Address delivered by Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih V (may Allah strengthen his hand), Supreme Head of the Worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community, delivered at the opening of the Baitul Ahad Mosque, East London on 8 May 2010.

After reciting Tashahhud, T’awwuz and Bismillah, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih V^(aba) said:

“All the distinguished guests, brothers of our Community and sisters, Assalamu ‘Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatahu (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you)

I am very grateful to all the guests who have accepted our invitation and come here as a gesture of goodwill and thus contributed to social peace and unity. This shows your open-heartedness and inherent goodness, and it also shows the desire within you that irrespective of differences in religion, a high regard is paid to human values. If one begins to recognise human values, then much of the turmoil and disorder of the world can be eliminated.

According to our teachings, which are the teachings of the Qur’an, the sacred Book of Muslims, all the prophets sent by God, from Prophet Adam^(as) until today, brought the same teachings. And that teaching is that you should develop a relationship with God and discharge the rights of mankind. Once you begin to look for these higher values, then will you deserved to be called a human being.

The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community^(as), whom we believe to be the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, has also drawn particular attention to this. He said that he had been sent to remove the darkness that had begun to develop in the relationship between God and His Creation, and replace it with love and sincerity, and also to set the basis for reconciliation by manifesting the Truth and thus bring an end to religious wars.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim community is marching forward with this mission so as to cause people to recognise God, their Creator. We can recognise God through our loyalty and sincerity towards Him. It is in this way that the beautiful teaching of Islam – of peace, harmony and reconciliation – can be displayed. And by causing this message to spread, religious hatred is removed.

In order to establish a bond with God Almighty, it is necessary to worship Him. When many people come together for worship it has a great impact. It pleases God Almighty when a group of people collectively display their love for Him and join together as one, bowing down before Him. This is why we see places of worship in all faiths.

A mosque is a place of worship for Muslims and it is built for worshipping God five times daily – and this is, and should be, its true purpose. Apart from this there is no other purpose. A mosque means a place where people prostrate; where they show extreme humility and humbleness in total submission and obedience. By placing your forehead on the ground, it demonstrates total humility. Whenever the real concept of a mosque emerges in the mind of a true Muslim, it will always manifest itself as a place of worship of total obedience.

Who are truly obedient towards Allah? The Holy Qur’an mentions such people in a number of verses. The sum total of their definition is that the obedient are those who discharge the rights of Allah and His Creation.

In compliance with the command of Allah, when a person discharges the rights owed to God and searches for different ways to please Him, it is not possible that such a person will usurp the rights of God’s Creation. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community has taught us that if you want the world to become aware of the beautiful teachings of Islam, then you should build mosques. And when the rights of the mosque are discharged, then the people near the mosque will become aware of the beautiful teaching of Islam.

If a mosque is a dangerous place where the lava of hatred is always on the boil, where there is an absence of tolerance and teachings of extremism are prevalent, then, can such a mosque be a symbol of the true and beautiful teaching of Islam? Certainly not! The concept of mosques emerging in the world today is entirely incorrect concept.

In Switzerland, a law has been enacted to ban minarets, but as I have explained at many places, the minarets of mosques are in reality symbols of light and knowledge. Mosques are the centres of discharging the rights of Allah the Almighty and His Creation – and that is the way it ought to be.

If a particular group has committed something wrong in a mosque, this should not be unnecessarily exploited so that Muslims across the board are wrongly labelled, and therefore it would be prudent not to hatch schemes against all mosques.

I asked a few days ago that even if we suppose that conspiracies and plans to destroy the peace of society are drawn up in a particular mosque, then by preventing the building of minarets, what guarantee is there that, as a result, only calls for peace in society will be heard from such mosques?

If, in any place of worship, or any religion, efforts are made to destroy social peace, then it is the task of the government to implement legal measures against this; but to generalise the situation is nowhere near justice. It should always be remembered that peace in society can only be established by fulfilling the requirements of justice. A mosque or any other place of worship is not responsible for destroying the peace of a society; nor for that matter are people belonging to a particular faith. In fact, the factors that destroy peace in society are: the malice within one’s heart, not tolerating or showing respect to the faith of one another, material attractions and not fulfilling the requirements of justice.

In today’s cosmopolitan world, there are people from different faiths and nationalities in every country; and particularly in this area of London, people from different communities and religions are living side by side. We should make every effort to fulfil the standards and requirements of justice; we should respect and hold each other in high regard, so that in this area, in this town, in this country and in this world we can play a positive role in establishing peace.

How does the Holy Qur’an admonish us to fulfil the rights of justice? It states in Chapter 5, Verse 9:

…Let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.

Once these standards of justice are established it will guarantee peace in society. So, this is our teaching. We, Ahmadi Muslims, do not hold enmity against anyone. If anyone bears animosity towards us then, out of human sympathy and love for humanity, we pray for him that Allah guides him and removes the hatred from his heart.

To fulfil the requirements of justice, it is just as important to protect the rights of your opponent, as it is to protect the rights of a friend or your own rights. This is a golden principle for establishing peace in society.

It is very important to understand the truth of the matter and to fulfil the requirements of justice. Therefore, we must adopt this important and fundamental principle so that we are not hasty in jumping to a conclusion by looking at only one side of the picture. In fact, we should delve deep in search of the truth. If we object to the conduct of a few who go to any one particular mosque then, as I have said, this should not be generalised, but the specific case should be investigated. If we follow this principle then it will prove to be the means for securing the peace of society.

For the benefit of non-Muslims present here today, I should also say that the Holy Qur’an has made mosques the guarantor for the peace and security of all other places of worship.

When we look at Islamic history, we can clearly observe the enmity by the non-believers of Makkah against Islam. The barbaric cruelty meted against the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and his Companions was so horrific that when ones hears of it, it makes one’s hairs stand on end.

Continuously, for thirteen long years, the Muslims put up with this cruelty, and then according to the command of God, the Holy Prophet^(saw) migrated to Madinah. But even there, the non-believers manifested their barbaric cruelty. At that time the Muslims were permitted to fight, but not to defend Islam alone, but in defence of all religions. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an, in Chapter 22, verses 40-41:

Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged – and Allah indeed has power to help them. Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’. And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.

Thus, this permission is granted in order to protect places of worship and believers in God where the mischievous have excelled in their mischief and the cruel have excelled in their cruelty, and to safeguard the cloisters and churches and synagogues.

Therefore, by defending Islam, Allah the Almighty guaranteed the freedom of all other religions. In other words, we can say that it is the duty of those who protect mosques that they must protect other places of worship also.

Thus, where a true worshipper, who goes to the mosque to worship, fulfils the rights of Allah, he also discharges the rights of God’s Creation without discrimination of faith or nation.

With the establishment of this mosque, we, Ahmadis in this area, pledge that this mosque is being opened for the worship of the One and Omnipotent God and for the followers of all faiths. Every Ahmadi who comes to this mosque will stand for the dignity and respect of the places of worship of all religions. And this mutual respect and dignity is the guarantor for securing the peace of society.

Today, the world is passing through restlessness and unease and this demands that by creating an atmosphere of love and affection, we remove this anxiety and fear; that we convey a message of love and peace to those around; that we learn to live with ever greater harmony and in a way better than before; and that we recognise the values of humanity – this is something that is badly needed in the world today.

It is my prayer that Allah enables us to live in peace and with love and affection in the society. Wherever signs of hatred exist, they should be removed, and the fear of the One God should develop within the heart and that you should become His worshippers. I pray that we do not cause harm in the name of religion or in pursuit of worldly greeds – Amin.

Finally, from the depth of my heart, I would like to thank all the guests who have spared us their valuable time for this function – thank you.”

28 May 2010

“The terrorist attacks that occurred today at two of our mosques in Lahore were completely barbaric and alien to all forms of humanity.

These attacks took place in mosques which are places of worship and at the time of the Friday prayers which all Muslims know is a holy and sacred time. No true Muslims could ever countenance such attacks, such cruelty and such barbaric behaviour. No form of terrorism has any place in Islam and thus those who were behind these attacks may justify their acts in its name, but let it be clear they are Muslim only in name and never in deed.

The situation in Pakistan is extremely grave. For decades Ahmadi Muslims have not been able to live in peace; in fact they live their lives in constant danger. In 1974 Ahmadi Muslims were declared ‘non-Muslim’ by the Government of Pakistan and then ten years later the infamous Ordinance XX was adopted which criminalised all forms of Ahmadi worship and the practice of its faith.

These laws effectively legitimised the exclusion and persecution of our Jama’at in Pakistan. Ever since, extremists have taken advantage and targeted Ahmadis. Despite this cruelty Ahmadis have remained loyal citizens of Pakistan and have never shown any form of civil disobedience.

At this time we do not know the full extent of what has happened. However it is clear that dozens of Ahmadis have been killed and many others have been injured. I pray that Allah may grant patience to all those who have been left bereaved and grant an elevated status in Paradise to those who have been martyred. May God restore to health those who have been injured.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at is a peace-loving true Muslim Jama’at. Thus there will be no improper reaction from any Ahmadi. Our salvation lies in our supplications to God Almighty and we believe that He has, and always will, help us. No terrorist and no government can ever stop the progress of our Jama’at because it is a Divine organisation.

May Allah protect all good-natured people from the evil acts of those opposed to peace.”

(Press Release by Press Desk, AMJ International; press@ahmadiyya.org.uk)

Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group UK, on the violence against Ahmadiyya Muslim worshippers and their mosques in Lahore, Pakistan

“This morning we had reports of coordinated attacks against the two main Ahmadiyya Muslim mosques in Lahore while they were crowded with worshippers for Friday prayers.

The mosques, Baitul Zikr in Garhi Shahu and Baitul Noor in Model Town Block C, were targeted by a previously unknown group calling itself either Al-Qa’idah Al-Jihad Punjab Wing, or Tehrike Taliban. They arrived at around 13.00 local time, as Friday prayers were starting. Preliminary reports from Model Town, where police have recaptured the mosque, indicate that 23 worshippers were killed, two terrorists who blew themselves up, and two were captured.  Some 40 people were injured, 12 seriously.

At the Baitul Zikr mosque 41 bodies of worshippers have been removed so far, and a gun battle continues between the police and terrorists after four hours, with the worshippers trapped inside.

The Parliamentary Human Rights Group recently sent a mission to Pakistan to investigate the treatment of religious minorities, and their preliminary report, issued just before the election, called attention to the widespread intimidation and violence perpetrated against the Ahmadis.

In Punjab, and Lahore in particular, the Muslim League provincial government is aligned with extremist groups such as the Khatme Nabuwwat, which openly incite religious hatred and violence. This atrocious attack on worshippers at their Friday prayers was an organised crime waiting to happen, and the federal government must take responsibility for its failure to deal with the incessant barrage of hate speech by these groups against the peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslims.

It should be noted that Pakistan has enacted specific anti-Ahmadiyya laws – the 1984 Ordinance XX of the dictator Zia ul-Haq – and this is the root cause of the universal discrimination and repression which culminates in assassinations of Ahmadis and repeated acts of terrorism against their places of worship.

I shall be asking the Foreign Office to mobilise the international community to assist Pakistan in combating the sources of terrorism, starting with reforms of the law which incites it.”

Paigham-e-Sulh (A Message of Peace) is the last written work of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as), the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi and Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. It was completed on May 25, 1908 – the Promised Messiah(as) passed away on May 26, 1908. The citizens of Lahore were the primary audience for this address; however its subject matter is in no way confined to them alone but is of vital importance to the Indian subcontinent and the world at large. The general principles of harmony laid down in the work are applicable to all countries where various religions co-exist. The address was read out on his behalf at a conference held on June 21, 1908 at the Punjab University, Lahore for which it was intended. We present an English translation of the first part of this treatise.

(In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.)

(We Praise Him and send blessings on His exalted Prophet^(saw).)

