted, disfigured. Where other aspects of the Constitution have
been disfigured, this has also been disfigured.
Personal
Law is only for minorities. And the term "minorities" in
Islam is exclusively reserved for kafirs. Until such time that
someone does not declare us (shias) kafirs, we don't accept any
Personal Law. And there is no such brave person, 'mai ka lal', born
to any mother, who can dare declare those who follow Ali as 'kafir'.
I swear by God. (cheering).
Writing
on doors and walls nothing happens; just writing "kafir kafir",
dear listeners, nothing can happen. Because, and this is our only
main advantage (or superiority), that no one can ever declare those
who say "ya Ali" to be 'kafir'.
And
the reason no one can declare that, is because we also say "la
illaha illallah", we also say "Muhammad-un rasool ullah",
and immediately after that we say "Ali-un vali ullah". And
after saying "Ali-un vali ullah", it becomes an automatic
announcement (a declaration of faith) that now no more messengers
will come, because now Ali's Imammate has commenced! (cheering) Are
you paying attention? Reflect again.
As
for declaring the Shia-an-e-haidar-e-karar 'kafir', friends, if you
ask me my personal opinion, I pray to Allah, someone should really
declare us 'kafir', just one time. By just someone's proclamation one
of course does not become 'kafir'. And a kafir declaring someone else
'kafir' cannot make the momin (Shia) 'kafir', obviously. (laughter,
sloganeering).
But
I would like to say at least this little thing, that God willing, it
should come into someone's mind to declare Shia-an-e-haidar-e-karar
'kafir'.
Remember,
it is from our beliefs that the existence of Pakistan is intimately
associated (or dependent). Pay attention, I am stating a very
important sentence. And this voice should be spread if the news media
representatives whom I had especially invited are present here. My
message should be spread, and very responsible citizens are present
here.
In
all their presence I am stating: it is with our beliefs and (our)
Islam that the future of the entire country is intertwined. I am
saying just try it – if we are declared 'kafir',
constitutionally, Pakistan's Resolution, the 1940 Resolution, the
1945 Convention, the 1930 Allahabad Convention (Sir Muhammad Iqbal's
1930 Presidential Address, Allahabad, 29 December 1930), all these
will automatically become null and void!
The entire
conception of Pakistan will become null and void. Because, if we are
declared 'kafir', then the founder of Pakistan also becomes 'kafir'!”
(Allama Irfan Haider Abidi, 8th
Muharram 1990 at Karachi, time
43m 55s to 49m 18s,
translated by Zahir Ebrahim)
When
a people are not very principled, when their rulers' and leaders'
politics is based on expeditious reasoning, and political expediency
is the foundation of rule of law, as it has been for the entire 65
year history of Pakistan, what goes around comes around. The fact,
according to the Shia scholar in the first video above, that the “Ali
Waale”, meaning the Shia scholars, participated in conferring
that epithet of official kafirdom upon another peoples, the
Qadianis, leaves the ongoing Shia killings today in the name of their
own kafirdom, with the tail wagging the dog. The logical
invincibility proclaimed in the second video not being all that
effective in protecting the ordinary Shia peoples from the daily
targeted wrath of the barbarians. Someone evidently forgot to inform
the murderous barbarians and their manufacturers and handlers that
the Shias are invincible!
If
there is substantive truth to this matter of the Shia pulpit being
instrumental in clinching the theological argument for condemning
another people to political disenfranchisement, I hasten to reason
with all fairness that before the Shias (and the Sunnis who also will
not escape being made victims in similar numbers) can claim any
sanctuary from these manufactured barbarians, they must first
apologize to the Qadianis. All Muslim peoples of Pakistan must
together endeavor to collectively end this long beleaguered
minority's political dispossession in order to save their own
respective skin. So long as the Qadianis remain “kafir”
-- that precedent-setting fault-line among Islam's followers will
eventually be made to devour all Muslims.
For each one of
you, well, except for the few who are converts to Islam, your
religion is your inheritance, just as it is for me. There is
absolutely no merit in you being born a Shia, or Sunni, or demerit in
being born a Qadiani, and for that matter a Dalit or any other. We
were all born in our respective homes and socialized into our
worldviews, our faith, our beliefs, our loves, and also our hates
(see Islam
and Knowledge vs. Socialization).
Being condemned and dispossessed of political rights, marginalized
and killed, because of one's beliefs – that used to happen in
the Dark Ages in most parts of the world, and still happens in
Palestine today for the Palestinians under occupation. But why does
that still happen in Pakistan? It is easy to point to effects and
think them to be the cause. Cause and effect are two different
things. Blood-drenched sectarianism is the symptom, like the ugly
boil on the syphilis ridden new bride's lip. What is the cause? The
principal first cause is the directionless-ness of the nation; carved
from blood and dispossession, never forging an independent national
destiny, and preferring to continue as the newly freed but still
emotionally dependent slave of the massa.
We
don't even have a sensible understanding of what is likely obvious to
even intelligent first graders in the West. One is criminalized in a
civilized society only for one's acts of crime – and beliefs
are not a crime in a civilized society. Except, when it becomes
Orwellian; when even thought-crimes can be defined by the fiat of law
to carry the death penalty. In such a dystopian society, no one is
immune from being made kafir, terrorist, or even
classified as suffering from a psychiatric illness such as the newly
coined “oppositional defiant disorder” and locked
away for life --- once that cat of marginalizing a people based on
their beliefs is let out of the bag!
