I came upon an article by a Bruce Walker, at The New American web site. It was titled "Lahore, Pakistan: Muslims Killing Muslims."
I regret that article is quite misleading and using flawed "logic" to give the writer a chance to bash Islam. The writer's lack of understanding Islam is also obvious and his intellectual pretense quite exposed.
As a Pakistani Muslim, as a student leader at UET Lahore nearly 30 years ago, and now as an American citizen, I consider Ahmadis as Pakistani as me, if not more. (e.g. if they do not have dual citizenship like me).
However, even as a liberal Muslim, I am sorry to say this, but Ahmadis are not practicing Islam. That, however, does not make their citizenship of Pakistan, and right to a safe life there, any less than mine or yours.
A basic tenet of Islam is that Muhammad PBUH was the last Prophet. Ahmadis follow a man as a PROPHET who came and went without being a blip on humankind's radar.
That in itself shows that they are merely a cult that, despite their religious beliefs, has done quite well in Pakistan, and in spite of being officially designated non-Muslims. They generally fare better than Christians and Hindus in Pakistan, socially and economically.
Yes, there are shameful acts of violence against them, but sadly, not more but less than attacks against all of Pakistan in general.
Far more Sunni Muslims (and Shias) have been massacred by the evil AlQaeda and murderous stone-age Taliban than Ahmadis or Hindus or Christians combined. Writers like this article's author conveniently ignore that fact in jumping on every opportunity to malign Islam.
The Ahmadis call themselves Muslims and 4 million of them thrive in Pakistan. Though I am sure they would not be openly attacked or killed, as happened in the recent Lahore incident, I wonder how well Jews or Christians, especially in places with high concentrations of fundamentalist Christians or Jews, would accept a similar group.
Would Jews and Christians welcome a new cult announcing it was practicing Judaism or Christianity but following, say, Adolf Hitler or Stalin as their Prophet and the Messiah? Would Jews and Christians not call the cult as abhorrent to their basic religions if its basic premise was completely contrary to the most fundamental tenet of their religion?
Would they call its leader a heretic or a lunatic - or would they also fall on their knees to revere him as "the providential figure believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims to return and foretell the end of the world, as well as being a preordained figure in Hinduism, the Bahaism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism" as the article stupidly, and disingenuously, refers to the Ahmadi cult's leader as?
So, remember, a terror attack that killed Ahmadis in this case, followed by an attack on a hospital that killed ordinary Pakistani Muslims indiscriminately, is a continuation of random bombing murders of Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries.
It is an act of evil by a political-power seeking gang of zealots the CIA and the USA helped the dictator General Zia create 30 years ago, not some common form of Islam.
But, it is easy for people like Bruce Walker to sit in their cozy dens, seemingly smartly but intellectually falsely, bashing Islam - by making it sound like he's speaking for the betterment of Muslims. If only he was not ignoring the simple tragic violent fact...
It's Terrorists Killing Pakistanis; Muslims, Shias, Hindus, Christians and Ahmadis — either in random or specific attacks. AlQaeda and Taliban represent Islam as much as the Nazis exterminating Jews like rodents were representing Christianity (even though the historic fact of the Christian Church's role in that is well known).
So, those looking to bash all of Islam and all of Muslims for the actions of a few evil murderers (who kill Muslims daily!), remember, it works both ways.
AlQaeda is as representative of Islam as the Nazis were of Christianity or Hitler represented Prophet Jesus, or as the murderous blood-thristy Zionist Israelis massacring Palestinians represent Prophet Moses.
Technorati Tags: Imran Anwar, AlQaeda, America, Bigotry, Christ, Christianity, Imran, Imran Anwar, ImranAnwar, Intolerance, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jesus, Muslims, Opinion, Pakistan, Palestine, Terrorism
"Would Jews and Christians welcome a new cult announcing it was practicing Judaism or Christianity but following Adolf Hitler or Stalin as their leader? Would Jews and Christians not call the cult as abhorrent to their basic religions if its basic premise was completely contrary to the most fundamental tenet of their religion?"
it seems a false comparison, to me. There is nothing about Ghulam Ahmad which makes a fair comparison to mass-murdering tyrants such as Hitler or Stalin. He travelled, preached, wrote, etc. Not quite the same.
there are in fact a number of groups which call themselves Christian or Jewish, but which don't appear to many mainstream adherants of those faiths to be remotely Christian / Jewish. For example, "Jews for Jesus", Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, etc. Those groups aren't worshipped, but neither does it seem to upset people that they call themselves Jews or Christians in the same way as many Muslims deny that Ahmadis are Islamic.
