Brother I don't know what exactly is your point behind all this...... I wont say twaddle..

It surprises me that in today's world where you have access to almost everything on Internet, you are talking about social discrimination in Pakistan whereas you fail to see the realities beyond Pakistan.

My stance may raise some eyebrows here, but I do believe that all these laws mentioned in our constitution are subjective, need-base and important. Pakistan is an adolescent among other countries in this world, we need our focus at some other vital issues, we need to see first who we are as a nation. We are Muslims and we need to be strong as a MUSLIM NATION first.

For reference feel free to look at the history of todays major economic, military super powers.

Bottom line: An Islamic state, such as Pakistan, clearly discriminates among its citizens on the basis of religion and the slogans of 'Islam stands for equality' are plainly hollow.

And 'many' secular countries? I did know about one of two but pray do let me know about 'many' of those countries.

To be honest Islam doesn't stand for equality as it is perceived by Liberals. Islam clearly stipulates there are differences among humans as there are men and women, good and bad people, believers and non believers, parents and children, old and young, husband and wife, rich and poor, weak and strong, various tribes and races etc. Islam sets rights and duties for each category and orders that people must abide by them, must not transgress and oppress each other (the word oppress is used, not suppress ), and do good deeds with love care and justice to others while performing their natural roles as they will be judged by Allah (SWT) according to their deeds and in His eyes they are all equal. In other words, Islam doesn't mitigate inequality in this life, it recognizes it and demands people accept it, be patient about it (until Allah provide means for your satisfaction), do justice with each other and treat each other fairly and in the end it will be rewarded. Modern Liberals are attempting to mitigate inequality. That remains a fundamental difference of thought as today many believe inequality can be overcome by using modern science and education.

Coming back to the topic of Islamic state, an Islamic state will remain Islamic in its core and it will carry on Islamic ideology. It will attempt to suppress any new religion from taking roots in its society, just like Democracy and Capitalism suppressed Communism from taking roots in their society . Note the difference between suppression and oppression.

Nevertheless, I personally do have sympathies for Ahmadia as a community. A person from this community made remarkable achievement and won Nobel however he was not accorded his due status in this country, that I believe is oppression and discrimination. Their religion is often belittled and disdained along with members of the community, that is oppression and discrimination. This definitely needs to be changed.

So the point is it will be unfair and deceitful of Ahmadia if they want to be called Muslim and preach their religion as an extension or a sect of Islam, however if they want to enjoy the status of being a recognized religious minority, demand religious freedom and fair treatment then its a fair demand and it should be accorded .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Thanks for being honest that equality among citizens cannot exist in a state run on narrowly interpreted religious principles, such as Pakistan.

I also appreciate your concern for the Ahmadia community (and others). Perhaps you are right and for the time being we should just ensure their protection as a religious minority. Expecting more than that would be foolish.

Thanks, also, for reinforcing my original point of view that discrimination/inequality among the people of Pakistan is widely supported and defended by the masses, including the educated people.

Dear Compatriot!

You've made a reference to Article-260 of the constitution (but not to article 25 which protect equality of all citizens), under which Ahmadis have been declared as minority. But you're missing one important point that there is a clash of beliefs between the Ahmadis and other Muslims, So disfiguring the belief system of any religious community is strictly prohibited and one must respect the belief system of other communities. So think about it that who're the first comers the Ahmadis or the other Muslims. If the other Muslims were the first then Ahmadis must not have injected new ideas or have disfigured the already existing belief system of Muslims. Analyse this thing and think about it you may get a correct answer for your question.

Good luck!

__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts" (Winston Churchill)

It is defended for obvious reasons brother. Your case is just like that of Islam and other Abrahamic religions, i.e. Christianity and Judaism. Islam claims to be an extension of the same message as Christianity and Judaism but it establishes itself as a separate religion with its own tenets and doctrination. Moreover the other two still don't admit it is a true religion and discrimination remains, Muslims never push them to accept that we are Christianity+ (or Judaism+) and therefore we need to be equal part of your religious society. Try using your common sense bro . Being educated doesn't mean you deprive your self of common sense and imbibe some superfluous sense . Islam's message is to respect and treat fairly the minorities, but obviously a religious belief so different from the core Islamic tenet cannot be 'included' in Islam, it has to remain separate. This is where Ahmadia are wrong, they want to give a perception that their religion is also Islam which is a deceitful stance and invites unwarranted trouble .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

I think the religious and social liberty that is enjoyed by the minorities in Pakistan has no precedent in many other countries of the world. They are free to exercise their religion as they want to, now if you ask that they must be free to promulgate their religion in an Islamic country then it is absurd. We have the example in the first Welfare state of Madina that all Jews were free to follow their religion but were not allowed to proliferate their religious views, being a Muslim it is an obligation on us to do the same as Holy Prophet did.
I tell you what Secular countries do. In France and Switzerland the Hijab was banned for no logical or any intelligible reason, that is called prejudice and Religious discrimination.

The Secular Indians slaughtered innocent Muslims when they were practicing their religion i-e on Eid ul Azha they stopped the Muslims from slaughtering Animals from Qurbani and that is called prejudice and religious discirmination.

The same Secular Indians slaughtered Sikhs in Golden Temple, that is called religious discrimination.