O my Almighty God, my Beloved Guide! Show us the path which leads the righteous and the sincere to Thee. And save us from treading the path which leads to carnal desires, malice, spite and worldly pursuits. Having said that, I now draw your attention to the following: notwithstanding the hundreds of differences between us, Muslims and Hindus alike share one thing in common, i.e., we all believe in God, the Creator and Master of the Universe. Also, we belong to the same denomination of God’s species and are referred to as humans. Furthermore, as inhabitants of the same country, we are mutual neighbours. This requires that we become friends to each other, with purity of heart and sincerity of intentions. We should dispose kindly to each other and be mutually helpful. In the difficulties pertaining to religious and worldly matters, we should exercise such sympathy towards each other as if we have become limbs of the same body.

My countrymen, a religion which does not inculcate universal compassion is no religion at all. Similarly, a human being without the faculty of compassion is no human at all. Our God has never discriminated between one people and another. This is illustrated by the fact that all the potentials and capabilities which have been granted to the Aryans have also been granted to the races inhabiting Arabia, Persia, Syria, China, Japan, Europe and America. The earth created by God provides a common floor for all people alike, and His sun and moon and many stars are a source of radiance and provide many other benefits to all alike. Likewise, all peoples benefit from the elements created by Him, such as air, water, fire and earth, and similarly from other products created by Him like grain, fruit, and healing agents, etc. These attributes of God teach us the lesson that we, too, should behave magnanimously and kindly towards our fellow human beings and should not be petty of heart and illiberal.

Friends! Take it as certain that if either of our two nations will not treat God’s attributes with respect and will not shape its conduct in accordance with the conduct of God, then, that nation will soon be wiped out from the face of the earth. Not only will it destroy itself but it will also jeopardise the future of its generations to come. The righteous of all ages have testified that following God’s ways works like an elixir for the people. Moreover the survival of human beings, both physical and spiritual, depends on the same eternal truth that man should follow the virtuous attributes of God Who is the Fountainhead of all that is essential for survival. God commences the Holy Qur’an with the following verse which is contained in Surah Al-Fatihah: (All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds, Ch.1:V.2) That is, all perfect and holy attributes belong exclusively to Allah, Who is the Lord of all the worlds. The word ‘alam [worlds] comprises all different peoples, all different ages and all the different countries. The commencement of the Holy Qur’an with this verse was designed to counter the views of such people who attempted to monopolise God’s unlimited providence for their own nation and imagined that the other nations did not belong to God or that having created these other people, God discarded them as being of no consequence, or else perhaps they were shelved to oblivion by Him, or (God forbid) they were not even created by Him. To illustrate this further, we refer to the view of the Jews and the Christians, still commonly held by them, that all the Prophets and Messengers of God belonged only to the House of Israel, and that God completely ignored the religious and spiritual requirements of other people, as though He were displeased with them and that, despite finding them in manifest error and ignorance, He showed least concern for their spiritual welfare. As is also written in the Gospels that Jesus Christ^(as) observed that he had been sent only for the lost sheep of Israel […but he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew, 15:24).]

Impossible as it is, yet by way of argument let us assume that Jesus^(as) did claim to be God. In that case, for him to confine his beneficence to such a small circle as the House of Israel does not behove the magnanimity of God. Had he been God, was he God only for the House of Israel to the exclusion of all other nations? He is known to have suggested that he had no concern for those who did not belong to the House of Israel.

In short, the Jews and the Christians do believe that all Prophets and messengers have been appearing from among them, and that Divine scriptures were revealed to them alone. Thereafter, according to the beliefs of the Christians, the institution of revelation and communion with God ended with Jesus Christ^(as) as though a seal had been set on the institution of revelation from God. Unfortunately, the Hindus of the Arya sect also entertain a similar belief. Like the Jews and Christians, who restrict the institution of Prophethood and Divine revelation exclusively to their people and deny the honour of Divine revelation to others, the Aryas also, unfortunately for the human race, have adopted the same doctrine. They too believe that the blessing of Divine communication was never bestowed to any people outside the domain of the Aryan race. Again it is India alone which, according to them, is exclusively blessed by God for the selection of the four ‘Rishis’ from its soil; it is Sanskrit alone, the language of the Vedas, which has always been the medium of instruction chosen by God. One can safely conclude from this, that both these nations do not consider God to be the Lord [Provident] of all the worlds. Notwithstanding this, He is still proclaimed to be Lord of the universe and not that of the Israelites or the Aryans alone. Moreover this strange behaviour of God, as presented by them, draws an image of God which is so partial that He appears unmindful of the rest of His creation. Thus, it is for the refutation of such erroneous views, that God commences the Holy Qur’an with the verse: ( All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds, Ch.1:V.2).

God also made it clear in several places in the Holy Qur’an that His messengers have been appearing in different lands all over the world. In fact He did not neglect any people or any country. The Holy Qur’an explains through various examples that just as God has been looking after the physical development of the people of every country, in accordance with their requirements, so has He blessed every country and every people with spiritual upbringing. Allah says in the Holy Qur’an: (and there is no people to whom a warner has not been sent, Ch.35:V.25), meaning that there is no people to whom a Warner has not been sent. Therefore, there is no question that the True and Perfect God, to believe in Whom is essential for every person, is the Lord of all the worlds. Furthermore, His providence is not confined to any particular people, age or country. In fact, He is the Lord of all peoples, the Lord of time and space, and He is the Sovereign of all the countries. He alone is the Fountainhead of all beneficence and the Source of every physical and spiritual strength. All that exists is sustained by Him. He is the Support for every creature. It is the universal beneficence of God which encompasses all peoples, all countries and all ages. It so happened lest anyone should have cause to complain that: ‘God has bestowed His favour upon such and such people, but not upon us.’ Or that: ‘So and so received the Book in order to be guided while we did not.’ Or that: ‘In such and such an age, He revealed Himself through His revelations, communications and miracles but in our time He remained hidden.’ Thus, by demonstrating His universal beneficence, He left no justification for such possible accusations. He displayed His virtues boundlessly so that no people remain bereft of physical and spiritual bounties from Him. He also did not treat any age as doomed.

So, when such are the attributes of our Lord, it is but befitting for us to acquire them ourselves.

So, O compatriots! This short epistle entitled A Message of Peace is being presented to you with all due respects and with a sincere heartfelt prayer that Almighty God may Himself inspire you and fill your hearts with trust in my sincerity, lest you misread this friendly gesture and consider it to be an attempt to gain some ulterior motive. Dear Countrymen! The matter of the Hereafter is very often obscured to ordinary people. Its secrets are known only to a few of the enlightened, who embrace a kind of death [for the sake of their Lord] before they actually die. The goodness of this world, on the other hand, is easily recognised by any man with vision and wisdom.

It is a common experience that calamities which cannot be averted by ordinary measures, and the difficulties which seem insurmountable, very often respond to the power of unanimity. Hence it would be against the dictates of wisdom for one to not benefit from the blessings of unanimity. The Hindus and the Muslims are two great nations inhabiting this country. It is hard to believe that either of the two, for instance the Hindus, would one day gain total domination over the Muslims, and turn them out of this country altogether. Likewise, it is not possible for Muslims to expel the Hindus from their homeland. It should always be borne in mind that Hindus and Muslims are indispensable to each other in this country. If one is beset with a calamity, the other will inescapably share it. If either one intends to humiliate the other, out of egoistic pride or vanity, then it will not escape the consequent disgrace itself. And if anyone among them falls short of showing concern for his neighbour, then he too will suffer the ill effect of his callousness. Anyone who contemplates annihilation of the other is like one who saws off the branch on which he is sitting. With the Grace of Allah, you have also got a measure of education; it behoves you now to eschew grudge and promote mutual love. Similarly, the dictates of your wisdom require that you abandon the course of callousness and adopt an attitude of compassion and sympathy. The hardship of this life is like unto a journey in a desert in the midst of summer on a hot sunny day. It would be futile to take this arduous journey without cool water. It is the cool water of mutual love which you so direly need to extinguish this burning fire and to save you from dying of thirst.

In precarious times such as these I invite you to truce, as reconciliation is urgently required by both nations. Many a calamity is befalling the world; there are earthquakes and there are famines. Over and above the earthquakes and famines we continue to be plagued by the bubonic pestilence. Moreover the Divine revelations which God has conveyed to me further confirm that if people do not mend their evil ways and practices and do not repent their sins, the world will be further visited by other severe calamities. One misery will not end before another follows. Eventually people will reach the end of their tether and will wonder what is happening to them and what next is in store for them. They will be pushed to the edge of their senses by calamity upon calamity. So take heed my countrymen, before such evil days confront you. It is highly essential that Hindus and Muslims should come to terms with each other and if either of the two parties is guilty of such excesses as obstruct the path of peace, they are better advised to desist from pursuing that course. Otherwise, the entire blame for the sin of mutual enmity will be borne by the faulting party. If someone questions the possibility of reaching reconciliation while religious differences are playing such a negative role, distancing hearts further apart, then my answer would be to say that difference in matters of religion can only play a negative role when it disregards the dictates of justice, wisdom and the well-tested human values. It is to avoid this danger that man has been fully fortified with a clear sense of judgement and common sense. He should thus always carve a path for himself which never deviates from the path of justice and good sense. Again it should not violate the commonly experienced human sensibilities. Also it should be remembered that day to day petty differences cannot obstruct the course of reconciliation. Only those differences can destroy the process of reconciliation which result in insulting and blasphemous attitudes by one towards the revered Messengers and revealed Holy Books of the other.

The good news in all this for those who seek reconciliation is that all of the Islamic teachings are also found in the different parts of Vedic teaching. For instance, although the newborn branch of Vedic faith entitled Arya Samaj teaches that after the revelation of the Vedas, communication from God to man was sealed, the great avatars born in the Hindu faith from time to time, who have millions upon millions of followers in this country, have doubtlessly broken that seal by claiming to be recipients of Divine revelation. One such elect Divine representative, who is greatly revered in this country and Bengal, is known as Sri Krishna. He claimed to be the recipient of God’s Word and his followers not only believe him to be a Messenger but some consider him to be God personified. There is no doubt, however, that Sri Krishna^(as) was a Messenger and a representative of God in his time, and God conversed with him. Likewise, from among the Hindu people of the Latter Days was one named Guru Baba Nanak, whose saintliness has become a byword in this country. His followers, the Sikhs, number no less than two million. Baba Sahib openly claims to be the recipient of revelation in the Janam Sakhis [autobiographies of Baba Nanak] and the Granth [the Holy Book of Sikhs]. In one Janam Sakhi he states that he had received revelation from God testifying to the truth of Islam. Based on this he performed Hajj and followed the Islamic injunctions meticulously. It is established without doubt that great signs and miracles were manifested by him. It goes without question that Baba Nanak was a holy and pious man. He was one of those whom God, the Mighty, the Glorious, caused to drink out of His goblet of love. He was born among Hindus and bore witness that Islam is from God. Anyone who sees for himself his relics preserved at Dera Nanak, in which he has testified to the Kalimah [Muslim creed – There is none worthy of worship except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah] and witnesses relics that lie enshrined at Guru Hersahai, District Ferozepur, among which is also a copy of the Holy Qur’an, how can he ever doubt the fact that because of his pure heart, nature and effort, Baba Nanak had come to know of the secret that lay hidden from the so-called Pundits.

Guru Baba Nanak also claimed to be a recipient of revelation from God and he enjoyed the Divine blessing of showing many miracles. Thus he roundly debunked the erroneous claims that there was no revelation after the Vedas or that no signs were manifested thereafter. No doubt Baba Nanak was a great blessing from God for the adherents of Hinduism. You may deem him, if you please, the last avatar for Hinduism who endeavoured to eradicate the hatred which Hindus had for Islam. But it is tragic for this country that the Hindu faith did not derive any benefit from this Divine blessing which came in the person of Baba Nanak. On the contrary, the Pundits inflicted much pain upon him for praising Islam wherever he went. It was his mission in fact to bring Hinduism and Islam to a state of mutual peace. Unfortunately for this country, the followers of the Hindu faith paid no due attention to his teaching. If he and his pious teachings had been shown any respect, the Hindus and the Muslims would have become united by now. O grief that such a righteous man came into this world, remained with us and passed away, but the imprudent did not gain any benefit from his light! In any case, he proved that the institution of revelation and communion never terminates and that the Divine signs of Allah always appear through the agency of His chosen ones and he stood witness to the fact that harbouring enmity towards Islam is tantamount to harbouring enmity towards the Divine light.

