Ahmadiya why not Qadyani
Ahmadiya why not Qadyani
Ahmadiya why not Qadyani
The 1973 constitution of Pakistan says about the Ahmadiya or the Qadyani faith that:
1. The Qadyani will not call their prayer house a Masjid
2. Cannot call the Azaan
3. Cannot call them Muslim
4. Cannot call their religion Islam
5. Cannot invite to join their religion
The following observation to the above display on the face book was made by me:
It is wrong to make the Qadyanis out cast. The quote of Imam Jafar Sadiq (a) is that a person who calls him a Muslim is Muslim. The Qadyanis have to be brought back in the folds of the beliefs of fundamental Islam. Like so many Faqih they can have a Fiqah, but not a moderated Prophet. Let them go to Qum and Najaf and if they have will they will find out who has right to speak for Islam from authority backing him on God's ordains.
19 April at 16:43 · Like ·
To which an able friend on the face book has said:
Sayed Athar Husain FYI, The word "Qadyani" is a derigatory term invented by 'deobandis'. They use word Ahmadia for themselves.
Rest , I agree about freedom of religion.Let God do his job of judging.
Vis-`a-vis above, the further observation is; this detached faith adherent group likes to be called Ahmadia and not Qadyani which they say is derogatory to them. Why it is so if one from Deoband is Deobandi and one group from Baraily is Brailwi and one from Qum is Qummi and one from Najaf is Najfi. It is obvious they wish to be branded different; and camouflaged behind their objection is; ‘their status and recognition be maintained separate.’ This belligerence from them must stop and they prepare their mind to be absorbed back.
Below is an extract from my book Shia Culture due to be published in June 2012 Inshaallah:
‘Then if a theologian and revivalist of sanity was doing impartial evaluation and sitting within the demarcation limits of the Sunnat Wal Jamaat, meaning the great Abul Ala Maudoodi glamorising the Sunni faith, he was through disdain called Shia by the local talents and he was condemned or made controversial and never not presented without the showering of criticism. And if Professor Abdus Salam was there, the 1979 laureate of Noble Prize in Theoretical Physics, he was not the lone laureate in that work (electromagnetic weak forces). I met this noble scientist in 1965 at the Imperial College London twice, he took me to his room and once showed me some papers and modestly said his two colleagues’ work input and contribution was immense (I forget their names).
Professor Abdus Salam was a gentle soul and an extremely likeable Muslim, whose faith did not concern me because of his extremely good manners. He did pioneering work for the progress of science in Pakistan, but he was not given his due recognition there because of the faith barrier. The learned of Islam, Khanam Tayyaba Bokhari says, “The Book Holy Quran stresses more on ethics - the Aekhlaqiat than on edicts, the Aehkamat.” And according to Islamic norms it is imperative that this honoured scientist be given his due recognition. His work has been unreservedly accepted and more appreciated in the world than any of our nuclear scientist like of Qadeer Khan.
Such discrimination against independent stand in theology, if it is not Shirk – amalgamating duality with God or challenging prophet (S’s) Risalat, if only presenting hypothesis different than normally prevalent has no basis for rejection as outcast of the religion of Islam. But it had started just within four years of the creation of Pakistan and criticism of Sir Zafrullah Khan the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan had started for reasons of his Ahmadia faith and no one arose above parochialism and worked for the affinity and reform, but each only worked for clean break from each other. And never should extremism be given a free hand, appearing in any form and shape.
“Not understanding and rejecting somebody’s experience of life and potential is contrary to social ethics.” says Philosopher Irene Lauder of Pinner Philosophy Group. And shutting logic is leaving brute force to surface on earth.
A questioner asked Imam Jafar Sadiq AS: “What was the definition of a Muslim.” This Imam of the Muslims whose appellation was Sadiq – one who was true, and one whose knowledge and teachings are the basis of Shia glory and the fountainhead of most of the Sunni Fiqah, replied, “Any person who calls him a Muslim is a Muslim.”
The other side of the story is that these people (Ahmadia/Qadyani) have a tendency to be belligerent. They resent called Qadyani, although there are Deobandi, Barelvi, Qummi, Najfi precedence before them, they take no pride in it. They want only to be called Ahmadia to establish their identity different than the mainstream of the Muslims. This is unfortunate for them and they have to moderate and tamper them.
I was a co-passenger of an Ahmadi passenger from Pakistan to London in 1978. My Ahmadi co-passenger was very anti Hazrat Abu Talib (a) and he was not only a doubting Thomas, but a true hater of Hazrat Abu Talib (a) and said Hazrat Abu Talib did not embrace Islam and did not recite Kalama till to the last and he was a Kafir. All right Kafir to him but not to a very greater number of peoples of the world to whom he was a Wali and etymologist and gave words which became decorative feature of the Quran. This topic is beyond the capabilities of this book and the inquisitive mind should know he used ‘Alhamdolillah.’
I said to this attacker critic of Hazrat Abu Talib (a): “Hazrat Abu Talib did many favours to Islam and God shows love for him.” He said, “God is Bay-nayaz – He is without need, He does not eat, does not drink and needs no Aehsan - any favours shown to Him. And He still considers someone a Kafir, an infidel, even if he does favour to Him and does not say Kalama.” – The key words pronouncing a Muslim – Muslim.
What my co-passenger was saying was that God was so self centred that He held exactly the views what he held. What my co-passenger did not realise was that Hazrat Abu Talib (a) was openly helper of the Muslims and a silent Wali and he believed in the Prophethood of Hazrat Mohammad (S) and in the Oneness of God and this was what God liked and it made him a Muslim. This co-passenger was educated and apparently in his good senses, but he did not realise that the Prophet would not suckle and eat from the hands of one who was not a follower of Book and not a Muslim, and worst a Kafir who is Najis – polluted of mind.
This cruelty on Hazrat Abu Talib (a) and the Bohtan or blame on God, denigrating Him that He does not care about Aehsan - the favour done to Him and He relegates someone to the status of Kafir who is recognising Him as Creator and Wali – the Guardian of all the creation is rash and mouthful bigotry. This was crude defamation of Hazrat Abu Talib (a) coming from misguided notions of my co-passenger, since Hazrat Abu Talib’s contribution to Islam of bringing up Hazrat Mohammad Mustufa (S) were owned by God as His own work.
My co-passenger’s faith group before becoming Ahmadia was of a follower of the Fiqah of one of the Char Imams – one of the four respectable Imams of Sunnat wal Jamaat – a nomenclature of the grouping coined by Muawiya, a ruler of no credibility and chastity. Perhaps my co-passenger’s group was from the Hanafia School of jurisprudence earlier to his becoming Ahmadia and whether the belligerence he showed was from his earlier days of the following passed on to him or from his later day belief as Ahmadi, is not clear. But it thoroughly discredited him. The Muslims today believe Hazrat Abu Talib (a) was a Wali and a Muslim who carried faith of Islam in his heart and he was not obliged to display and announce of his faith. God displays His gratitude to him in Aayet 3:115:
And whatever good they do it will not be denied the meed thereof and Allah is aware of the pious.
My co-passenger’s belief, though was basically the outcome of the schooling from one of the four Fiqah of the Ahl-e Sunnat wal Jamaat Imams and though it did not cast aspersion on the research efforts and on the great intellectualism of the four Imams introducing the four Fiqah, but still there was a question that what was the necessity of enforcing these Fiqah as separate entities in the presence of the Fiqah-e Jafaria, which already existed if not in written manuscript, then at least as known laws and it were practiced?’
Afkar-e Shia (Shia Thought)
Sayed Athar Husain
25 April 2012