So
why were the Shia and Sunni Muslim public in Pakistan silent in 1974
when their respective scholars were condemning another minority to
kafirdom? When many good people remain silent to the travails
of others, the few bad people take over and screw each good people in
turn. Duh! It is for this reason that Solon, the ancient Athenian
law-giver, advocated for social responsibility as not just a moral
requirement, but a legal requirement. When asked which city he
thought was well-governed, Solon said: “That city where
those who have not been injured take up the cause of one who has, and
prosecute the case as earnestly as if the wrong had been done to
themselves.”
To overcome that
banality of evil has been the principal teaching of all religions,
but specifically Islam (see Islam:
Surah Al-Asr of the Holy Qur'an
and Path
Forward: Impacting Muslim Existence).
We turned that lofty religion into a bunch of rituals, and my sect's
is bigger than your sect's childish rivalry among the few which
continued to spread by way of socialization into self-righteousness.
Its natural culmination is the barbarianism now being visited upon
those previously silent and too busy pursuing their own “Pakistani
Dream” – both in and out of the mosques – to give a
fck about anyone else's blood being shed. It isn't my blood, my
child, my wife, my brothers and sisters, my parents – phew.
Let's move on to the next channel see what's playing.
What
share should we apportion to ourselves for our public apathy and
silence for this carnage that is now Pakistan? We hasten to blame our
national misery on the rampages of the pirates, on the greed of the
politicians, and on the emperor's armies and think-tanks playing the
new great game on the grand chessboard. What has been our tacit role
in rubber-stamping their rampages with our indifference, with our
abiding signatures, and with our quiet compliance?
Just
because you are a Shia, or a Sunni, or a Christian, or whatever other
minority peoples exist in Pakistan, and your erudite turban or
shalwar-kameez excretes poison for others, especially when you are a
majority, you don't have to go along with your tribe “United We
Stand”. Have the courage to instead “United We Stand”
with moral decency, with civic mindedness, with fairness, with
justice, diligently applying the Golden Rule “do
unto others as you have others do unto you” to
adjudicate upon any and all matters; and today the Shia ass would not
be in the line of fire of these antediluvian manufactured barbarians
– because the Qadiani ass would also never have been in that
line of fire.
To be effective
in stopping this carnage for any one sect, the carnage must stop for
all citizens regardless of their sect and religion. Given the state
of narrow parochialism the mass Pakistani mind has been reduced to
today, only a firm separation of religion and state with all citizens
accorded the same rights and privileges irrespective of religion; the
adoption of the principle of amicable co-existence derived from verse
5:48
of the Holy Qur'an as mandatory for
all sects and religions accorded recognition by the state (see Path
Forward: Impacting Muslim Existence);
and the elimination of religion identification from the Pakistani
national identity card and passport; remain the core national first
course of action before the country disintegrates completely. Many
people all across Pakistan have reached this conclusion of separation
of state and religion which all the political founders of Pakistan,
without exception, advocated, and the Muslim public who supported
them with their own blood, expected. If a referendum is taken today,
it should not surprise anyone that the overwhelming majority of the
ordinary Pakistani public even three generations later, despite the
national dysfunction, will also still agree with it.
The problem is
not [the lack of] abstract theory. It is the intertwining of
political will and the power nexus in Pakistan that is still entirely
beholden to the same white
man's burden now
merely wearing the indirect “liberal” garb of democracy
instead of the iron fisted one of direct colonial occupation. Here is
the pertinent text of the founder of beleaguered Pakistan, Mr.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah's first Presidential Address to the Constituent
Assembly of Pakistan, August 11, 1947. Excerpted from G. Allana,
Pakistan Movement Historical Documents, University of Karachi, 1969,
pp. 407-411 (via source,
cached):
“[[7]] I
cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit,
and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and
minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community --
because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias,
Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas,
Khatris, also Bengalees, Madrasis and so on -- will vanish. Indeed if
you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India
to attain the freedom and independence, and but for this we would
have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another
nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls, in subjection;
nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody
could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for
this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from
this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free
to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State
of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that
has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you
know, history shows that in England conditions, some time ago, were
much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics
and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some
States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars
imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in
those days. We are starting in the days
where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one
community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed
and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we
are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State. The
people of England in [the] course of time had to face the realities
of the situation, and had to discharge the responsibilities and
burdens placed upon them by the government of their country; and they
went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with
justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what
exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great
Britain, and they are all members of the Nation.
[[8]]
Now I think we should keep that in front of
us as our ideal, and you will find that in course of time Hindus
would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not
in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each
individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.
[[9]]
Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time; and
thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I
shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play
without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or
ill-will; in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding
principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I
am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward
to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest Nations of the world.”
--- Muhammad Ali Jinnah's first Presidential Address to the
Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, August 11, 1947.
Unfortunately,
to undo the Gordian knot of provincialism tied on Pakistani politics
since its very inception is gonna take more than a few wise men,
regurgitation of theory, and referendum; and isn't that the truth!