Similarly, I can also, from personal experience, give testimony that the present age has certainly not been deprived of communication and revelation from God. On the contrary, God still speaks as He used to speak and still hears as He used to hear. It is not that His eternal attributes have become inoperative. I have been blessed with communication from God for nearly thirty years, and He has shown at my hand hundreds of signs which have been observed by thousands of witnesses and have also been widely published in books and newspapers. Without exception, people from all denominations have witnessed one or another of the signs.

In the face of such repeated evidence, the teaching of the Arya Samaj, which is wrongfully attributed to Vedas, cannot be accepted, for it alleges that all Divine revelation and communication has come to an end with the Vedas. This Arya position is tantamount to believing that nothing is left of man’s belief but tales and legends. Consequent upon this dogma, they dismiss all the Divine scriptures that came after the Vedas as mere man-made fabrications. They do this notwithstanding the fact that the Divine scriptures in question possess a greater and more potent proof of the Divine origin than the Vedas. The hand of God’s support and assistance is behind them and extraordinary signs from God bear witness to their truth. By what logic, then, are the Vedas termed the ‘Word of God’, while these other books are not? The attributes of God are limitlessly profound and He lies hidden behind innumerable covers. Hence, dictates of wisdom require that He should not rely on one book alone for His manifestation. Rather, it is befitting for Him to choose His Messengers from all over the world in different countries, reflecting His glory through them by blessing them with His revelation and gift of communion. This is so that man, weak and credulous by nature, should not be deprived of the good fortune of responding to His call. Pure common sense cannot accept the proposition that God, the Lord of the Universe, Who illuminates the East and West alike with His radiant sun and quenches the thirst of every land with the universal bounty of His rain, should be so miserly (God forbid!) with regards to the spiritual needs of man as to become partial only to one country, one people and one language. I fail to understand what logic and rationale it is that God the Omniscient listens to man’s prayers and supplications and understands him in every language, and He is not displeased with it, yet He abhors to make His word descend upon hearts in any language other than Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas. This philosophy is found only in the Vedas like a well concealed enigma which no one, as yet, has been able to resolve.

Personally, I consider the Vedas to be absolved of ever having displayed such a philosophy upon any of its pages, which not only goes against common sense, but also blemishes God with the allegation of miserliness and niggardly conduct. The reality is that once a long time elapses after the revelation of a Divine Book, the followers of that Book, either out of sheer ignorance, or as a result of some ulterior motives – by mistake or by intent – feel free to annotate the Divine teachings. Because these annotators are of divergent views, so, with the passage of time, hundreds of denominations are born out of one. It is also strange that just as the Aryas believe that revelation has only been confined to the Arya kith and kin and Arya faith, and that Sanskrit has been specifically employed by God as His own language, so too the Jews have similar views regarding the chosen Children of Israel and their Books. They believe that the only language of God is Hebrew and the institution of revelation has been confined to the House of Israel and its land. According to them, anyone who claims to be a prophet of God while he does not belong to this House and does not speak their language is (God forbid) definitely a liar.

Is it not then a strange coincidence, that both these peoples have followed the same path in their dogmatic assertions? Likewise, the followers of many other religions entertain similar views, as for example, the Zoroastrians, who claim that their religion originated billions of years before the Vedic revelation. From this it transpires that the tendency (to confine the revelation of God to one’s own language or the Book) is based merely on prejudice and ignorance. This is further abetted by the fact that in the dark ages of the past, people had no access to the information concerning people and countries beyond the boundaries of their homelands. This lack of knowledge on their part led them to draw the wrong conclusions. They had witnessed that God had bestowed upon them a Divine teaching in the form of a Book, and they knew that Messengers of God had been selected from among themselves; hence their erroneous impression that they had been the only people so favourably treated by God, while the rest of the world was unfortunate in being deprived of this blessing.

This erroneous view has done a lot of damage to the world, and it has worked as a seed of mutual enmity and malice which continues to grow. For a long time, it so happened that a people remained hidden from others and one country remained concealed and veiled from the other to the extent that the scholars of the Arya faith used to believe that there was no inhabitation beyond the Himalayas. When God lifted the veil, it was already too late for them to mend. By this time they were already fixed in their prejudices. All the false distinctive features which people had attributed to their own revealed books, divines, and messengers, had become deeply rooted in their hearts and had become permanently fixed like the etching on stones. Each people had the same misconception that God’s capital was situated in their country. Savage behaviour was predominant among most people of that age. Hence, to them the sword seemed a natural instrument for settling accounts with those people who dared to oppose the old order. Who then would dare to cool down their self-aggrandisement to create an atmosphere conducive to mutual peace?

Gautama Buddha^(as) was one brave enough who stood up to achieve this goal. He did not agree with the erroneous view that the Vedas are everything and that there is nothing beyond them. Nor did he believe in any people, country or tribe as being exceptional. In other words, he did not agree that the Vedas enjoyed a monopoly and it was only this faith, this language, this country, and the Brahmins which had been permanently and exclusively registered in the court records of God to become the recipients of His revelation. He suffered greatly because of expressing these different views and he was accused of being an atheist or an agnostic. Similarly scholars and researchers of Europe and America, who do not accept the godhead of Jesus^(as), and whose hearts refuse to believe that God can be crucified, are atheists according to the Christian priests. This is how Buddha was branded an atheist. As is the routine of the mischievous antagonists who incite the hatred of common people, he was made a target of many a false accusation. Consequently, he was turned out of the soil on which he was born and bred, the country that was his homeland. Even now, the Hindus view Buddhism with disdain and they begrudge its success. According to Jesus Christ^(as) ‘A Prophet is not without honour save in his own country.’ [see Matthew 13:57 and Mark 6:4] Buddha^(as) migrated to another country and gained tremendous success there. It is reported that one third of the world is populated by the followers of Buddha^(as). As far as the large majority of adherents is concerned, the real centre lies in China and Japan, but his message has reached as far as Southern Russia and America.

(Part 2 will feature in the next edition)

Murder in the Name of Allah was written by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^(ru), Khalifatul Masih IV, Fourth Head of the Worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community. It is based on the Urdu book Mazhab ke Nam per Khoon which was written in the 1950s and inspired by the extremely violent 1953 anti-Ahmadiyya riots in Pakistan. Instigated by the Jama’at-i-Islami and Abul A‘la Maududi, a leading Sunni cleric of the time, the riots involved large scale looting, murder and arson attacks against members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Murder in the Name of Allah is a reminder that the purpose of any religion is to spread peace, tolerance and understanding. It argues that the meaning of Islam – submission to the will of God – has been steadily corrupted by minority elements in society. Instead of spreading peace, the religion has been abused by fanatics and made an excuse for violence and the spread of terror, both inside and outside the faith. In light of the recent Lahore attacks against two Ahmadi mosques resulting in 86 martyrdoms, we reproduce below the first chapter from this book.

ISBN: 978-0718828059

Chapter One – Religion Drips with Blood

Did our history begin with the curse of Cain? It is a gory tale of murder, assassination and torture in any event. So much blood has been spilled throughout history that the whole world could be painted red with it – with plenty to spare. When will man stop killing his fellow men? When will his thirst for blood ever be quenched?

Abel was the first man to be killed, by his brother, for no reason. The story of that murder has been preserved by the Qur’an and the Bible as a lesson to us all – it will remain as an example till the end of time. Study history, and one thing becomes clear: that man is an aggressive creature. His aggressiveness has been untamed by the growth of civilisation. Man is as cruel today as he was thousands of years ago. The story of his ruthlessness, his tyranny and his aggression is long and painful. The fire of human aggression has not been quenched even after thousands of years of savagery.

Assassination of individuals and the annihilation of whole groups of peoples are a repetitive theme of history. States have attacked states; countries have fought against their neighbors and against nations far from their borders. Hordes of people living in the steppes and deserts conquered nations with ancient civilisations; blood was shed by Caesar and by Alexander; Baghdad was destroyed by Hulagu and Gengiz; the soil of Kurukshetra ran red with the blood of Kauravas and Pandavas.

Sometimes blood was spilled in the name of honour, sometimes in the name of revenge for supposed wrongs. Sometimes angry hordes overran peaceful lands in search of food, sometimes in search of world domination. But more often the blood of man – created in God’s image – was shed in the name of his Creator. Religion was used as an excuse for mass murder. Seeing this aspect of human nature makes one wonder if mankind is not the basest and most ruthless species on earth. One expects religion to teach man to be civilised, yet religion itself drips with blood. This fact recalls the incident which took place at the time of the creation of Adam^(as), described by both the Qur’an and the Bible. The Qur’an says:

And when thy Lord said to the angels, ‘I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth,’ they said, ‘Wilt Thou place therein such as will cause disorder in it and shed blood? – and we glorify Thee with Thy praise and extol Thy holiness.’ He answered, ‘I know what you know not’. (Ch.2.V.31)

This dialogue between the angels and God is baffling because any book on religious history would seem to prove that the angels were right. If so, why did God refuse to accept their ‘advice’ or uphold their objection to His plan? It was, in fact, an objection to prophecy itself and ultimately to the prophethood of the Seal of Prophets, Muhammad^(saw).

The history of religion in any part of the world at any time is the history of torture, repression, execution and crucifixion. It is disappointing indeed to find that religion, which is supposed to be the last refuge of peace in a world of war and conflict, is a cause of destruction and bloodshed. Religion itself is not the real cause of mass murder, however, and it is a mistake to think it is. Religion was not given to man to encourage killing.

When one discovers, with mixed feelings of satisfaction and surprise, that God did not make religion for this purpose, one receives a ray of hope. The vicegerent of God, whose creation the angels questioned, was really a great reformer. The religion he preached was named Islam – the religion of peace. The question remains: why, at first glance, does history create the impression that religion sanctions bloodshed and murder in the name of peace? The Qur’an points out very clearly why a cursory glance at history can lead one to such a conclusion. It cites the past to show that those who perpetuate brutality in religion’s name are either anti-religious or people whose religion has been corrupted. There are also religious leaders who have no warmth, compassion, mercy or piety. To be honest, they are hypocrites with a lust for power. Cruelty is their ruling passion. It would be a great mistake to associate religion with the misdeeds of such men. The real truth is that God – the Fountainhead of Mercy – does not allow the followers of any religion to oppress His people.

The Qur’an quotes many historical examples to prove this point. The early part of the prophets’ lives is given by the Qur’an as a standard for religious reform or for preaching. If physical force had been allowed by God, then surely it would have been permitted by the founders of religions. It is quite clear that force is forbidden. Those followers who came long after the prophets and preached by force either inherited a religion corrupted by time or were themselves corrupt. They used force in the name of religion, yet their religion opposed the use of force.

The Qur’an’s religious history is full of examples of force and violence used in the name of religion by people who had no religion. People were tortured in the name of God by those who had not the faintest clue about God. Noah^(as) who called people to righteousness and piety, was not an oppressor – those who wished to suppress his voice were in the wrong. On hearing Noah^(as)’s message they said: ‘If you don’t desist, O Noah, you shall surely be one of those who are stoned.’ (Ch.26:V.117)

The history of religious persecution, as told by the Qur’an, clearly shows that followers of true religion are the victims of violence. The Qur’an gives the example of Abraham^(as), who called the people to God by using love, sympathy and humility. He had no sword…not a single weapon. But the elders of his people did exactly what the anti-religious opponents of Noah^(as) had done. Abraham^(as)’s father, Azar, said: “If you do not desist from your belief I shall stone you.” The words used by Azar were virtually identical to those used by Noah^(as)’s enemies. Both Noah^(as) and Abraham^(as) were insulted and humiliated, both were beaten and tortured, yet both accepted it all with patience and fortitude. Having lit the fire of oppression and mischief, the tormentors of Abraham^(as) tried to burn him alive.

Those who opposed Lot^(as) knew nothing whatsoever about religion. Yet they were his enemies and opposed him and his followers in religion’s name. They threatened him with violence; they warned him that he and his followers would be banished. They did their best to stop him teaching his religion.

