Debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution – by Ali Abbas Taj

Via Scoop.itparachinarvoice

Debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution – by Ali Abbas Taj
BY ADMIN Related post: What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis? In his recent article in ET, Pervez Hoodbhoy talks about Shia and Ahmadi persecution in Pakistan. I don’t agree entirely with the article and differ with many of Hoodbhoy’s hypotheses: 1. That Shias are now a ‘minority’ implies this is now a Shia-Sunni conflict. It is not. It is extremist Deobandis attacking Shias. 2. His statement that “Shias had joined Sunnis … to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim” is incorrect and unsupported by any facts, e.g. names of Shia groups or ulama who thus “joined.” 3. He says that the situation in Kurram and Hangu is two-way Shia-Sunni killing. Again it is a case of false neutrality and misrepresentation. 4. And then he sweeps it under the carpet by saying ” …. Shias are numerous enough to put up a defence.” Of course, Shias are not numerous or strong enough to save themselves from an ongoing genocide by those who are institutionally trained and supported by the Jihad Enterprise. Another important fact that is generally overlooked – including by Hoodbhoy – is that while Shias are under attack by an extremist Deobandi fringe supported by the military, Ahmadis’ attackers also include the otherwise moderate Barelvi sect. Debate on facebook The debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution has also proliferated to facebook groups. In one such group, a Shia friend thus presented his views: No Shia scholar was consulted by the parliament in 1974. The one Shia scholar, Hafiz Kifayat Hussain, who was consulted by the Munir Commission in 1954 limited his input to Shia viewpoint on Hazrat Muhammad ibne Abdullah (sawas) being the Last Prophet, without apostatizing Ahmadis or any one else. Some friends stated thatnot one shia alim condemned or protested the ahmediya mosque massacre of 2010, is not true. Maulana Raja Nasir Abbas, Secretary General of Majlis-e Wahdat-e Muslimeen (MWM), a major group of Pakistani Shia ulama and intellectuals, issued a statement condemning the attacks in Model Town and Garhi Shahu the same Friday they occurred. Shia ulama have spoken not just against cruelty perpetrated on Ahmadis, but any of the ‘mustazaaf’ (oppressed) communities in Pakistan. Shia view on kufr (apostasy) or eimaan (faith) of any person is clear, and that is that only Allah or those authorized by Him can determine who is, and who is not, a kaafir. According to Shia faith, it is not for the parliament of any country or for any religious scholar – Shia or otherwise – to decree who is or who is not a Muslim. Rather attempting to do so shall be an attempt to intervene in an exclusively Divine prerogative, and thus itself a polytheist act according to Shia viewpoint. During my search of the Internet, I found this saddening fact: on the official website of the Ahmadiyya community, it is stated in an official document that Shias, naudbillah, believe in the divinity of Hazrat Ali (a.s) and in his, naudbillah, being superior to the Holy Prophet Muhammad ibne Abdullah (sawas). It is such falsehood and slander that has become the basis of killing of thousands of Shia Muslims in Pakistan by brainwashed terrorists. Read the section on Shias in the penultimate chapter of Mahzarnama http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mahzarnama/Mahzarnama.pdf However, to my knowledge, no Shia religious scholar (Ayatollah or Mujtahid) (barring any orator or zakir) ever did takfeer of the Ahmadiyya community. No Shia scholar has ever responded in coin to this slander by the Ahmadiyya community and not protested against their own takfeer in an official document of the Ahmadiyya community. Or shall we be proven big hearted only if we rose in defence of the community that openly and officially attacked our status as Muslims. For the record, Shias are not a minority sect as compared to those who have attacked them, i.e. a lunatic fringe of Deobandi sect. Rather their attackers are a minority. In Shia Islam anyone who claims to be a Muslim has to be accepted as one! All Infallible Imams (AS) of the Progeny of Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and the theologists and scholars who follow in their footsteps accept this! If any speaker from Shia School says anything different than he/she is a fitnah monger not a scholar! It is a part of Shia faith that no temporal authority has the right to determine eimaan or kufr of any person. That applies to the second amendment to the constitution of Pakistan as well. However, is it not a bit rich that a community that officially did takfeer of Shia Muslims prior to the passing of the second amendment, a takfeer that has never been returned in coin by any Shia scholar, would remain unsatisfied until those whose takfeer it has done protest against its own takfeer through the second amendment? (Counter-view: pleae read carefully “belief of other sects…” in the Ahmadi document, it quotes from sunni books labelling shias and others kafirs- quoted by jamat that not to open pandora box. It was to tell the assembly members that each sect had at one time or the other (except) ahmedis have called each other kafir and that should not be the basis of deciding-) Debate on Twitter There was also an extensive debate on Twitter in response to an LUBP post on this topic: What role did Pakistan’s Shias play against Ahmadis? Some extracts from the debate are provided below: Marvi Sirmed
All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention unanimously resolved to declare Ahmadis non Muslims attended by Shias. Ref:Just Muneer Report PP 77
a day ago Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri why shia could not support Ahmadis in 74 read page 187 also other sects. http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mahzarnama/Mahzarnama.pdf Ali Taj
@marvisirmed More resrh Shia/Ahmadi. Un provoked takfeer of Shia by Ahmadis,difficult to support in 74 @AbdulNishapuri http://www.facebook.com/groups/jaagpakistanijaag/332213016829718/
13 hours ago Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi They were in 74 not 52 and not 84. 74 was a technical religious question, never incitement or persecu
a day ago Ali Taj
@Razarumi @AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed Shia leaders had an Islamic gun to their head just like Bhutto did. Granted it was wrong.
