Two attacks on worship places of Qadianis took place on 28 May in Lahore in which more than 90 worshippers lost their lives. This was the news of the day item I did for Foreign Policy Journal that day. I could have written it the following way:

Two attacks on mosques took place on 28 May in Lahore in which more than 90 faithful lost their lives.

But I can’t. The consequences are too dire…

Before I go any further to describe the consequences, I’ll have to put a disclaimer here. “I’m a Muslim and consider Prophet Muhammad as the final prophet of Islam. I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims.” Otherwise I could be labelled as an Ahmadi.

Despite believing in Quran, praying five times a day in their mosque, believing in all prophets of Islam, and calling themselves Muslims, the Qadianis are not technically Muslims. In the eyes of Islamic jurisprudents they are heretics due to the fact that they believe in a special messiah/prophet named Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Islamic teachings prophesise the birth of an Imam (leader) called Mahdi who will join hands with Jesus Christ on his return to the world to cleanse the world from tyranny and injustice. However, the Indian man in early 20th century, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, does not fit the description of both Jesus Christ and Imam Mahdi. Hence, anyone believing in him is out of the fold of Islam. This is what most of the Islamic scholars believe in and preach.

In the light of the above mentioned facts and rulings, the Qadianis have no right to call themselves Muslims, the place of worship mosque and the book they believe in Quran. If they do so, it is just a vile trick to mislead other people both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

But imagine for a second that the place where the 28 May attacks took place was in the U.S. Let’s say that a few gunmen entered a mosque full of Muslim worshippers, sprayed bullets indiscriminately, set off hand grenades and later detonated explosives planted in the mosque while making an escape. What would be the reaction of Muslims worldwide?

As anyone can expect, an act of this scale will be extremely provocating and trigger instant reaction worldwide. One will see angry people taking to the streets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq; chanting  anti-U.S. slogans and burning effigies of President Obama. People elsewhere in the Muslim world will hold massive demonstrations outside the Western embassies, especially the U.S., and will call for an urgent enquiry of the incident as well as arresting the culprits immediately.

All these reactions will be termed natural and everything will be blamed on the U.S. authorities for not taking precautionary measures to avert terrorist attacks on Muslim places of worship. White House – if not apologising for the incident – will at least be issuing statements of restraint and assure Muslims that it is doing its best to arrest the terrorists and foil such incidents in the future.

However, the incident took place in a nation that is an Islamic republic and is considered to be a bastion of Islam. It is a Muslim majority country and the constitution of the state allows its citizens, regardless of their faith and belief, to exercise their rights without any fear.

The status of Ahmadis of being Muslims or non-Muslims is debatable. However, the treatment meted out to them is nothing less than despecable and disgraceful by all standards. While Islam calls on its believers to stay away from heresy and apostasy, it gives other sects the right to exist. At least the Muslim history proves that many offshoot sects came into existance from the early Islamic age of Medina and are still followed by thousands of people across the Muslim world.

Kingdoms upon kingdoms of Muslim rulers controlled the Middle East, North Africa, South and Central Asia and Far East, however, these sects were never rooted out from the public sphere. In fact many sects were given a chance to practice their belief as long as they stayed within the confines of their place of worship.

It is astonishing to see that many Muslims, despite being observing and God-fearing, do not condemn the killings of people who believe in faith other than their own. The beheadings of innocent people in Algeria a decade ago, the current campaign of cowardly attacks on Shia pilgrims in Iraq, the rain of death and desctruction on Ahmadis in Lahore, the cleansing of Yazidis and other ancient sects in Iraq and the tit-for-tat Shia-Sunni killing in war-torn countries like Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan go uncondemned by majority of the Muslims across the world. A criminal silence is observed and one wonders why?

Do Muslims not realise the fact that keeping a mum on such atrocities or in fact supporting them advertently or inadvertently hurts their interests worldwide and portrays them as a bigoted and hypocritic nation while standing against their own faith? Why is it that killings of Muslims by Israelis in Occupied Palestine or Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan instantly invites the wrath of the common man in Muslim world wheareas any person belonging to the offshoot sect that is affiliated with the Islamic faith is somehow overlooked and neglected by the very same masses?

The bloodbath of Qadianis six weeks ago stirred the political scene in Pakistan and triggered a public debate. People are asking if such attacks should be condemned regardless of the faith of the victims and condolences should be sent to the bereaved. However, many politicians and public figures came under fire for expressing sympathy with the Ahmadi community and attending their funeral services. Why did several religious leaders in the country and abroad raised hue and cry at people who sought to express their sorrow over the loss of lives of fellow countrymen who are after all human beings?

While we, as Muslims, insist that our religion is of peace and safety, our governments fail to protect the lives and properties of religious minorities that are targetted by the hands of a small but very powerful minority yearning to impose a puritanical form of Islam from the shores of Atlantic to the Islands of Pacific. The common man, in the meanwhile, stands confused in the middle whether to oppose such heinous acts on fellow human beings or keep quiet as it may have an impact on his/her faith and they might be branded as a heretic for expressing their sympathies with particular people or sect.

Now, the clash in the mind of an ordinary Muslim is between common sense/empathy vs religious bigotry. We either rise up against tyranny of all sorts or play the pick and mix game of hypocrisy while professing the faith… One way leads to revival and glory while the other pushes to the pits of decline and pity.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 8th, 2010 at 6:01 pm and is filed under Faith, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.