The persecutors of Shuaib^(as) did the same and told him: ‘Assuredly we will drive you out and the believers with you from our town and you shall have to return to our religion.’ (Ch.7:V.89)

By citing these examples, the Qur’an proves there is a pattern of conversion to true religion and also to the force used by the enemies of truth against such conversion. Shuaib^(as)’s reply to the threats typifies the attitude of all God’s prophets. He said: ‘Even though we be unwilling?’ Is it possible to change hearts by force, can a man be reconverted to a religion he has discarded after discovering it to be false? And can he be reconverted after he has discovered the truth of a new religion?

No dictator has ever been able to escape this logic. The historical fact is that the sword has never ruled and will never rule men’s hearts. If the human body can be subdued by force, then the soul cannot. Belief is a thing of the heart. It is human nature which never changes. Innocent people who are sentenced to death in the name of religion by those who do not understand it will continue to raise their voice against this injustice. They will forever pose the question: ‘Do you want us to stick to the beliefs our intelligence has rejected?’ Whenever this question has been asked, enemies of religion across the world have accused the prophets of apostasy and sentenced them to death. Inhumane torture and punishments were invented… the story of violence is one which never ends.

Moses^(as) and his followers met the same fate at the hands of the so-called religious heads of the time – Pharaoh, Haman and Korah – who said: ‘Slay the sons of those who have believed with him and let their women live.’ (Ch.40.V.26) Conversion from one religion to another was not punished by the prophets, yet they and their followers were punished for the so-called apostasy. After Moses^(as), Jesus^(as) endured similar torture and violence which culminated in an attempt to kill him on the Cross. Bloodshed and violence have always been carded out in religion’s name: their victims have throughout time been those found guilty of apostasy. Yet not a single revealed book sanctions the punishment of those who changed from one religion to another. If the texts of revealed Books have been altered by dishonest people, one can hardly blame the Books themselves. By their very nature, Books revealed to God’s prophets cannot teach violence.

Making reference to the history of religions, the Qur’an proves that the prophets and their followers were victims of violence; who, nonetheless, accepted brutality with patience. It is beyond one’s belief that people who change faiths can be tortured in the name of religion, and prophets of God, who are sent to convert us, cannot accept it either. It makes nonsense of their own mission. The Qur’an also tells how a prophet’s followers are punished for conversion not only during his life, but for hundreds of years after his death. Such oppression has no sanction from God.

Then there is the Qur’anic story of the people of the cave. These Christians were persecuted for 300 years, and I have seen the places where these poor people were tortured – the amphitheatres intended for gladiatorial combat with bulls and lions. It was in these places that naked Christians were thrown to hungry wild animals. The animals howled and made short shrift of the defenceless Christians. Sometimes these ‘apostates’ were thrown to bulls which had been starved for several days. The starving creatures bellowed and snorted and, with hissing screeches, attacked. The Christians were gored or trampled to death. And after this festival of blood, the laughing Romans returned joyfully home. The ‘apostates’ had been fittingly punished. But while the Christians’ legs trembled, their hearts beat strongly with faith in God.

Their persecution went on intermittently for three centuries. And when they found no place to hide, they fled underground to the catacombs. These long labyrinths exist today and they remind us that the Christians could live with insects, scorpions and snakes but not with religious leaders in their fine clothes.

As well as those people who fled underground – Ashab-ul-Kahf – the Qur’an also mentions other Christians who believed in the Unity of God and were burned alive for their pains. God says:

“By the heaven having mansions of stars, and the Promised Day, and the witness and he to whom witness is borne, cursed be the Fellows of the Trench – the fire fed with fuel – when they sat by it and they were the witnesses of what they did to the believers. And they hated them not but only because they believed in Allah, the Almighty, the Praiseworthy, to Whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth; and Allah is Witness over all things.” (Ch.85:Vs.2-10)

The enormity of these atrocities is made worse because of the so-called religious protectors who actually prevent worship of Allah; their victims feel a greater anguish from being prevented from worshipping than they do from torture itself. The Qur’an says: ‘And who is more unjust than the man who prohibits the name of Allah being glorified in Allah’s mosques and seeks to destroy them?’ (Ch.2:V.115) So the Qur’an totally rejects the use of force to suppress religious freedom. It declares that though such suppression takes place, true believers never use force to preach the name of Allah.

So far we have told the story of the persecution of prophets who came before the time when God’s light was to illuminate the world. But eventually the sun of eternal truth rose on the skies of the Arab peninsula and the world was soon to bask in the light of Muhammad^(saw)’s message.

For thousands of years the world had awaited the greatest prophet. One hundred and twenty-four thousand prophets had lived and died in the hope of welcoming this Seal of the Prophets. The man for whom the whole world was created finally appeared, reflecting the full glory of his Creator. He was greater than all the prophets; his religion was complete. But he, too, was persecuted and his persecution was without precedence. Our Master and Lord, Prophet Muhammad^(saw), endured every conceivable form of punishment, torture and torment suffered by the earlier prophets and their followers.

Early Muslims were laid out in the blazing sun. Burning stones were put on their chests; they were dragged through the streets of Makkah like dead animals. They were shunned, and kept hungry and thirsty. They were thrown into dungeons, their belongings were seized and their families were broken up. Pregnant women were thrown off camels, their inevitable deaths the cause of merriment. Their dead bodies were cut asunder – even the liver of the Prophet’s uncle was eaten. They were cut down with swords and pierced by arrows. The Prophet^(saw) was stoned by ruffians and vagabonds and was chased and pelted by urchins till the cobblestones of Taif ran red with his blood. And at the battle-ground of Uhud the Prophet^(saw) was seriously wounded.

This bloodshed took place in the name of religion, because Muslims said Rabbunallaha, our Lord, is Allah. This persecution and torture was perpetrated in the name of religion because, according to the polytheists of Makkah, the Prophet’s and the Muslims were apostates. The polytheists called the Prophet and his followers ‘Sabi’—people who discard their ancestral religion and adopt a new one. In order to put down this ‘evil’, the Makkans adopted methods of torture and suppression which had been used by their predecessors. Muhammad^(saw) and his followers suffered patiently and with fortitude for a long time to prove that evil is caused by anti-religious people and not by followers of the truth.

The Prophet^(saw), exalted by Allah to a position with no equal, showed his persecutors only unsurpassable love, mercy and forgiveness in return for their evil. When victory finally came and the polytheists of Makkah were subdued by the Prophet^(saw), he ordered a general amnesty. There was no massacre and no punishment for his persecutors. No arrests were made. No executions took place. Instead of retribution there was the Qur’anic proclamation: ‘Let no reproach be on you this day. May Allah forgive you. He is the most merciful of the merciful.’

That day the cruellest of the cruel were pardoned. Those who had tormented helpless slaves on the burning sand were forgiven. Those who had dragged Muslims through the streets like dead animals were absolved. Those who had breached the peace were pardoned, as were those who had stoned defenceless Muslims – even the woman who had eaten the liver of the Prophet^(saw)’s uncle.

If the history of the world from Adam^(as) to the present day were ever lost – and with it the record of every persecution and of every charter of human rights – a glance at the life of the Prophet^(saw) would more than prove that true religion does not cause hatred, persecution, repression or the suppression of thought.

But the Prophet^(saw) did not confine his teachings to calling for religious tolerance. Since the Prophet^(saw) of Islam is ‘A Mercy for the Universe’ (Ch.21:V.108), a general proclamation is made by the Qur’an: ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion.’ Compulsion is unnecessary because, ‘Guidance and error have been clearly distinguished’ (Ch.2:V.257) and there is no possibility of confusing the two. On the face of it, this proclamation seems unusual and anomalous. On one hand there was an arbitrary authority, hell-bent on wiping out a small group of people because of their ‘apostasy’ with every means at its disposal. And when this group of ‘apostasy’ gained power, it was told by the Qur’an to proclaim that:

“There shall be no compulsion in religion, for guidance and error have been clearly distinguished; so whoever refuses to be led by those who transgress and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle – one which knows no breaking.” (Ch.2:V.257)

But it must be noted that this proclamation is made in the second chapter of the Qur’an, Al-Baqarah, which was revealed in the first two or three years after the Prophet^(saw)’s arrival in Madinah, a place where Muslims were not only free from Makkan persecution but also held power. What could be a more human and generous proclamation of peace from a prophet who, only a year or two earlier, had been persecuted for ‘changing his religion’?

People who persecute in the name of religion are totally ignorant of the essence of religion. Religion is a metamorphosis of hearts. Religion is not politics and its adherents do not make up political parties. Neither is it a nationality with limited loyalties, nor a country with geographical borders. It is the transformation of hearts – transformation for the good of the soul. The home of religion is in the depths of the heart. It is beyond the sway of the sword. Mountains are not moved by the sword, nor are hearts changed by force. While persecution in the name of religion is the repetitive theme in the history of human aggression, freedom of conscience is the Qur’an’s repetitive theme.

The Prophet^(saw) was asked again and again to proclaim: ‘This is the truth from your Lord; let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.’ (Ch.18:V.30) Truth is obviously a matter of the heart; it has nothing to do with force. Once it has been beheld it cannot be blotted out by any power. Hence the Qur’an’s assertion that once truth is known it is our choice to accept or reject it. Yet, elsewhere, the Qur’an says: ‘Verily, this is a reminder: so whosoever wishes may take to the way that leads to his Lord.’ (Ch.76:V.30) No charter of human rights can surpass the clarity of the Qur’anic phrase faman Shaa’ (whosoever wishes). The word ‘whosoever’ is all inclusive. It is surprising that after such a clear declaration anyone could possibly think that Islam supports the use of force.

Again, in the 39th chapter of the Qur’an, the Prophet^(saw) is ordered to tell unbelievers: ‘It is Allah I worship in sincerest obedience.’ Now, as far as you are concerned, ‘Worship what you like besides Him.’ (Ch.39:V.16)

Since freedom of conscience – freedom to believe and to preach – is the cornerstone of religion, and repression of religious heresy is the aim of antireligious forces, the Qur’an lays great emphasis on the freedom of conversion. The last line of Chapter 109 of the Qur’an sums up the basic principle of a true religion. ‘For you, your religion and for me, my religion.’ In an earlier passage, God refers to the same principle by asking a rhetorical question. Addressing the Holy Prophet^(saw), He says: ‘If thy Lord had enforced His will, surely all those on earth would have believed, without exception? Will thou, then, take it upon thyself to force people to become believers?’ (Ch.10:V.108). In the scheme of creation, man must have complete free will to believe or otherwise; there is no compulsion; a man must use his reason and understanding. After all, faith is a gift given by God to those He thinks deserve it.

One hundred and twenty-four thousand prophets were sent by God and showed, by their teaching and example, that the bearers of the divine message are the oppressed, not the oppressors. The prophets won over hearts by moral and spiritual strength, not by physical force. It is a great tragedy that the ordained priests and the turbaned Mullahs with their flowing robes of ‘piety’ became the tormentors of the innocent in the name of oppressed prophets. They monopolised religion, yet they knew nothing of it. They claimed to protect the honour of their prophets by maligning others, by spreading malicious lies and, above all, by perpetrating crimes of violence which shamed humanity. They did it before the birth of the Holy Prophet^(saw). They do it still.

In medieval Europe, the so-called followers of Christ^(as) – the popes and the prelates, cardinals and canons, and the elders of the Church – wrote a chapter of terror into the history books. St Augustine called it ‘righteous persecution which the Church of Christ inflicts upon the impious’ (1). Today’s Christian historians admit that this ‘righteous persecution’, inflicted in Christ^(as)’s name, was a disgrace to the Church.

Madame Tussaud’s waxworks museum in London has a strange, moving and terrifying exhibition of this persecution. The museum was originally founded in Paris in 1770 and moved to England in 1802. Its walls are lined with waxworks of famous and infamous people. Its Chamber of Horrors is a kind of underground dungeon. The figures there have been modelled into such uncanny likenesses that you can almost see them breathing. Many visitors there have stopped to ask directions from a friendly looking curator, only to find they have been talking to a dummy! On display are the death-masks from the guillotined heads of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, which were personally cast by Madame Tussaud. There are authentic gallows with other instruments of torture: pillory, stocks, whipping-post, ducking-stool, iron maiden rack, galleys, bed of Procrustes, cross, gibbet, halter and many others. Some exhibits are so gruesome that they are covered with screens to keep them away from children and squeamish adults.