The Budhist monks who chant the slogans of religious tolerance, brutally slain innocent Muslims in Burma, that was not only discrimination but was actually genocide. Do minorities face the same here?

On the contrary, Pakistan whom you are blaming to be a bad place for minorities to live in, is actually a safe heaven. In (RMA) Military Academy Sand Hurst a Pakistani cadet was not allowed for training for having beard, while in Pakistan Military academy Kakul a Sikh cadet Harcharan Singh not only got the equal opportunity of being an officer in Pak Army but was also free to wear his traditional turban.

So my brother, don't blame this country or our religion for no valid reason, minorities are enjoying great liberty of every kind in this country.

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

I think I said it multiple times that a Muslim can continue to consider Ahmadia community out of the fold of Islam; there's no need to change religion. I was talking about the state laws which have been using Islam for discrimination. If this really is an Islamic country, pick up the interpretation of an Islamic state by any famous scholar and they will tell you that the first and foremost duty of an Islamic state is to fulfill the basic/fundamental needs of its people. This never happened in Pakistan. If you'll go and teach ethics and morality to a starving person, he won't understand you; he'll see chapatis in your face. So without fulfilling the fundamental needs of the people, implementation of religious morality is making mockery not only of people but also of religion (which is abundantly happening ever since the creation of Pakistan).

And not just Ahmadia community, the overall system is clearly discriminatory (and I appreciated you for being honest about it). Non-Muslims might be able to go to their places of worship but that's about it. They can't built new places, can't preach, can't seek converts, and the medieval list goes on.


Thank you very much but the way you equated the case of Islam and Christianity with Islam and Ahmadia is so very impressive, so very in line with historical and religious facts that I think I'll pass your offer. Someone else might be in dire need of it.

Once again, thanks for being honest and accepting that a state run on religious principles will remain discriminatory.

I do believe early and medieval Islam set forth some finest examples of good treatment with minorities, particularity considering the general standard of those times. Muslims, however, gave up the practice of Ijtihad about a thousand years ago and decided to ape laws in the form as they existed in the 7th century. This is bound to create strange contradictions and absurdities, as so frequently happens in today's world. (a piece of information: Ibn-e-Rush is considered among the fathers of secular and scientific thought in Europe. A Muslim philosopher and scientist. Look his name up. But of course, we are not very good in either of them and want to stick with narrow, medieval interpretations).

It's very interesting the way examples are chosen, facts nitpicked and presented without the full picture. Let me break it down for you.

In France, there are about five million Muslims (largest minority in Western Europe). According to the estimates, about 2,000 of the women use full face veils (you can look up the statistics). A decision that affects 2,000 out of five million (that amounts to only 0.04!) can hardly be called targeting a minority. France never targeted entire Muslim community like Pakistan targeted an entire community (and the record about others is not very refreshing either). And further, in France you are openly allowed to campaign against such a law (and many people, including French non-Muslims do so). And just a little more piece of information: surveys have revealed that most Muslims agree with the ban. Correct me if I'm wrong. (However, it is certainly against civil liberties and personal freedom and people have been protesting against it ever since).

Finally, there is also a ban on the religious symbols of every religion in state schools (in France), not just Islam.

But here's the remaining picture: You can preach Islam in France, you can build mosques, you can seek converts and you can enjoy all the rights that a non-Muslim native French citizen has. Oh and no one kills you because of apostasy if you decide to leave Christianity or any other religion and embrace Islam. Not a very appropriate example to compare with Pakistan, is it now?

Yes, India has a pretty bad record when it comes to minorities and it needs to work on it. The Indian law or constitution, however, does not discriminate between citizens. In fact, Muslims have laws made exclusively for them, in their favor.

If we are comparing Pakistan with other countries, believe me, Pakistan will look pretty bad so better leave it. If you insist, try comparing it with so many other secular (since this is one word everyone loves to demonize) countries who do not use religion as a political tool. We are Pakistanis and our first concern is the ills inflicting our own country; charity begins at home.

I also find it very amusing that you have given a clean chit to Pakistan on the basis of a couple of examples. This tells how bad the bigger picture might be.

P.S. Burma is not a secular state.

P.P.S. Thanks, all, for re-asserting the view that a state recklessly dragging religion into politics will, indeed, remain discriminatory. And that our support/love for Nelson Mandela is only hypocritical.

Look at the following laws bro!

1. Article-4: Due process of law (available to each and every citizen)
2. Article-20: Freedom of religion
3. Article-25: Equality of each and every citizen before law and equal protection of law
4. Article-27: Safeguard against discrimination in services
5. Article-28: Preservation of culture, script and language of minorities
and these are protected by Article-8, under which, the Supreme Court of Pakistan can repeal any law that clashes with the fundamental rights of citizens.
So all the citizens have equal rights under the law barring becoming the President and PM which is based on democratic principle of majority rule.
If you're talking about state religion so wake up! even UK has a state religion.

__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts" (Winston Churchill)

This, and consequently other clauses that you mentioned, are rendered meaningless if a person is not even allowed to call himself what he thinks he is and his religion what he believes it is. I mentioned strange contradictions and absurdities in my last post, this is perhaps the clearest example of it.

Tell me, does freedom of religion include preaching religion, seeking converts, erecting places of worship? Tell me, also, is Ahmadia community even allowed to call themselves what they believe they are? If no, how does that mean all citizens have equal rights? Absurdities, indeed.