There
are many lessons to be learnt from history, but the one that
continues to impress me is the fact that once a Gordian knot
is tied upon any matter, or any nation, a thousand wise men may not
be able to untie it. When Imam Ali acquired the reins of the
Caliphate due to the public finally pleading with him to take charge
of the Muslim nation after its third Caliph's assassination when a
Gordian knot had already been tied upon the internal affairs
of the rapidly emerging new ruling-state that was fast reaching the
shores of the Roman Empire, Persia and India, even the singular “gate
to the city of knowledge”, the most fearless warrior and
most sagacious saint-scholar of Islam who had protected Islam and its
Prophet from the very first proclamation of the religion, was unable
to undo the civil wars that besieged his 4-1/2 years in power. He was
condemned to the worst internecine warfare that any nation has ever
witnessed in order to protect the integrity of the new Islamic state
from total disintegration within. As history is witness, that Gordian
knot led to the incomparable assassination of his entire family
after his own assassination; in other words, to the assassination of
the noble Prophet of Islam's own family by the Muslims; and to the
creation of the first Muslim dynastic empire by the Ummayads, the
children of Abu-Suffian, the greatest antagonist of the Prophet of
Islam! This history is so painful for Muslims to accept despite the
distance of fourteen centuries that the vast majority still apply
semantic sugaring to the abhorrence to make it more palatable to
their delicate constitution that is unable to digest reality in its
uncooked state. That Gordian knot has affected both the
understanding, and the practice of Islam, to this very day. Such is
the power of a Gordian knot!
Perhaps the lack
of the many wise men in Pakistan who can even begin to tackle the
Gordian knot tied upon this nation can be made up by every
ordinary man woman and child in Pakistan screaming NO to their own
banality of evil; they can stop being silent bystanders while
waiting for their turn to become the next victim of the barbarians –
both the pirate and the emperor; and stand up to have their presence
felt in society. What that means for the upcoming 2013 elections (and
all future elections in Pakistan so long as Pakistan remains a
geopolitical pawn and vassal-state ruled by house niggers, useful
idiots and mercenaries) can be read in Some
Context for Shia Killings in Pakistan.
In continuation
of my examination of What
Role did Shias Play in Condemning Qadianis to Kafirdom in Cahoots
with Sunni Scholars in 1974?,
the fact that Muslims under the tutelage of their religious as well
as secular leadership continue to harbor the ill founded superiority
complex borne of uber self-righteousness that they have the right to
define who is a Muslim and who isn't, was once again demonstrated in
2005 in The Three Points of The Amman
Message. Once again the Qadianis
were left out of the fold in that invited congregation of the pious
from all over the Muslim world who self-righteously declared:
'(1)
Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib)
of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the
two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi),
the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of
Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate
is impossible and impermissible. Verily his (or her) blood, honour,
and property are inviolable.' --- http://ammanmessage.com
What
would be incredibly funny in this declaration made at the
International Islamic Conference in Amman Jordan under the
benefactorship of the Hashemite Kingdom, were it not so
pathetic, is that none of the above schools are even mentioned in the
Holy Qur'an! And nor is there any doctrine of rule by kings in Islam
to legitimize the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; and nor is there any
doctrine of hereditary self-appointment to the position of Imammate
in the Holy Qur'an to legitimize the divine leadership of the Aga
Khan (see quote from Aga Khan's letter below self-asserting his
hereditary right as a divine mandate, no differently than the
antediluvian divine right of kings to rule their flock asserted by
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan holding the Conference). The
illegitimates apportioning to themselves the right to declare others
illegitimate, as is usually the case with power that is flushed with
hubris and best captured by St. Augustine at the dawn of the
Christian civilization:
“When the
King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate
defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole
world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber,
and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.' ”
--- St. Augustine of Hippo, The City of God against the Pagans,
pg. 148
What
the Amman Message, signed by more learned scholars and pious
dignitaries than I have the impudence to count, was ostensibly trying
to do was to ban calling Muslims “kafir” by other Muslims
– and yet they chose to define, by their own “Ijma”,
who is a Muslim and who isn't.
Instead
of defining acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior based on rights and
responsibilities for pluralistic mutual co-existence, while paying
lip-service to pluralism, they chose to define faith, namely, who is
a Muslim and who isn't. And they drew upon their favorite hadith
which conveniently sanctioned the very notion of “Ijma”,
meaning, consensus among the self proclaimed self-righteous Muslims
being a valid method of making judgments on Islamic matters, and
extending that to include matters pertaining to faith. Of course,
these super learned scholars and brilliant pious leaders of the
Muslim world forgot that the greatest example of a consensus is a
lynch mob – and that, in a civilized world, a majority
consensus does not justify the poor guy on the gallows to be
necklaced by the self-righteous mob anymore than a self-righteous
nation deny its minority of even one individual a single political
and civil right, let alone deny anyone their human rights based on
their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, or not in conformity to the
majority.
Who
are these Amman scholars, convened under the authority of an
absolutist monarch, to define who is a Muslim? The Conference would
have been more appropriate in debating whether the Hashemite kingdom
itself is justified by Islam.
Where
does the Holy Qur'an give mortal fallible elites – themselves
at the mercy of their limited imagination, limited acumen, but
evidently just as infinite in their power-grabs and kingdoms as in
their ingrained socialization biases and hereditary prejudices which
they self-righteously come to call faith – the right to decree
who is a Muslim and who isn't, or which is a legitimate school of
jurisprudence and which isn't? Can these elites first create an
“Ijma”, consensus, on that question?