It is a strange world where a man can rise to the heights of prophethood and talk with his Creator, then sink to the depths of becoming a priest and questioning Joan of Arc about her visions of angels. He can sink even lower and become an inquisitor. The instruments of torture shown at Madame Tussaud’s tell the tragic story of the Spanish and French Inquisitions. Innocent people were tortured for their so-called apostasy; they were forced to confess that they had recanted from the true religion. When they refused, they were whipped and flogged, put on the rack, lynched, impaled, pilloried, branded and burned. The victims either confessed or died a miserable death. These dignitaries of the Church in all their finery, who tortured innocent Christians, remind one of Christ^(as) with his crown of thorns, bleeding on the Cross and crying with a loud voice: ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ (Matthew 27:46). These were the people who symbolically consumed the flesh and blood of Christ^(as) at Communion services, yet could not recall that the Pharisees had asked Pontius Pilate to crucify Christ^(as) because he had ‘apostasised’ and abandoned the religion of his forefathers. But the crucifixion of Christ^(as) pales into insignificance when compared with the Inquisition of medieval Christians. It is with a sense of relief and, indeed, pride that Islam, with its declaration of ‘no compulsion in the matter of belief’, has finally closed the door on such atrocities in the name of religion. But this sense of relief and pride is only short-lived. Any Muslim will lower his head with shame when he sees today’s ‘ulema [Muslim clergy] vying with what the Christian priests of medieval Europe did to devise new ways of suppressing freedom of thought and conscience. And yet these are the very ‘ulema who claim to protect the honour of the Holy Prophet^(saw) whom the Qur’an describes as a ‘Mercy for the Universe’.

These ‘ulema claim to be the very personification of mercy, but their hearts are without compassion. Instead, they are filled with anger. The use of force in the name of religion has now become part of their faith. In the name of God’s holy water – sent to cool our tempers – they kindle the fires of hatred and anger in the hearts of the innocent. The followers of the Prince of Peace^(saw), whose blood cleansed barbaric Arabia, are now being persuaded to murder helpless people. In the name of the protector of poor people’s unguarded homes his followers are encouraged to rob the homes of people who are powerless to defend themselves. In the name of the Prophet^(saw) who protected the honour of even the wives of ruffians, the happy and loving marriages of Muslim women are annulled and transformed into adulterous relationships. In the name of the builder of the first mosque in Madinah, who offered it to the Christians of Najran for Sunday services, in the name of the Prophet^(saw) who taught his followers to respect the temples of other faiths, today’s ‘ulema incite the masses to destroy the mosques of a small group of people whose lives are devoted to the spreading of shahada. The unjust acts the Prophet^(saw) condemned and banned forever are now being perpetrated in his very name. What would the Holy Prophet^(saw) think if he could see the ‘ulema of his umma falsely accusing the elders of other Muslim groups of all sorts of misdeeds and shouting abuse about women and housewives? How will an agnostic react to this demonstration of ‘religious zeal’? What Muslim could think, even for a moment, that our Prophet^(saw), would have advised the ‘ulema of his ummah to deliver provocative, disruptive speeches; or that he would have ordered them to deliver such fiery sermons that entire villages of poor and helpless people would be set ablaze? Not satisfied with all this, could the Prince of Peace^(saw) have told religious leaders to treat as apostates all those Muslims whose understanding of Islam did not conform to their own? Would he have sanctioned the killing of them and their women and the destruction of their mosques – said to be the only divine way to blot out apostasy?

These are the questions about which we should all think seriously. Muslims should consider the attitude of these ‘ulema. For suppression, torture, execution, arson and the razing of mosques are not the Prophet^(saw)’s tradition. Every stone in the streets of Makkah over which the so-called apostates were dragged bears witness to this. Every grain of burning Arabian sand where helpless people were tortured for accepting Islam does the same. The cobbles of Taif, where the blood of the Holy Prophet^(saw) was spilled, bear witness to the fact that our great Master  mercifully did not teach that religious belief was compulsory, that he did not order the burning of houses of worship in the name of worship or the dishonouring of women in the name of honour. Muslims hang their heads in shame and their souls cry out over today’s religious leaders who preach violence in the name of the Prophet^(saw).

Murder in the Name of Allah can be read in its entirety at:
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/index.html

The deceased include retired Judge Munir Ahmad Sheikh, Amir (President) of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at in Lahore; Major General Nasir Ahmad, President of the Model Town community; its resident missionary, Mr Mahmud Shad; and, a number of other senior community officials and members and also many ordinary, peace-loving Ahmadi Muslims, all of whom had naturally come – unarmed – to offer the Friday Prayer.

Highly dogmatic and narrow-minded Muslim bigots fuelled the ideology that killing a non-Muslim, and in particular an Ahmadi Muslim, is such a meritorious act that the Prophet of Islam^(saw) would personally welcome such mur-derers to Paradise and beautiful harlots would await their entry. A cleric declared Ahmadis are Wajibul Qatl i.e. they must be killed.

The discriminatory ideology against Ahmadis has penetrated the highest levels of government in Pakistan. In 1974 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, otherwise a secular leader, produced the Second Amendment to the Pakistan Constitution declaring anyone who does not believe in the absolute finality of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet^(saw) as a non-Muslim for purposes of the law. A clearly political move at the behest of Wahhabist rulers and their cahoots in the Jama’at-i-Islami designed to muster support from the Muslim clergy.

Whereas the Founder of the Jama’at-i-Islami and many other sects currently in power in Pakistan had originally opposed the establishment of a separate homeland for Muslims when Pakistan was being formed (organisations like Majlis-i-Ahraar went to the extent of calling Pakistan – ‘Pak’ means pure – Paleedistan i.e. impure), Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan had sacrificed life and blood for their beloved country and honoured it with the first and only Noble Laureate, Dr Abdus Salam, and the first Judge at the International Court of Justice in The Hague and first Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. Their reward for their loyalty and patriotism was continuing persecution.

The West is just as guilty for funding the very worm that has turned on it. Through Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, the West supported the Jama’at-i-Islami and the Mujahideen in removing the Russians from Afghanistan. While that objective was being achieved, they also permitted the military dictator General Ziaul Haq to issue an Ordinance and other directives that made it a punishable offence for Ahmadi Muslims, amongst other ludicrous things, to:

• extend greetings of peace to others;
• make the call for prayers;
• call their places of worship as mosques;
• hold sports events or other gatherings;
• call themselves Muslims including when filling passport application forms

General Zia met his sorry end at the Hand of God Almighty but unfortunately his lessons were not learnt.

Ahmadi Muslims have been arrested and put in prison since 1984 on 3721 various concocted charges (ranging from making the call for prayers, posing as Muslims, offering prayers, etc.) and sentenced arbitrarily. Ahmadi shops have been looted and set ablaze. Ahmadi mosques have been desecrated. Those bent on destroying Ahmadis and mocking them are given full rights, yet on the other hand Ahmadis are not allowed to hold gatherings to promote peace and brotherhood. In fact, an FIR¹ was issued against ALL Ahmadi inhabitants of Rabwah. Have you heard of anything so mad and ridiculous?

Many sections of the Pakistani media played a commendable role in highlighting the atrocities of these attacks and the plight of Pakistani Ahmadis. As a conse-quence some politicians expressed their mooted sympathies, but on the whole the leaders chose to ignore this sad loss of Ahmadi lives. Two official spokespersons of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan, Mirza Khursheed Ahmad, Nazir-e-Ala (President) of the Sadr Anjamun, Executive Committee Pakistan, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a director of the same body, held respective press conferences where prominent media representatives and the major Pakistani TV channels attended. The Ahmadi situation since 1974 and the state-sanctioned persecution against Ahmadis were expounded in some detail. Yet not even a small part of these press conferences was relayed on any Pakistani TV station.

It is true that Shias, Sunnis, and Christians, etc., have all suffered at the hands of extremists. The Ahmadiyya community is the only community in Pakistan, however, which has state-sanctioned laws in Pakistan’s constitution that allow, and in fact encourage, people to persecute Ahmadis. The Lahore attacks are thus the result of a build up of decades of state sanctioned persecution against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. More than 100 Ahmadis had been martyred even before the Lahore attacks in Pakistan, yet not a single one of the culprits have ever been brought to justice. Since 1974’s Second Amendment and further in 1984 when General Zia introduced Ordinance XX, the constitution of Pakistan has provided an open door to anybody to commit any crime against Ahmadis without the fear of reprisal. In short, the everyday life of Ahmadis in Pakistan has been made a crime. Following an attack on the Ahmadi mosque in Mong Rasul, the terrorists caught red-handed were set free by a Justice system that protects the rights of all but Ahmadis.

The Founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah said:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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…..”

Today, Pakistan has an erratic power supply and suffers from chronic shortages and rampant inflation at home while abroad it is termed a non-State; its credit-rating worse, its human rights record is deplorable and its politicians powerless. Minority groups, particularly the Ahmadiyya Muslim community², are persecuted with sanction from the state. The responsibility for this dastardly callous state of affairs must rest with the Pakistan Government, Punjab provincial authorities, and also the Muslim clergy who have completely ignored and forgotten the vision laid down by Jinnah. In doing so they, in fact, ignore the teachings of tolerance and respect brought by the Holy Prophet^(saw) himself.

1. Leaders have been hasty to enact constitutional amend-ments to protect their hold on power but have done nothing to repeal laws and ordinances that protect Ahmadi Muslims:

2. Pakistani politicians are so impotent that they continue to appease semi-literate clerics who have only bred hatred among the masses.

3. Successive Pakistani govern-ments have willingly turned a blind eye to the plight of a persecuted religious com-munity.

4. They have allowed the Majlis Tahaffuz Khatme Nabuwwat, an association that has raised its ugly head in some western countries to:

a) hold hate rallies in Rabwah, the headquarters of the Ahmadiyya Muslim com-munity;

b) reign freely in stoking up animosity against a religious community and asking that all citizenship rights be denied to Ahmadi Muslims;

c) repeatedly stick up posters in the Pakistan Supreme Courts and street shops declaring that Ahmadi Muslims are wajibul qatl meaning that they must be killed; the logo of the Punjab government is visible on many of these posters and banners which blatantly incite hatred against Ahmadi Muslims;

e) be instrumental, directly or indirectly, in causing the murder of several Ahmadi Muslims;

f) ensure that Ahmadi Muslims are charged under blasphemy or other laws while at the same time ensuring that no one is arrested in connection with any crime committed against an Ahmadi; and

g) hold conferences attended by the Minister of Religion in Pakistan and the son of the Punjab Governor.

Never before in Pakistan have so many been killed in two mosques belonging to a single sect on the same date. Never before has the hand of the Pakistan Government been so exposed in allowing this heinous act to take place on its own soil and doing nothing to remove the posters that call for hatred against Ahmadis and their murder. The time has come for the Pakistan Government to remove the posters that call for the murder of anyone or a community.

Worth mentioning in the aftermath of the Lahore attacks was the true Islamic response of members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community who are guided by the Khalifa. Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih V^(aba), the Worldwide Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, delivered his Friday sermon live via MTA International just a few hours after the attacks. He told Ahmadis around the world to be patient and to pray profusely, to exhibit steadfastness, to respond with prayers and patience, because in actual fact all Prophets have always told their followers to react in exactly this manner. As Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih V^(aba) explained, since the time of the Prophet Adam^(as), all Prophets have been opposed and persecuted. They and their followers have been oppressed, beaten, killed and harassed in every way possible, none more than the Holy Prophet^(saw) and his followers. God’s Message is always opposed violently and truth is always suppressed. But it is with prayers, kindness, compassion and patience that the Prophets and their followers bore those tragedies, and because of this God granted them successes and ultimate victory.

Hence despite all the atrocities, Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan will, of course, continue to be loyal citizens of Pakistan and will do their utmost to work with the authorities in maintaining peace and order in society. They will co-operate with authorities and abide by the law. The only thing they demand of Pakistan is that they be treated as citizens of their State and be offered the same protection that has been accepted as an international standard by all countries.