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AliAbbasTaj And how does it change the fact that they WERE a part of 1974 decision? @AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention unanimously resolved to declare Ahmadis non Muslims attended by Shias. Ref:Just Muneer Report PP 77
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri And I hope you understand that I’m neither a Shia nor a Sunni. I’m a dhimmie to be frank ( @Razarumi
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi But saying that Shias were not a part of it and kept complete mum, is also a bit of overstatement.
a day ago Raza Rumi
@AbdulNishapuri Sev Shia leaders also signed a statement supporting excommunication of Ahmadis in 74 @marvisirmed
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi The fact that they did not play a role against anti-Ahmadi campaign, is the point that I made in my article.
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi it would be unfair to put the onus of anti_ahmadi riots on Shias.
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri Nor do we find any speeches against anti-Ahmadi campagn. Doesn’t prove Shias were not part of that campaign. @AliAbbasTaj
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@mazdaki Question is: Can “the Shia community” be held responsible (other than their silence) for action of one or two Shia scholars?
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed I agree and support that everyone who played a role in hate-campaign against Ahmadis must be highlighted. @jvqazi @Razarumi
a day ago Ali Taj
@Razarumi @AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed Shia leaders had an Islamic gun to their head just like Bhutto did. Granted it was wrong.
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed I agree that sheer silence should be treated as complicity. @BrolenLentes
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed My comment was not aimed at your person or column. Perhaps condemnation is not the right word, highlighting silence is.
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
RT @MahdiBaloch What moulvi Ismail did to Shias, it is also well knwon, ll send u links once find time 2day or tomrw @Razarumi @marvisirmed
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
Ismail Deobandi (Shia) RT @MahdiBaloch There is a book of his majlis available online in which takes the credit, ll shar with u when find it
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
RT @MahdiBaloch @Razarumi It wasn’t Mufti Jaffar but Moulvi Ismail Daiwbandi a newly convert to Shiiat from Darul uloom Deobnd @marvisirmed
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@Razarumi LOL. Hopefully you can refer to a book, publication, one day @marvisirmed
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed If we condemn Shias’ silence on anti-Ahmadi campaign, how can we condone our own silence on misrep. of Shia genocide?
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@Razarumi Please provide a link to Mufti Jafar’s statement against Ahmadis. Thanks. @marvisirmed
a day ago Ali Taj
@AbdulNishapuri @marvisirmed @Razarumi Shias wanted peace, perhaps in error their leadership decided it was best to stay out of it.
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed Valid point. They should have. Similarly Ahmadis, Sunnis should have spoken against Shia massacre in 1963. None did. @Razarumi
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed Shias can be alleged of collective silence, the same silence which they themselves have been facing since 1950s. @Razarumi
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri @Razarumi it would be unfair to put the onus of anti_ahmadi riots on Shias.
a day ago Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Admittedly Shia leaders of the time did not speak against Ahmediya persecution. But never spoke for it.
a day ago Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Shias were not part of the organized attack mobs in the riots is my only point.
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@marvisirmed Valid point. Collective silence is reciprocal and cannot be condoned. @AliAbbasTaj
a day ago Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri Nor do we find any speeches against anti-Ahmadi campagn. Doesn’t prove Shias were not part of that campaign. @AliAbbasTaj
a day ago Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Also you may ask the victims of the 1952 Anti Ahmadya riots. Answer there attackers were not Shia
a day ago Abdul Nishapuri
@AliAbbasTaj @marvisirmed Agha Poya & Hafiz Kifayat were two prominent Shia scholars during 1950s and 60s. No anti-Ahmadi speeches by them.
a day ago Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Haffiz Kafayat Hussain speeches published, never a word against Ahmadyia. He did testify on Prophet Last.
a day ago
Via pakistanblogzine.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s