No---we
don't care to ask the right questions lest it expose our
self-righteous bullshit!
By
the same yardstick employed at that conference, if Muslim scholars,
Muslim rulers, and other Muslim elites participating in it can't
create an “Ijma” on the more fundamental question of
whether or not hereditary Muslim elites like themselves have the
right first, to define another's Islamic faith, jurisprudence, and in
general what beliefs are legitimate and what aren't, then ergo, that
trumps their reaching any conclusion whatsoever on decreeing who is a
Muslim and who isn't.
This
Amman conference and its feeble-minded declaration, well-intentioned
though it may have seemed to address and bridge a persisting Muslim
lacuna of centuries, reduced itself to a sham by first not passing a
declaration unequivocally demonstrating their own right to pass such
a declaration on who is a Muslim solely from the Holy Qur'an. They
would have clearly failed had they even tried to demonstrate their
right to do so!
The Holy Qur'an,
the singular scripture of the religion of Islam, does not devolve
such a right upon any fallible man once someone has proclaimed
themselves to be a Muslim. See categorical directives in numerous
verses such as: “If ye differ in anything among yourselves,
refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and
the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final
determination.” (fragment 4:59);
or “If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single
people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so
strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah;
it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye
dispute.” (5:48);
etc. Which is why this conference had to rely on historical
narratives on “Ijma”, penned by the hand of fallible man
in the first place, to dubiously assert the validity of their
declaration. They could of course not have used the same external
narratives to establish first their own right to do so because then
they'd be checkmated by the Holy Scripture itself like the
straightforward and categorical verses quoted above.
“Ijma”,
whatever its sacrosanctness in consensual decision making on
earthly matters, still cannot be against the guidance in the Holy
Qur'an, in both letter and spirit. It is a firm rejection
criterion. And when it is not against the Holy Qur'an, it still
does not mean it has any religious validity, or Qur'anic
acceptability, just because it is not against the Holy Qur'an. The
latter is not an acceptance criterion, because lot of things
not in the Holy Qur'an can be passed of as being part of religion of
Islam. This is how any divine religion is adulterated by the fertile
imagination, or malice, of man. The notion that a majority of
fallible people speaking collectively to ascertain a religious or
spiritual truth, whether unanimously or not, will magically come up
with the truth infallibly, just by the preponderance of their sheer
numbers, is absurd. A thousand zeroes added together still adds up to
zero!
While
a majority can come together to determine laws and agree or disagree
on sociopolitical and scientific matters for instance, that is hardly
the yardstick for spiritual matters of faith and beliefs such as
deciding who is a Muslim and who isn't. Being a Muslim is entirely a
matter of faith and understanding; how one interprets or understands
a verse in the Holy Qur'an is entirely one's own shibboleth to
bear.
Which
is why they didn't even try to first “Ijma” on their own
right to “Ijma” on the question that they so easily
adjudicated upon, as any adept junior philosopher able to reason
would have easily countered them. And those unable to reason are
hardly in any position to make any adjudication on any matter to
begin with, let alone on such momentous a question as this.
What
I find the most disturbing in the Amman Message is that even H.H. Aga
Khan IV, the enlightened steward of the Ismailis, their Hazir
Imam, signed off on this travesty as his own minority flock was
conveniently included in the construction of the definition of who is
a Muslim (see excerpt from his letter below). The Ahmedis / Qadianis
were obviously not invited for their own funeral. It is the peak of
prejudice that the Aga Khan who himself declared in his letter to the
Amman conference that he is only the hereditary heir to the Ismaili
leadership, should participate in defining who is a Muslim and who
isn't. By the Aga Khan's own admission, not just Islam, but also his
Imammate of his flock, is an inheritance – the divine right of
kings re-birthing in modernity in the religious guise:
'I
am happy that we have been invited to participate in the
International Islamic Conference being held in Amman, from the 4th to
the 6th of July, 2005, under the auspices of the Hashemite Kingdom.
In light of the purpose of the conference, I find it appropriate to
reiterate, in my message of greetings, the statement I made in a
keynote address at a gathering of eminent Muslim scholars from 48
countries who attended the Seerat Conference in Karachi on Friday,
12th March, 1976, nearly 30 years ago, which I had the honour to
preside at the invitation of the then Minister for Religious Affairs,
Government of Pakistan.
In
my presidential address, I appealed to our ulama not to delay the
search for the answers to the issues of a rapidly evolving modernity
which Muslims of the world face because we have the knowledge that
Islam is Allah's final message to mankind, the Holy Qur'an His final
Book, and Muhammad, may peace be upon him, His last and final
Prophet.
These
are the fundamental principles of faith enshrined in the Shahada and
the Tawhid therein, which bind the Ummah in an eternal bond of unity.
With other Muslims, they are continuously reaffirmed by the Shia
Ismaili Muslims of whom I am the 49th hereditary Imam in direct
lineal descent from the first Shia Imam, Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib
though his marriage to Bibi Fatimat-as-Zahra, our beloved Prophet's
daughter.