REFERENCES

1. (First Information Report – a written document issued by the police in Pakistan regarding an alleged criminal offence and which enables the police to begin proceedings and investigations)
2. Readers should note that the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is referred to here as ‘minority’ with reference to Pakistani Law only. Our firm belief however, is that we are Muslims and therefore are not a minority as such.

We present below the transcript of part of a question & answer session held with Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad(ru), Khalifatul Masih IV, Fourth Successor to the Promised Messiah(as) held on 5th November 1995 in London.

Question: What is Jihad?

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^(ru): What is Jihad, this is the issue. Is it Islamic Jihad what they represent it to be, to take up [the] sword on the excuse of religious differences and to murder people for the crime of not agreeing with Islam? If that is Jihad then, of course, we do not agree with that, because the Holy Qur’an doesn’t agree with that either, because Hadhrat Muhammad Rasoolullah^(saw) (the Holy Prophet) never murdered people just because of the religious differences. People came to meet him; he lived with the Jews, with the Christians, with the idolaters throughout his life and never murdered or ordered anyone to be murdered because he did not agree with the faith in which he (the Prophet) believed. So there is no justification whatsoever for any scholar of Islam to misinterpret Islam from the issue of Jihad and attribute a concept of Jihad to the Holy Qur’an and to the conduct of Hadhrat Muhammad Rasoolullah^(saw) which has no relationship with them.
So what is Jihad? The first Jihad which is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an is the Jihad with the Qur’an. So, the Holy Qur’an addressing Hadhrat Muhammad Rasoolullah^(saw), says: Wa Jahid Hum Bihi Jihadun Kabira (Ch.25:V.53); with this Book strive against them, with the help of this Book, the great striving. So the greatest Jihad of every Muslim is to strive for the victory of Islam with whatever lies in his capacity by way of the Qur’anic teachings or by way of an example, beautiful example, set before the people by acting upon the Qur’anic teaching. This is the most wonderful Jihad that one can think of – and this is Islamic Jihad.

Number two, the second Jihad mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and also in Hadith is Jihad against your own evil dispositions, evil inclinations etc. and to continue to wage a war against your bad-self which would continue to drag you to all that is satanic and that is the Jihad between light and darkness. And that Jihad begins within a man individually and within a woman – by [the] word ‘man’ I mean both man and women – and this is a Jihad in which seldom we find people genuinely and seriously involved, yet they claim at the loudest of their voices “Jihad, Jihad, Jihad!”

So these are the primary two Jihads, which I have mentioned, which they totally ignore.

The third, in order, comes Jihad with [the] sword; and what is that Jihad? Can a fight with sword or bullets or guns be called holy and if so in what context? The Holy Qur’an is so clear on that, that there is no room for any ambiguity left if you read the Qur’an with due care and attention, and honesty of course. I have been quoting so often the fundamental verse concerning this Jihad, the third type of Jihad which can be carried out with sword – by sword I mean all weapons – and this is found in a verse in Surah Al-Hajj. This is the first verse found in the Holy Qur’an which speaks of a permission to wage a war against those who…which ‘those’?…I am going to explain now. Not against those who disagree with your faith; not against those who having heard your message, reject it, not at all. The words [of the Qur’an] when you hear, you will be surprised how they could be misinterpreted by anyone: (I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the Accursed. In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful) Udhina Lilladheena Yuqaataluna bi Annahum Dhulimu. Wa Innallaha ‘Ala Nasrihim La Qadeer (Ch.22:V:40).

Udhina Lillazeena, permission is granted to those against whom the sword is already raised. Yuqaataluna – any Arab can understand the meaning, no one can fail to understand the import of this verse because it’s [a] simple injunction expressed in simplest terms. The raising of sword, the fighting, is permitted to those against whom the sword has already been raised – first condition; Bi Annahum Zulimu, despite the fact that they have not committed any crime; they have given no cause of offence to anyone. But it is not over yet; Wa Innallah Ala Nasrihim La Qadeer, verily, God has full power to help such people when they raise [the] sword under the permission of God. Now this is also a very significant part of this verse and also of Jihad because the scenario presented to us is that of a very weak people, so weak and apparently defenceless, that any Tom, Dick and Harry begins to raise [the] sword against them and trample upon their rights, despite the fact that they had not given anybody a genuine cause of offence.

So, the Holy Qur’an is so wonderful when it says We are permitting you, and We take the responsibility that if you use this permission you’ll find God at your back. However weak you may be, when We grant permission, We are responsible that you will emerge victorious. This is exactly the promise made; Innallah ‘Ala Nasrihim La Qadeer, to help them to victory is a small thing for Allah. He is capable of doing [this] whenever He so decides. But, the story of their persecution still continues; runs on. It says: Alladheena Ukhriju Min Diyarihim Bighayri Haqqin…. (Ch.22:V.41) Such innocent people against whom the atrocities have been committed, even to the extent they were turned out of their homes, out of their country, out of their birth places; Bighayri Haqqin, without any right of the people who turned them out.

Then the Holy Qur’an tells us: Illa Ayyaqulu Rabbunallah, the only crime they committed was they said God is our Lord, the Provident – Allahu Rabbuna. And this is the only claim they made which annoyed the opponents to degree that they started committing all sort of cruelties against them. And they are not yet satiated, they are not satisfied having turned them out of their homes – they’re still after them. Now this is in a sort of prophecy, in fact. It says you have come to Madinah, you have been turned out of your homes, but the war is not over against you, the sword will yet be raised, and this time if they come pursuing you, We permit you to fight back. This was indeed a prophecy of what happened at Badr [the first war fought by the Muslims and the Holy Prophet^(saw), fought in self-defence], and the promise of Allah was kept so beautifully. Being small in number, being weak in other respects, you know, pitched against an army of trained soldiers, the very pick of Makkah, who were one thousand, who were mounted, who had all sorts of equipment available at that time; and this small number of 313, who also included among them some lame people, some old people, some young boys who had not yet reached maturity; and the promise is so positive, so clear; this time let them come; this time if they wage a war We have permitted you, and We are capable of defeating them. So God is with you; don’t care.

And then the principle of Jihad is mentioned. If these ‘Ulama (Muslim clergy) who cry out “Jihad, Jihad” for political ends; if they read this verse it’s impossible for them to misrepresent Islam anymore. The Holy Qur’an says:

Wa lau la Daf‘ullahinnasa Ba’dahum Biba‘din Lahuddimat Sawaami‘u Wabiya‘un wasalaatun Wamasajidu Yudhkaru Fihasmullahi Kathira (Ch.22:V.41);

If God had not permitted some to defend themselves against some others, then what would happen; Lahuddimat Sawaami‘u, the churches and Christian places of worship will be destroyed; the places of worship of the Hermits and the Recluse would also be demolished and destroyed; places of worship of the Jews will be destroyed. And then also the mosques will be destroyed where God is remembered so often.

Now have you understood the message and the magnanimity of this message? According to this, Jihad is to protect the right of worship. Basically, if anyone interferes with the right of worship of even a Christian, any defender of that right, if killed, will be a martyr, because it is the right of freedom of religion; right of freedom of worship. So, instead of mentioning the mosques in the first place, the mosques are mentioned in the end of the list. [A] fantastic thing – the magnanimity of the Holy Qur’an finds no equal in the world of religious scriptures.

So, this is the basic philosophy of Islamic Jihad. Everything which should have been told by Jihad has been told. If any claim of Jihad, any interpretation of Jihad, contradicts this basic teaching and this comprehensive teaching, how can we agree with that?

In 1974 Zulifaqar Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, introduced the Second Amendment in the Pakistan Consitution specifically aimed at declaring Ahmadi Muslims as non-Muslims. In 1984 General Zia-Ul-Haq  brought in Ordinance XX to the Constitution that effectively made it a crime for Ahmadis to do anything Islamic. We present below the text of the Second Amendment, Ordinance XX and some later introduced minor amendments, all of which deny Ahmadi Muslims the most basic human rights and would form the basis for false accusations of blasphemy against Ahmadis, punishable by imprisonment or even death in some cases.

CONSTITUTION (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT OF 1974
(DECLARING AHMADI MUSLIMS AS “NON MUSLIMS”)

Vol. XXVI – 1974 Central Statutes 425

ACT XLIX OF 1974
An Act to amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

(Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 21st September, 1974)

The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 17th September 1974, and is hereby published for general information:

Where it is expedient to further amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the purposes hereinafter appearing:

It is hereby enacted as follows:

1.           Short title and commencement.

(1) This Act may be called the Constitution (Second Amendment) Act, 1974

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2.      AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 106 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as Constitution, in Article 106, in clause (3), after the word “communities”, the words and brackets “and persons of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’)” shall be inserted.

3.      AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In the Constitution, Article 260, after clause (2), the following new clause shall be added, namely:

“(3) A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or a religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”

Government of Pakistan — Law for Ahmadis

Religious and Ahmadi-specific Laws

EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
ISLAMABAD, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1984

PART 1

Acts, Ordinances, President’s Orders and Regulations including Martial law Orders and Regulations

Government of Pakistan

MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
(LAW DIVISION)

Islamabad, the 26th April 1984

No. F.17 (1) 84-Pub. The following Ordinance made by the President is hereby published for general information.

ORDINANCE NO. XX OF 1984
AN ORDINANCE

to amend the law to prohibit the Quadiani group, Lahori group and Ahmadis from indulging in anti-Islamic activities:

WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the law to prohibit the Quadiani group, Lahori group and Ahmadis from indulging in anti-Islamic activities:

AND WHEREAS the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action:

NOW, THEREFORE, in pursuance of the Proclamation of the fifth day of July, 1977, and in exercise of all powers enabling him in that behalf, the President is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance:

PART I – PRELIMINARY

1. Short title and commencement.

(1)           This Ordinance may be called the Anti-Islamic Activities of the Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, 1984.

(2)           It shall come into force at once.

2. Ordinance to override orders or decisions of courts.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding any order or decision of any court.

PART II – AMENDMENT OF THE PAKISTAN PENAL CODE
(ACT XLV OF 1860)

3. Addition of new sections 298B and 298C, Act XLV of 1860.
In the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), in Chapter XV, after section 298A, the following new sections shall be added, namely:

“298B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places.

(1)           Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation;

(a)           refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him),as ‘Ameerul Mumineen’, ‘Khalifa-tui-Mumineen’, ‘Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen’, ‘Sahaabi’ or ‘Razi Allah Anho’

(b)           refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as ‘Ummul-Mumineen’

(c)           (c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as ‘Ahle-bait’; or

(d)           refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship as ‘Masjid’; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2)            Any person of the Quadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as ‘Azan’ or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(3)            298C. Person of Quadiani group etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith.
Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

PART III AMENDMENT OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1898
(ACT V OF 1898)

4. Amendment of section 99A, Act V of 1898. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), hereinafter referred to as the said Code, in section 99A, in sub-section (I):

(a)           after the words and comma “of that class”, the words, figures, brackets, letter and commas “or any matter of the nature referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963,” shall be inserted; and

(b)           after the figure and letter “295A”, the words, figures and letters “or section 298A or section 298B or section 298C” shall be inserted.

5. Amendment of Schedule II. Act V of 1898. In the said Code, in Schedule II, after the entries relating to section 298A, the following entries shall be inserted, namely:

PART IV AMENDMENT OF THE WEST PAKISTAN PRESS AND PUBLICATIONS ORDINANCE 1963 (W.P. ORDINANCE NO. XXX OF 1963)

6. Amendment of section 24, West Pakistan Ordinance No. XXX of 1963.
In the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (W.P. Ordinance No. XXX of 1963), in section 24, in sub-section (1) after clause (i), the following new clause shall be inserted, namely;

“(ii) are of the nature referred to in section 298A, section 298B. or section 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), or”,

General, M. Zia-Ul-Haq,
President.

BLASPHEMY CLAUSES

ACT III OF 1986

CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 198

An Act further to amend the Pakistan Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, part 1, 12th October 1986)

The following Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) received the assent of the President on the 5th October, 1986 and is hereby published for general information:

Whereas it is expedient further to amend the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1893), for the purposes hereinafter appearing:

It is hereby enacted as follows:

1. Short title and commencement

(1)            This Act may be called the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1986.