After all, it's no skin off your nose if someone calls himself a Muslim and you don't agree, is it?
One factor that I think you should have mentioned is state persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan - every year some are arrested for blasphemy, for example. And the police regularly fail to protect Ahmadis from violence.
Thanks for the comment. My example of Hitler was not to say whether the nobody named Ghulam Ahmad was comparable to him or not but to how such a group would be considered mainstream Christian or Jewish or not. Hitler I think was originally Jewish as was Karl Marx and they both started what could effectively be called un-religions. But either one claiming to be doing Jesus' or Moses' work would not be tolerated. Sure, Muslims today are willing to kill in the name of religion, but the Church was burning people alive for far lesser crimes than blasphemy. I may not be the ultimate Muslim, but I know what that means. So, I believe the Ahmadi cult has every right to life and the pursuit of happiness and success (that they do enjoy) in Pakistan, that also does not give them the right to claim to be what they are not, Muslims. As far as skin off my nose etc... Muslims merely take their religion seriously, in the West they take trademarks infringements more seriously, I guess. But, I'd love to see Catholics or born again Christians declare that Mormons are fully Christians as they practice. Not going to happen. Only difference is, Christians stopped burning people just a few centuries ago. Muslims never burnt anyone (forbidden in Islam) but in time they too will lighten up and see if any of them is "pure" enough to cast the first stone, so to speak. None are.
But, bottom line, member of the Ahmadi cult are Pakistanis like me and others. They are NOT Muslims like I and others are, however lame or poorly practicing.
Hitler wasn't Jewish, Karl Marx was. But neither did their persecution in the name of religion, whether Christianity or Judaism, so I don't think it's a valuable simile.
"So, I believe the Ahmadi cult has every right to life and the pursuit of happiness and success (that they do enjoy) in Pakistan"
Why, then, does the state prosecute some of them for blasphemy? Surely that is an abuse of a secular authority.
Marx was certainly Jewish, but Hitler himself ordered the bombing destruction of the town and cemetery where his Jewish ancestors were buried. Plenty of historical information a Google search will show about Htiler being part Jewish.
The state (Pakistan), supposedly an Islamic Republic at least in name, can prosecute anyone or them (Ahmadis) based on whatever the law of the land is. That is what countries have the right to do.
Why does Germany prosecute people if they want to be Nazis? "Surely that is an abuse of a secular authority."
there is no proper evidence at all that Hitler was Jewish, and it's most unlikely to be true.
The claim that he was Jewish arose from the fact that his grandmother gave birth to an illegitimate child, Hitler's father. The grandmother was called Maria Schicklgruber. Hans Frank said during the Nuremberg Trials after the War that Maria had worked for a Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz, in Austria.
However, no Jews lived in Graz from 1400 odd until 20 years after Hitler's father was born, and there was no family called Frankenberger there, either.
I don't know precisely what the law is in Germany about neo-Nazism. I believe Holocaust denial is a crime there, and it is in Austria, I'm fairly sure.
Do you see a belief in Islam and a tendency towards fascism as the same thing?
I wonder why so many Muslims protested against the (stupid) Swiss decision to ban mineret building in that country, but think it's perfectly OK for countries such as Pakistan to prosecute for blasphemy?
How interesting to see that Nazis blew up cemeteries to hide the fact and today Jews will deny that embarrassing fact. There is plenty of evidence online to show the connection, my friend. You are welcome to deny the holocaust perpetrator's ironic origins.
German law is to send you to jail. Professors have lost jobs in Europe for questioning the holocaust numbers.
America (and maybe others) will send me to prison if I marry two (or more) women, which is permitted in my religion (and was common among the Mormons). Why is that OK?
Why are no Europeans or Christians or Jews speaking out about this usurping of my rights within America while crying about a developing openly-declared Muslim nation having laws against blasphemy?
there is no evidence to suggest Hitler had Jewish ancestry. A paternal grandfather wouldn't make him Jewish anyway.
I personally have no problem with polygamy in theory, although it tends to be abusive in practice, in my view. But then, from a liberated, free western perspective, being a woman in most Muslim countries isn't much fun.
Post a Comment