I applaud
Jordan, under the leadership of His Majesty King Abdullah, for the
foresight in hosting and organizing this International Islamic
Conference for the purpose of fostering unity in the Ummah and
promoting the good reputation of our faith of Islam. Let this
Conference be part of a continuous process of dialogue in the true
spirit of Muslim brotherhood so that the entire wealth of our
pluralistic heritage bears fruit for the Muslim world, and indeed the
whole of humanity; for ours is the heritage which permiates human
dignity, transcending bounds of creed, ethnicity, language, gender,
and nationality.' ---
http://ammanmessage.com/media/fatwas/fatwas_Page_124.jpg
Right!
For all humanity except the undesirable, the Qadianis in this
instance, re-declared not within the fold of Islam by the “Ijma”
of the elites gathered at the Conference. Apart from the fact that
the Shahada has no specific mention of declaring the finality
of the Prophet, the Aga Khan himself declaring his own legitimacy to
make such proclamation as only hereditary, undermines his own
position as having any legitimacy whatsoever to belittle other
peoples' inheritance. The Aga Khan no more chose his religion, and he
even inherited its leadership by his own admission, then the Qadianis
/ Ahmadis, and the vast majority of Muslims on planet earth. One
would not be remiss in hazarding the guess that 99% Muslims in Muslim
societies are hereditary Muslims. This has two direct implications
for the saintly H.H. Aga Khan IV:
(1) By
participating in this travesty of denying others their respective
claims to socialized faith of birth, and consequently denying them
their political and civil rights in the politically charged and
fanatically self-righteous climate in Muslim nations which often burn
the Qadianis / Ahmadis at stake, the great benefactor of Muslims, the
builder of schools and hospitals, the doer of great social works
worldwide, is being both hypocritical and political. That is
uncharacteristic of the Aga Khan's other public stance of political
neutrality under his famous Doctrine of Neutrality. Evidently, he and
his ancestors are only neutral when they are up against a stronger
power and face existential crisis if they offer any resistance to it.
Then they expeditiously choose compromise as the path of
sagaciousness since “it can supply a bridge across a
difficult period” as was stated by “Sir” Aga
Khan the III, the grandfather of the present Aga Khan, in his 1954
Memoirs “World Enough and Time” (PDF,
Cached).
The sagacious bridge of silence and co-operation with power through
times of tyranny. Dumping on the little guys facing their own
existential crisis however is of course entirely “Islamic”
(sic!). See Ismaili
Muslims and Aga Khan's Doctrine of Neutrality
(http://tinyurl.com/AgaKhan-Doctrine-of-Neutrality).
(2)
By participating in the 1976 Seerat conference convened by the
Government of Pakistan soon after the Qadianis had been declared
'kafir' by the same Government in 1974, is an endorsement of calling
sub sects within Islam 'kafir'. So, I am not sure that some other
barbarians now wishing to dish the same treatment to the Ismailis,
and the Shias in general, don't just have an abhorrent but rather
clear precedent in modernity to fall back upon in defence of their
own misanthropy.
You
start marginalizing one minority, and sooner or later it comes to
your own doorstep. Welcome to the new
kafirs, the Shias and the Islamilis. Other Sunni flavors can't be all
that far behind.
See “Sir”
Allama Iqbal an Ahmadi?
(http://tinyurl.com/Allama-Iqbal-ubermensch#Addendum-Iqbal-Ahmadi)
where this subject of right to belief is separated out from
the diabolically Machiavellian modus operandi of cognitive
infiltration through religion subversion for “imperial
mobilization”. The concluding passage from that examination is
pertinent to the discussion herein of the inalienable rights of
Qadianis / Ahmadis, as indeed of all minorities in any non-oppressive
pluralistic society, and is reproduced below:
'As
the final word, the Ahmadis today, born and socialized into their
core belief system no differently than any other people, including
the Shias and the Sunnis in their myriad Muslim sects, cannot be
denied their political rights in Pakistan and continued to be
marginalized as “non Muslim”. That
infernal question of who is a Muslim and who isn't in the sectarianly
infested Muslim polity is only the devil's gambit to sow discord
among a foolish people. When a purely theological and academic matter
that is best relegated to intellectual discourses in mullah
seminaries among the idle caste posing as the self-appointed
guardians of faith, is cast in political overtones, then those
participating in it can only be the devil's apprentice.
Separating propaganda from religious dogma when the two have
deliberately been intertwined requires expending matching
intellectual energy to confront the villainy, not state sponsored,
and mob tyranny. This analysis accordingly has separated the
propaganda of imperial mobilization from the right to bear any
religion or belief.'
The
plague of kafirdom and takfirism, like the label of
“terrorism”, is an age old instrument of exercising
primacy and supremacy through divide and conquer. Its roots
are not new but very distinguished indeed. They go back to the very
dawn of Muslim Dynastic empires, to the rise of the first Umayyad
dynastic caliphate in the late seventh century A.D. Those unfavorable
to the new Muslim kings, those resisting their authority to mount and
corrupt the pulpit of Islam, were openly maligned and even cursed
from the pulpit itself. The calumny was heaped even on the Ahlul
Bayt of the Prophet of Islam, specifically Imam Ali and his
descendants, of whom H.H. Aga Khan IV is a distant claimant some
fourteen centuries later. The most pious Muslim clergy of the day was
harvested for this task in the service of empire first by the
despotic Muslim rulers themselves!