(2)           It shall come into force at once.

2. Insertion of new section 295-C, Act XLV of 1860. In the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), after section 295-B, the following new section shall be inserted, namely:

295-C.     Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

3.      Amendment of Schedule II, Act V of 1898. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), in Schedule II, after the entries relating to section 295-A, the following new entries shall be inserted, namely:

Since the regime of General Zia-Ul-Haq, Pakistanis have had to fill out a separate column on their passport declaring their ‘religion’ to prevent Ahmadis from travelling to Makkah and for Hajj. In order to have ‘Muslim’ written on a Pakistani Passport a person must declare that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as), Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, was, God forbid an imposter. (Part of this form is reproduced below)

In light of events of the past few years, notably, the publication of the cartoons in Denmark caricaturing the Holy Prophet Muhammad^(saw) and the recently dismissed criminal prosecution for apostasy in Afghanistan, I will discuss freedom of conscience within the context of the Islamic legal view regarding: (1) freedom of expression, where I discuss the issue of blasphemy, and (2) freedom of religion, where I will discuss the issue of apostasy.

Freedom of expression

According to Western legal standards, freedom of expression or speech means the absence of restraint upon the ability of individuals or groups to communicate their ideas to others, subject to the understanding that they do not in turn coerce others into listening or that they do not invade other rights essential to the dignity of individuals.ⁱ This freedom also connotes the freedom of the press and the ability to communicate ideas through words and pictures in order to reveal truth or to clarify or eliminate doubt. This is similar to the definition mentioned in the Holy Qur’an.

Although the Qur’an does not explicitly state “thou shalt have freedom of expression”, it does place obligations on Muslims which presuppose this right. According to the Qur’an, the ultimate goal of all speech is to promote the discovery of truth and to uphold human dignity. One of God’s attributes is Al-Haqq (True and Right One), and all Muslims must endeavour to emulate this attribute by forwarding the cause of truth; tell the truth, even if it be unpleasant. (Al-Suyuti, I, p.111) Therefore, restrictions on freedom of speech and expression necessarily inhibit the discovery of truth and thus degrade humanity. For example:

…So what would you love after discarding the truth except error… (Ch.10:V.33)

This last verse signifies the one major restriction on freedom of speech, namely, when it is unseemly. Speech is unseemly or evil when it is obscene, immoral or hurtful. Evil speech interferes with the discovery of truth and thus violates human dignity. Therefore, restricting evil speech is justifiable on freedom of expression.

Allah likes not the uttering of unseemly speech in public, except on the part of one who is being wronged… (Ch.4:V.49)

However, even the most insulting type of speech, namely, blasphemy, is not criminally sanctioned and thus not restricted under Islamic law.

Islam also instructs us as to the manner of how to exercise one’s freedom of expression and speech. The manner in which free expression is exercised is through the concepts of hisbah and naseehah. Hisbah, a term coined by Hadhrat ‘Umar^(ra), the second Khalifa of Islam, encapsulates the duty to advocate good and advise against evil referred to in the Holy Qur’an. Naseehah refers to the manner in which hisbah must be conducted, namely, the requirement that Muslims practise hisbah by giving sincere and friendly advice and counsel.

Hisbah, or the advocating of good, presupposes the right to freedom of speech. One cannot advocate good without first having the right to advocate.

And let there be among you a body of men who should invite to goodness, and enjoin equity and forbid evil. And it is they who shall prosper. (Ch.3:V.105)

Note that “Let there be” (Arabic: “waltakun”) conveys a command or obligation upon the Muslims.

And the believers, men and women, are friends one of another. They enjoin good and forbid evil and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat (alms to the poor) and obey Allah and His Messenger. It is these on whom Allah will have mercy…. (Ch.9: V.71)

As stated, naseehah, which means to give sincere advice, friendly admonition or friendly reminder, is best understood by distinguishing it from the concept of tawbikh (reprimand). Tawbikh is public and tactless and is associated with ridicule and belittlement, while, by contrast, naseehah is private and courteous.

…And speak to men kindly... (Ch.2:V.84)

When one of you gives advice to his brother, let him isolate him (from) the company of others. (Al-Maqdis, I, p.328)

Muslims are further instructed in the Holy Qur’an regarding the manner in which to engage in hisbah and naseehah:

Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in a way that is best. (Ch.16:V.126)

And argue not with the People of the Book except with what is best; but argue not at all with such of them as are unjust. And say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and that which has been revealed to you; and our God and your God is one; and to Him we submit…’ (Ch.29:V.47)

“People of the Book” means any people who have received a revelation prior to the Holy Qur’an, including the Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and any others.

In Islam, freedom of expression is restrained only where the failure to do so would result in harming the cause of truth. According to many Muslim scholars, the primary offence which justifies such a curtailment of free expression is blasphemy. However, as the discussion below will demonstrate, even this type of speech is not curtailed in Islam.

Blasphemy in Islam is defined nowadays as contemptuous hostile statements against either the fundamentals of Islam, against Allah, the personality of the Holy Prophet^(saw), or any other prophet or anything sacred in Islam, such statements being made with the intention to offend the sensibilities of Muslims. The Arabic word for blasphemy is sabb (insult). Although blasphemy is considered an offence in Islam, either committed by a Muslim or a non-Muslim, no punishment is prescribed for it in the Holy Qur’an. Rather, the punishment for it is always in the hands of God alone, to be meted out by Him either in this life or in the Hereafter. Therefore, based on the Qur’anic references to it, and the Holy Prophet’s reaction to it, blasphemy cannot be considered a type of speech for which legal curtailment is justified. Although it is an offence according to the Holy Qur’an, it is not an offence for the purposes of criminal law as it is a matter for God and God alone, to deal with. The Qur’an states,

Verily those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them an abasing punishment. And those who malign believing men and believing women for what they have not earned shall bear the guilt of calumny and a manifest sin. (Ch.33:V.59)

Note that no earthly punishment is referenced in this verse.

… and you shall surely hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and from those who set up equals to God. But if you show fortitude and act righteously, that indeed is a matter of strong determination. (Ch.3:V.187)

There exists an authentic Tradition in which the Holy Prophet^(saw) advocates restraint and gentleness. In this tradition, an event is described, in which a group of Jews happened to pass by the Holy Prophet^(saw) while he was sitting with his wife and some friends. Playing off the traditional greeting “Assalamu ‘Alaikum” (peace be upon you), the Jewish group instead greeted the Holy Prophet^(saw) with the words “Al-saam ‘Alaikum” (death be upon you). Upon hearing this, the Holy Prophet^(saw) remained silent. However, in anger, his wife, ‘A’ishah^(ra), angrily responded with the words “Al-saam ‘Alaikum Wa’l-la‘nah” (may death and curses be upon you). In other words, she not only responded, but her response constituted an escalation in the exchange. Upon hearing her response, the Holy Prophet^(saw) stated, “O ‘A’ishah, God the Most High loves gentleness.” Astonished, ‘A’ishah^(ra) replied by asking the Holy Prophet^(saw) if he had heard what was said to him. His response was “yes, but you could have just said ‘Wa ‘Alaikum’ (on you too).” (Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, 311-12) You will note that, in the face of his insult, the Holy Prophet^(saw) himself did not respond, but instead, criticised his wife for her response. Indeed, in returning to the Holy Qur’an:

… and those who suppress anger and pardon men; and Allah loves those who do good. (Ch.3:V.135)

and the following Hadith,

A Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand other Muslims are safe. (Muslim, No. 69)

As the Holy Prophet^(saw) made this statement in the context of a predominantly Muslim population, commentators are unanimously of the view that he meant that the members of any community where a Muslim resides is safe and secure from him or her.

There are numerous other incidents from the life of the Holy Prophet^(saw) and his Companions (peace be upon them) demonstrating their reaction to statements that can be considered blasphemous. These incidents are starkly contrasted to the behaviour of today’s so-called Muslim extremists who believe it is their God-given duty to murder anyone uttering anything regarded blasphemous.

Once Abu Bakr^(ra), who would later become the first Khalifa of Islam, was being inflicted with vehement verbal abuse from a non-Muslim. The Holy Prophet^(saw) was sitting nearby. Listening to the abuse, Abu Bakr^(ra) bore it patiently and in silence. Observing this, the Holy Prophet^(saw) smiled. Eventually having had enough of the non-Muslim’s tirade, Abu Bakr^(ra) began to reply, at which point the Holy Prophet^(saw) rose and walked away. Later, Abu Bakr^(ra) inquired of the Holy Prophet^(saw), “O Prophet, whilst this person was abusing me, you remained seated, and smiled, but when I replied, you stood up and walked away. Why?” The Holy Prophet^(saw) replied, “While you remained quiet, the angels were replying on your behalf, but when you spoke, the angels went away and Satan appeared instead. Therefore, how could I have remained present?”

During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet^(saw), a Jew and an Arab quarrelled over the superiority of their respective prophets. The manner in which the Muslim asserted his claim injured the sentiments of the Jewish person. When the Jewish person complained to the Holy Prophet^(saw), he reprimanded the Muslim, saying, “Do not exalt me above Moses”. Such was the high standard of courtesy that the Holy Prophet^(saw) required from his followers.

After the conquest of Makkah (when the non-Muslims peacefully surrendered to the Muslims), despite years of merciless persecution, both verbal and physical, the Holy Prophet^(saw) granted amnesty and forgiveness to the entire population making specific reference to the mercy extended by the Prophet Joseph^(as) to his brothers as his reason for doing so. In other words, despite years of cruelty and suffering inflicted upon Muslims by the Makkans, the Holy Prophet^(saw)’s first reaction was forgiveness and tenderness.

One rare exception to this policy of amnesty was ‘Ikramah who had been sentenced to death on account of his having inflicted exceptionally great violence upon Muslims and murdering scores of them. Anticipating this reprisal, ‘Ikrimah fled from Makkah. However, upon receiving a request for mercy from his wife, the Holy Prophet^(saw) granted amnesty and forgiveness to ‘Ikrimah as well. When ‘Ikrimah returned to Makkah, he asked the Holy Prophet^(saw) whether the grant of amnesty was genuine or whether it required his conversion to Islam. The Holy Prophet^(saw) stated that his forgiveness was indeed genuine, unconditional conversion was not required. At that moment, of his own volition, ‘Ikrimah converted to Islam on the basis that such magnanimity was proof that the Holy Prophet^(saw) was a true prophet of God.

The life of the Holy Prophet^(saw) is replete with examples like the foregoing. These examples demonstrate that, whilst not condoning evil speech, Islam also does not restrict freedom of speech as it is God alone Who is the ultimate Reckoner. Islam was spread with love and compassion, maintaining religious freedom and conscience.

Regarding the Danish cartoon controversy, we know that, in April 2003, an artist named Christopher Ziele submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons to the Jyllands-Posten newspaper (the same newspaper which published the cartoons of the Holy Prophet^(saw)) which depicted Jesus Christ’s resurrection in an apparently light-hearted manner. The editor of this newspaper correctly rejected them on the grounds that he felt that his readers would find little value in them and that they would likely cause an outcry. Two and a half years later, this same editor authorised the publication of the cartoons of the Holy Prophet^(saw). The Jyllands-Posten knew well what it was doing and that an outcry would ensue. When it did within Denmark, they did not care and ignored criticism defiantly citing the right to free speech. It was only until a boycott resulting in a loss of almost $500M in sales of Danish dairy products abroad that the right to free speech was trumped by economics, and both the Jyllans-Posten and the Prime Minister of Denmark apologised.²

Further, while we know that the overwhelming number of protests in the world staged by Muslims were civilised and peaceful, all of the media reporting seemed to focus exclusively on the few, but admittedly, horribly violent riots that took place exclusively in so-called Muslim countries. Worthy of note is that not one of these violent riots took place in Europe by European Muslims. It is hard not to be cynical and take note of the double-standard employed by the media. When cartoons of Jesus^(as) are at issue, their relative value and whether they would be injurious to others is a paramount editorial consideration thus resulting in a justified curtailment of free speech, but when cartoons of the Holy Prophet^(saw) are at issue, then the same editorial judgment determines that the right to free speech must not be compromised, at least until the sale of dairy product exports is compromised. Most certainly, had the cartoons contained the slightest hint of anti-Semitism, they would have been universally condemned, and rightly so.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim community strongly condemns all violence that ensued from Muslim reaction to the cartoons. Many Muslims sympathised with the violence stating that it was a natural and human reaction, or the last straw, due to the current debasement and persecution of Muslims throughout the world today. However, our view is that there is no justification for such violent protests and the destruction of property. If one were to resort to the alleged “natural” reaction, then they need not refer to it as Islamic or in conformance with the Islamic ideal as espoused in the Qur’anic verses or Prophetic traditions cited here.