Spreading
that plague of defining who is a Muslim and who isn't, who is deviant
and who isn't, has remained a most potent tool in the hands of
despotic rulers and empires throughout the ages. The Shia Muslims who
have continued to believe, and still do so today, in the right of
Imam Ali and the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet of Islam to both
spiritually as well as politically govern the Muslims as Imams
in opposition to all the caliphatic empires, have historically
borne the brunt of that plague at the hands of virtually all despotic
Muslim rulers for as long as Muslim empires have exercised their
suzerainty on earth. The Shia scholars and elites, of all Muslim
peoples, should have known better than to participate in spreading
this kind of travesty to yet another marginalized minority who
self-identified themselves as Muslims.
This
plague of kafirdom is eating away at the very soul of Muslim
nations today faster than enemy bombs can be utilized for “imperial
mobilization”! Its utility to divide and conquer remains
unsurpassed. Its poisonous power for propaganda warfare and for
mobilizing the masses for internecine warfare is proven time and
again. Its logical antidote cannot be selective and arbitrary
sanctimoniousness, as the Amman Message self-servingly was,
nor favor one sect or school of thought over another, but
only principled, as should be obvious to even the ordinary
common man of average commonsense and conscience, let alone to the
elites who rule nations and the public mind.
The fact that
the early scholars and founding leaders of the Qadianis / Ahmadis in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, indeed
theologically subverted the religion of Islam to support the tyranny
of British colonialism in the Indian subcontinent, and were supported
by the British masters with imperial favors and patronage, is
self-evident in their own works and in their life and times even
today (Backgrounder below). See for instance the passage pertaining
to the famous Qadiani-Ahmadi English translator of the Holy Qur'an,
Maulana Muhammad Ali, who tried to interpret verse 4:59 of the Holy
Qur'an to legitimize British imperial rule and subvert Indian-Muslim
opposition to it in the name of “religion of peace”, in:
What
does the Holy Qur'an say about Rulership?
(http://tinyurl.com/Rulership-in-Holy-Quran).
It is reproduced below:
'In
fact, the pulpit did not even shy from applying that verse of
obedience to the British colonial masters of India as the
Qadiani-Ahmadi pontiffs did at the turn of the twentieth-century;
Maulana Muhammad Ali, laying its diabolical foundations in his
seminal English translation of the Holy Qur'an, first in the Preface
under the heading: Reverence for authority, pg. xv wrote: “But
while teaching equality of rights, Islam teaches the highest
reverence for authority. ... By those in authority are meant not only
the actual rulers of a country, but all those who are in any way
entrusted with authority”, then elaborated it
further in his footnote number 593 for his English translation of
verse 4:59 “The words ulul-amr, or
those in authority, have a wide significance, ... among those in
authority are included the rulers of a land, though they may belong
to an alien religion,”!'
The
issue of right to belief, right to practice whatever religion
one is born into, or believes in, freely, without encroaching on
others' rights to do the same, and without stepping on others'
freedom in the name of exercising one's own freedom, is orthogonal to
subversion of a noble religion by superpowers to serve their own
imperial interests. Obviously, if one's religion, unlike Islam,
teaches to oppress and enslave others, then that religion of primacy,
the religion of the ubermensch (Nietzschean Superman), even if
it be in some God's name, is not part of this equation of equitable
pluralism. Predators can be afforded no sanctuary in an awakened
society. The untermensch (lesser peoples), must defend
themselves by whatever means that will be effective against such
depraved and nihilistic “chosen peoples” who employ
pluralism, and other pleasing sounding human rights conventions, to
subvert divine religions. One has to shrewdly judge and adjudicate
which is which, support the right to one to one's death, and defend
against the other with one's life.
And it goes
without saying that any resistance to being eaten alive is
always labeled “terrorism” by the predators! As the
timeless cliché of moral relativism goes: “If it
succeeds it is a Revolution, if it fails it is an Insurrection”.
Zionism and global imperialism are these kinds of menacing
“religions” today, the highest order enemy of all mankind
so to speak. And it is in their interest to keep the rest of the
world fighting among themselves with fabricated crises thrown into
the mix as catalysts. Religion is its most fertile ground, especially
“Islam”. See the Raahe-Nijaat
(the way out) series cited at the top of this article to understand
the real enemy and his Machiavellian fabrication of fraudulent terror
as part of the Hegelian Dialectic – the modern modus operandi
for the same age old quest for global hegemony.
We are now
living in the twenty-first century. To know who the real enemy is
today, to not continually fall prey to its vile narratives and
Machiavellian creations that lay the seeds of divide and conquer
for generations to come, to not become embroiled in frivolous and
ancillary issues such as trying to declare who is a Muslim and who
isn't, and to stay focussed on the main enemy who enlists many house
niggers
(http://tinyurl.com/house-niggers)
and other dupes and mercenaries flying different flags and wearing
different uniforms in proxy services, takes both intellectual prowess
and considerable moral courage. As per Sun Tzu in The Art of War:
'If
you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of
a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every
victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the
enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.'
Shame
on these so called Amman Messengers to have failed the Muslim
public when they actually had a slight chance to proclaim some good.