Instead of engaging in protests or staging violence, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community remained mindful of its obligations regarding hisbah and naseehah. After the publication of the cartoons, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad^(aba), visited Denmark, and during a hotel reception, addressed the Danish press and officials of the Danish Government. This address was reported by the press and thus is a matter of the public record.³ He explained why the cartoons were offensive, and did so in a manner that was courteous and exhibited quiet discretion – hisbah and naseehah – advising good and giving courteous and private counsel. No loud public statements were made or authorised by him. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community reacted to the Danish cartoon controversy in strict accordance with the injunctions of the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah (Practice of the Prophet^(saw)). In fact, this has always been the practice of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community since its inception, Ahmadis have never responded to any attacks against Islam with force, rather, with the motto “love for all, hatred for none” have used their literature, media and reason to debate and rebut allegations. The Promised Messiah^(as), Founder of the Ahmadiyya community, said this was the time of the Jihad of the Pen i.e. the pen is mightier than the sword.

Canadian law is potentially more restrictive than Islamic law in this context. While Islamic law forbids hurtful or blasphemous speech – it does not mete out any criminal punishment for it. By contrast, Canadian law prohibits speech which incites hatred or perpetuates dangerous or racist stereotypes and imposes criminal sanctions on those who engage in such speech. Therefore, while certain types of speech may not be prosecutable under Islamic law, they are prosecutable under Canadian law.

B. Freedom of religion

According to Western legal standards, freedom of religion not only allows for the freedom to practise one’s faith in accordance with its tenets but also the freedom from being coerced into converting to a particular religion.⁴ This concept of freedom of religion was established almost 1500 years ago by the Holy Qur’an and was upheld by the Holy Prophet^(saw) and the early Muslims. Indeed, historians like Thomas Arnold, have challenged the traditional Western view that Islam was spread by force.

According to Professor Thomas Arnold, in his book, The Preaching of Islam (p.46), European historians deliberately obscured the genuine missionary character of Islam and misrepresented its spread throughout Asia and Africa. In reality, the incredibly rapid conversion rate of the early Arabs and Africans of the time actually resulted from the historically amicable relationships between Christians and Muslims. Indeed, the continued existence of Christian Arabs today living peacefully within a dominant Muslim population is “living testimony of this toleration.”

The support for freedom of religion and non-coercion in the Holy Qur’an is as follows:

There should be no compulsion in religion. (Ch.2:V.257)

And if your Lord had enforced His will, surely, all who are on the earth would have believed together. Will you, then, force men to become believers? (Ch.10:V.100)⁵

Included in the freedom to practice one’s faith and to be free from coercion is also the freedom to change one’s faith. This freedom is included in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In Islam, a Muslim who leaves his or her faith is considered an apostate. The word for apostasy in Arabic is riddah, which literally means to “turn back”. Although the offence of apostasy is mentioned 19 times in the Holy Qur’an, like the offence of blasphemy, nowhere is there a prescribed criminal punishment for it. Therefore, like blasphemy, apostasy is not an offence punishable under Islamic criminal law.

The following are examples of how the Holy Qur’an addresses the issue of apostasy:

Whoso disbelieves in God after he has believed – save him who is forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faith – but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment. (Ch.16:V.107)

O ye who believe! whoso among you turns back from his religion, then let it be known that in his stead, Allah will soon bring a people whom He will love and who will love Him… (Ch.5:V.55)

In these verses, again, no criminal punishment is mentioned.

Within the context of people committing apostasy or “turning back”, the Holy Prophet^(saw) is repeatedly told by God in the Qur’an that his role is confined to conveying the message, and that if people reject him in any way, he should not concern himself.

…If they submit, then they will surely be guided; but if they turn back, then thy duty is only to convey the message… (Ch.3:V.21)⁶

Admonish, therefore, for thou [Muhammad^(saw)] art but an admonisher; thou hast no authority to compel them. (Ch.88: Vs.22-23)⁷

(O Prophet) proclaim, ‘This is the truth from your Lord, so let him who will believe, and let him who will, disbelieve… (Ch.18:V.30)

Despite the foregoing, one can ask on what basis the courts of Afghanistan justify prosecuting someone who converted to Christianity for the offence of apostasy. The problem is that Afghan courts do so on the basis of two Traditions and in complete disregard of what the Holy Qur’an states. The only two Traditions which exist for prosecuting the offence of apostasy as a criminal offence are very weak. One is a supposed Hadith of the Holy Prophet^(saw), and the other is based on the alleged precedent set by the Apostasy Wars in 632 CE, waged immediately after the Holy Prophet^(saw)’s death.

Regarding the Hadith, it states, “kill the one who changes his religion”. Scholars throughout the past fourteen centuries have consistently raised serious questions as to its authenticity⁸. Indeed, the Holy Prophet^(saw) himself instructed his followers to reject any alleged Tradition of his if it was in direct contradiction to the Holy Qur’an. It is inconceivable and impossible that he would say or do anything that contradicted the Qur’an. Based on the Qur’anic verses cited here, this Hadith is clearly in direct contradiction with the Qur’an thus making this Hadith unworthy of consideration.

Regarding the Apostasy Wars, these wars were waged against certain Bedouin tribes, some of whom who had converted to Islam, some of whom had not, and all of whom had agreed to pay Zakat or Jizya to Madinah, the then capital of a newly established Islamic Empire. After the Holy Prophet^(saw)’s death, some of the tribes rebelled by refusing to continue remittance of the tribute. As the Islamic Empire was then newly established, allowing some of the “conquered lands” to renege on their obligations would have seriously damaged the stability of the new Empire, especially so soon after the Holy Prophet^(saw)’s death, when his successor, Hadhrat Abu Bakr^(saw) would have been most concerned about consolidating the empire and establishing his position. Therefore, these wars were not about apostasy per se, but rather about the continued remittance of the tribute. What complicates the facts regarding these wars is that some of the Bedouin tribes did apostatise with one of their leaders even claiming prophethood. However, not all of the tribes apostatised.

Given that the Holy Prophet^(saw), throughout his lifetime, always left unchallenged and unpunished instances of apostasy and rival claims of prophethood, one cannot assert that they were the motivation for the Apostasy Wars, regardless of the name they were given. Therefore, to state that the Apostasy Wars are a convincing precedent for the punishment of apostasy in Islam is a stretch, to say the least.

Conclusion

The Holy Qur’an and Hadith maintain and uphold the right to freedom of expression, only apparently restricting it when it would result in impeding the cause of the discovery of truth. However, even where speech is offensive and hurtful, such as with the offence of blasphemy, no worldly criminal sanction exists for it under Islamic law as the matter is left solely to God.

The Holy Qur’an teaches how one should express oneself, namely, through gentleness, courtesy and quiet discretion through the concepts of hisbah and naseehah. It was in strict accordance with these concepts that Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad^(aba), the Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, addressed the Danish cartoon controversy.

The foregoing discussion also demonstrates that the Holy Qur’an maintains and upholds the right to freedom of religion, including the right to change one’s religion. While the Qur’an refers to apostasy as an offence, as with blasphemy, no worldly criminal sanction exists for it under Islamic law as the matter is left to God alone.

References

1. See Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, pp.6-16 (1996, Islamic Texts Society).
2. See Gary Younge, The Right to be Offended, The Nation, February 8, 2006; Christopher Bollyn, Understanding the Roots of the Anti-Muslim Cartoon Scandal, American Free Press, Vol. VI, No. 8, February 20, 2006; Haroon Siddiqui, On books, censorship an political pressure, The Toronto Star, March 16, 2006; Haroon Siddiqui, Denmark embroiled in Muslim controversy, The Toronto Star, February 2, 2006; Martin Jacques, Europe’s contempt for other cultures can’t be sustained, The Guardian, February 17, 2006.
3. Hadrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, The Blessed Model of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Caricatures: Friday Sermons Delivered by Hadrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih V, Imam Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya (Islam International Publications 2006), pp.97-98.
4. See Kamali at 87-88.
5. “And no soul can believe except by the permission of Allah. And He makes His wrath descend on those who will not use their reason.” (The Holy Qur’an Ch.10:V101). Also see The Holy Qur’an Ch.11:V29 and Ch.109:Vs.2-7.
6. Also see The Holy Qur’an Ch.5:V.49 and Ch.72:V.24.
7. Also see The Holy Qur’an Ch.50:V.46.
8. See e.g., Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, “Punishment of Apostasy in Islam” (April 2007) http://islamicperspectives.com/PunishmentOfApostasy_Part2.html.

A couple of years ago, a similar situation arose when the French agency Zoe’s Ark tried to take 103 orphans from Chad whom they claimed were victims of the war in Darfur (Sudan). A UN investigation found that the children were neither from Darfur or Sudan, nor were they orphans. Claims from these agencies that such children were “in need of God’s love and compassion” might harbour a genuine wish to offer them a better life and take them out of difficult circumstances, but beg the question of who was in the best position to decide about on the welfare of these children. More recently, the singer Madonna took her 4-year-old adopted son David back for a trip to his native Malawi where he visited his old orphanage ‘Home of Hope’, but was unable to meet his living father Yohane Banda.

Recent research suggests that there are now 143 million orphans worldwide. There are hundreds of thousands of parents in North America and Europe who have a burning desire to adopt children from deprived countries and to give them a bright and loving future.

However, the common thread in the previous stories presented here is that all parties seem to be acting in their own interests rather than directly in the interests of the orphans. Well-meaning people in richer countries have a desire to have children or to raise vulnerable children in the faith and cultural background of their own choice, and often existing parents or near relatives of the children seem very happy to part with the children for paltry sums of money. So the question is, what is in the best interests of the orphans (if indeed they are orphans) themselves?
Often, these children have a lone parent or extended family. They will have a strong cultural attachment to their roots. Surely, it would be better to improve facilities close to their homes. Ensuring that they are in a safe environment where they cannot easily be exploited, providing them with food and water, clothing, education and training are often possible where they live and could give them a much more stable start in life.
The Holy Qur’an says:

And prove the orphans until they attain the age of marriage; then, if you find in them sound judgement, deliver to them their property; and devour it not in extravagance and haste against their growing up. (Ch.4:V.7)

For those parents who feel worried about limited means, the Qur’an says:

…kill not your children for fear of poverty – it is We Who provide for you and for them…  (Ch.6:V.152)

These verses remind parents and near relatives that the source of their income and their ability to provide for the children is from God and, therefore, they should never compromise the welfare of their children for fear of poverty, nor should they avoid having children for the same fears. At the same time, the trust of orphaned children be discharged honourably until they reach maturity and can handle their estate themselves.

Through a wider philosophical argument, it could be argued that ‘their property’ not only includes any wealth passed down from their parents, but also the priceless extended family and social ties and cultural associations that they inherit.

Returning to the original stories from Haiti, Chad and Malawi, if this guidance is followed, neither should the families have allowed their children to be bartered for paltry sums, nor should agencies have assumed that exporting the children to a more developed country is necessarily better for their future. Sometimes, adopted children go through years of agony to try to discover their origins and recover their cultural heritage.

At the same time, there are many cases of orphans and non-orphans being adopted by families abroad and being given a wonderful start in life. Such parents also help those children to recover their roots once they are older, however this is not always the case.

The most important point is that it is the duty of carers to ensure that the best interests of the children are being upheld irrespective of other financial or personal considerations. We must not be naive and ignore the dangers of trafficking and commercial enterprise.

Caring for orphans is a desire that people of all faiths share, but how and where to care for them is a sensitive issue that cannot be considered lightly, but must always be done with the interests of the children at heart.