If
anything, these self-appointed guardians of faith should have
declined to give “hawa” (air), declined to fan the fire,
of takfirism. They should have resisted the temptation of
defining who is a Muslim and who isn't. And instead, categorically
asserted that in today's increasingly dystopic and warisome
world, with Muslims and the religion of Islam constantly under
assault from all sides and diabolically demonized as the key
doctrinal motivators for imperial mobilization, full
spectrum unity among Muslims is of paramount importance to counter
the full spectrum scheming to create disunity among them.
The
self-appointed guardians of faith should have categorically asserted
that any force, any fatwa, any activism, which interfered in forming
this unity is forbidden by the force of law. A resolution should have
been passed and sent for legal ratification by all predominantly
Muslim nations, that regardless of how a religious sect originated in
history, or how asinine their beliefs may appear to others, that no
Muslim today has the right to pass public judgment on that belief
(intellectual and academic debates to advance critical understanding
of history sensibly exempted); and if any Muslim, irrespective of his
or her own sect and socialized belief system, who sides with foreign
enemies of Muslims, connives with them to disarm Muslims, or
demonizes other Muslims, or whose behavior and acts are inimical to
the interests of the Muslims as defined under Qur'anic law which
divines Muslims as a single people, is the first enemy within,
of both Islam and Muslims. That such fifth columnists shall be tried
in a court of law for sedition, and if found guilty, awarded the
punishment defined for treason and sedition in their respective
nations.
It
would not surprise anyone that with these judicious distinctions, we
shall find real traitors hiding among all sects of Muslims. Mir
Jaffer and Mir Sadiq, the last time I checked, were not Qadianis! Nor
are the many Sunni Muslim rulers and despotic Sunni Muslim kingdoms
who continue to sell out the Muslims as proxy agents of the empire du
jour. Intelligent distinctions like these help us get rid of all
fifth columnists among Muslims who hide in plainsight in the garb of
piety and mainstream Islam.
Indeed,
what is more pertinent to national and public interest, beliefs or
behavior? That moral and legal distinction demolishes all arguments
ever made for declaring any people who profess the Islamic faith,
kafir. This treatment is consistent with the principled teachings of
the Holy Qur'an. Once again, for the emphasis that it deserves for
its sheer practicality, and as an important reminder to the
self-appointed guardians of faith laboring under their own delusional
la mission civilisatrice:
“If ye differ in anything
among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do
believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable
for final determination. ... If Allah had so willed, He would have
made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He
hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of
you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the
matters in which ye dispute.”
--- The Holy Qur'an
Such
shrewd distancing from takfirism by separating beliefs from
behavior, as the Holy Qur'an has wisely counseled, whereby belief is
exclusively the purview of God, and behavior the purview of man,
would have cleanly separated the chaff from the wheat and closed the
doors to all Machiavellian subversions by empires too clever and
cunning to defeat otherwise. Alas, that was not meant to be.
Perhaps
this style of thinking is considered blasphemous in these holy
circles?
I
can quite understand empire labeling anyone advocating such
self-defence against occupation a “terrorist”. After all,
virtually all founding fathers of the United States of America, all
the signers of its Declaration of Independence, were declared
“terrorists” by the empire from which they had asserted
their separation.
What
I cannot comprehend is self-appointed antediluvian guardians of
obscurantism declaring anyone “kafir” for upholding his
or her own beliefs, just as they exercise their right to uphold their
own beliefs and resist when non Muslims dishonor what they honor. It
is for this reason the Qadianis / Ahmedis die willingly for the sake
of their own beliefs no matter how ridiculous they may appear to
other Muslims, rather than change them for fear of majority. Every
self-respecting people would do just that. Wouldn't you, if by some
magic, a new majority turned against you?
Well,
perhaps not, because bullies are often the worst cowards. The Jews
demonstrated that quite willingly during World War II when they were
besieged by a superior demonic force and chose not to fight back. But
the moment they got the upper hand in Palestine, we can see what they
are doing to a defenseless people. That day may not be too far away
for Muslims –– for, we shall surely be replaced by a
better people who shall not become purveyors of injustices; who shall
leave to God what belongs to God, and pay to man what is man's,
expecting exactly the same recompense in return. And we may be
replaced by a force far more demonic than the Jews experienced! We
are already up against the lot today.
From the The
Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy Munir Report of the Court of Inquiry 1954
(https://tinyurl.com/Munir-Report-1954):
Begin
Quote
-
page 9 -
The
genesis of the controversy that led to the disturbances is to be
found in what has been described in official documents as ‘the
Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy’, which had existed since long
before the Partition. But this description was objected to, in fact
resented, before us by all non-Ahmadi parties, on the ground that
differences with the Ahmadis are not confined to the Ahrar and are
common to all sects of Musalmans. Similarly the use of the word ‘
Ahmadi ’ exclusively in respect of the followers of Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad was resented by non-Ahmadis for the reason that all
Musalmans are Ahmadis, being the followers of the Holy Prophet
Muhammad, whose other name was Ahmad, and that it has been wrongly
usurped by the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. We have decided to
use the word ‘ Musalman ’ to distinguish the general body
of Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from those who
believe in him and the word ‘Ahmadi’, ‘Qadiani’
or ‘Mirzai’ for the Qadiani section of Ahmadis who
believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet (nabi).
In
Part V we will deal in greater detail with the doctrinal and social
differences between the Qadianis and Musalmans. Here we content
ourselves with only giving a brief account of the Ahmadiya movement,
which was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a grandson of Mirza Ghulam
Murtaza who was a General in the Sikh Darbar. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was
born on 13th February 1835, at Qadian, a village in the district of
Gurdaspur, which exclusively belonged to his family in proprietary
rights. He learned Persian and Arabic languages at home but does not
appear to have received any Western education. In 1864 he got some
employment in the District Courts, Sialkot, where he served for four
years. On his father’s death he devoted himself whole-heartedly
to the study of religious literature, and between 1880 and 1884 wrote
his famous ‘Buraheen-i-Ahmadiya’ in four volumes. Later
he wrote some more books. Acute religious controversies were going on
in those days and there were repeated attacks on Islam, not only by
Christian missionaries but also by preachers of Arya Samaj, a liberal
Hindu movement which was becoming very popular.
In
March 1882 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed, to have had a revelation
(ilham) to the effect that he had been entrusted by God with a
special mission, in other words, that he was a ‘mamoor-min-Allah’.
In 1888, again under an ilham, he demanded homage (bai’at)
from his adherents. Near the end of 1890, Mirza Sahib again received
an ilham that Jesus of Nazareth (Isa Ibn-i-Maryam) had not
died on the Cross, nor lifted up to the Heavens but that he was taken
off the Cross in a wounded condition by his disciples and cured of
his wounds, that thereafter he escaped to Kashmir where he died a
natural death, that the belief that he will reappear in his original
bodily form near the Day of Resurrection was wrong, that the promise
relating to his appearance merely meant that another man with the
attributes of Isa Ibn-i-Maryam would appear in the ummat of
the Holy Prophet of Islam and that this promise had been fulfilled in
the person of Mirza
-
page 10 -
Sahib
himself who was Maseel-i-Isa, and thus the promised Messiah.
The publicity given, to this doctrine created a stir among the
Musalmans because this was contrary to the generally accepted belief
that Isa Ibn-i-Maryam was to descend from Heaven in his bodily form,
and gave rise to strong opposition among the Muslim theologians.
Subsequently. Mirza Sahib also claimed to be the promised Mahdi, not
the Mahdi who was to engage himself in conquest and bloodshed but the
reasoning Mahdi who would vanquish his opponents by argument. This
new claim gave further impetus to the opposition to Mirza Sahib and
theologians began to pronounce fatwas of kufr against
him. In 1900 he expounded another doctrine that thereafter there was
to be no jihad bissaif and that jihad was to be
confined to efforts to convince the opponent by argument. In 1901
Mirza Sahib claimed to be a ‘zilli nabi’ and by an
advertisement ‘Ek ghalati ka izala’, explained the
doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat to mean that after the death of
the Holy Prophet of Islam no nabi would appear with a new shari’at
but that the appearance of a new prophet without a shara’a
was not contrary to the doctrine of khatm-inubuwwat. In a
public lecture in Sialkot in November 1904, Mirza Sahib also claimed
to be a Maseel-i-Krishan.
The
Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya was founded in 1901 and at Mirza Sahib’s
own request was shown as a separate Muslim sect in the census records
of that year. The present number of the jama’at is
stated to be in the neighbourhood of 2,00,000 in Pakistan, Ahmadis
are also to be found in other Muslim countries and in India, Europe
and America.
The
new movement had attracted substantial support in Mirza Sahib’s
own lifetime, including several men of consequence and influence. On
Mirza Sahib’s death in 1908 Maulvi Nur-ud-Din became the first
khalifa of Jama'at-i-Ahmadiya. On Khalifa Nur-ud-Din's death
in 1914, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad,
the present head of the Ahmadiya community, became the second
khalifa. His succession as a khalifa caused a split in
the jama’at and a section of the jama'at led by
Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and Maulvi Muhammad Ali, seceded and formed a
separate party, called the Lahore party, the difference between the
two being that whereas the Qadiani party believes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
to have been a prophet, the Lahore party deny this status for Mirza
Sahib and hold that he was no more than a mujaddid or
muhaddas. The seceders set up in Lahore an organisation called
‘Ahmadiya Anjuman-i-Isha'at-i-IsIam’. Both parties are
engaged in extensive missionary work in foreign countries.
End
Quote
Short
URL: http://tinyurl.com/The-Plague-of-Kafirdom
Source
URL:
http://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/02/role-of-shias-in-qadianis-kafirdom.html
Amman-Message
Short URL: http://tinyurl.com/Aga-Khan-Amman-Message
Amman-Message
Addendum URL:
http://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/02/role-of-shias-in-qadianis-kafirdom.html#Amman-Message
Amman-Message
Print URL:
https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2018/09/amman-message-zahirebrahim.html
Pak-Politico
URL:
http://pakistan-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/02/role-of-shias-in-qadianis-kafirdom.html
Print
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/02/role-of-shias-in-qadianis-kafirdom.html
First
Published Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:02 pm | Last Updated February
27, 2013 01:00 pm
Amman
Message Added March 27, 2015 | Last updated Friday, September 14,
2018 11:00 pm 4730
Backgrounder
on Qadiani added Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:00 pm 5780 9291
What Role did Shias Play in
Condemning Qadianis to Kafirdom in Cahoots with Sunni Scholars in
1974? 21/21