Ahmadiyya Muslim sect thanks Guardian for exposing hate

[sanman]

Huh? I don't know what you mean by 'private affairs' - are you saying that they tried to convert you to their sect?

I knew an Ahmadi guy in university, and he used to pray everyday. He was just a regular guy, and he had a good sense of humor. He never preached or troubled anybody. I think you're simply showing prejudice against another community.

He was the only Ahmadi guy I knew, but I've never heard of them harassing other communities. Everybody likes to tell tall tales about everybody else - that's human nature.

[Karachi]

Huh? I don't know what you mean by 'private affairs' - are you saying that they tried to convert you to their sect?

I knew an Ahmadi guy in university, and he used to pray everyday. He was just a regular guy, and he had a good sense of humor. He never preached or troubled anybody. I think you're simply showing prejudice against another community.

He was the only Ahmadi guy I knew, but I've never heard of them harassing other communities. Everybody likes to tell tall tales about everybody else - that's human nature.

not me but my friends. also they act as if their beliefs are the same as other muslims, this is the biggest deceptive thing they do, they try to mingle with you

I agree probably not every ahamdi is like this but their missionary people are like this, i have met some myself, so i know

But this said, i dont condone any type of violence against them. They should have rights to practice what ever they want

[sanman]

Well, it's good that you believe that they have the right to have their own beliefs.

As for missionary activity, I find that everybody has someone who can be a little preachy.
In every religious community and sect, there are some people who believe that God commands them to spread their beliefs, and so they try to do that, and of course it will irritate the other person being preached to. That happens everywhere.

Even I, as an atheist, feel very passionate that science can explain everything, and I tend to get into debates over the merits of the scientific method and rationale.

Regarding whose beliefs are similar enough or too dissimilar to fall under the definition of Islam - that's a theological debate, I suppose. Everybody has different standards - whose benchmarks are appropriate? Like I said before - are Shias too different to be called Muslims? They wouldn't agree. Are Sufis too different? They don't think so.

All other religions, Christians, Jews, etc have similar types of debates among themselves. That's why I feel that religion has to be kept separate from the state, because then these differences will always arise to cause political problems, which should be avoided.

[randolph85]

so only secular differences are worthy of political discourse but not religious? u talk like a democrat but disregard religions place in the political sphere.

[sanman]

Religion is certainly a political topic, and there's no shortage of discussion on religion and politics. But I'm saying that the state has no place in affiliating itself with a particular religious or ethnic group, and it's in that context that I mentioned religion as a form of ethnicity. In the context of relations with the state, a religious group is just another ethnic group. What do you not understand? Why are you conflating the state with politics itself?

[randolph85]

so a state cannot or should not affiliate itself with a certain form of religion but can affiliate itself with an ever changing form a secular ideas? all u are saying is that a government can change based on a man made mandate but cannot based on gods mandate, whether u believe it or not. either way, its men who are making the change. so according to u as long as their reasons are solely non religious than its legitimate but if it comes from a perceived higher power than its not worthy of discussion or even democratic legitimacy.

[Khyber Pass]

I don't view Ahmadiyya's or Ismaili's as Muslims they are Kafir.

[sanman]

so a state cannot or should not affiliate itself with a certain form of religion but can affiliate itself with an ever changing form a secular ideas? all u are saying is that a government can change based on a man made mandate but cannot based on gods mandate, whether u believe it or not. either way, its men who are making the change. so according to u as long as their reasons are solely non religious than its legitimate but if it comes from a perceived higher power than its not worthy of discussion or even democratic legitimacy.

Well, do you associate secularism with a particular ethnic group?
Secularism is itself about non-affiliation of the state with a particular religion or religious ethnicity. So is non-affiliation a religion?
You could argue that atheism is a religion, and the Soviet Union was an officially atheist state, and so it discouraged and even stamped out religions and churches while promoting its atheist beliefs. So they're not an example of a secular state without religious affiliation.

I think the issue of secularism relates to freedom of choice - in this case, freedom of religion. If the state becomes affiliated with a particular religion, then other religious groups will feel at a disadvantage, and feel that their freedom of religion is being infringed upon, by virtue of affiliation.

I don't view Ahmadiyya's or Ismaili's as Muslims they are Kafir.

LOL, well, Ismailis do have their own special imam, the Agha Khan, and he lives in Switzerland, not in the Muslim countries.

But Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was an Ismaili, so what more can be said?

[randolph85]

Well, do you associate secularism with a particular ethnic group?
Secularism is itself about non-affiliation of the state with a particular religion or religious ethnicity. So is non-affiliation a religion?
You could argue that atheism is a religion, and the Soviet Union was an officially atheist state, and so it discouraged and even stamped out religions and churches while promoting its atheist beliefs. So they're not an example of a secular state without religious affiliation.

I think the issue of secularism relates to freedom of choice - in this case, freedom of religion. If the state becomes affiliated with a particular religion, then other religious groups will feel at a disadvantage, and feel that their freedom of religion is being infringed upon, by virtue of affiliation.



LOL, well, Ismailis do have their own special imam, the Agha Khan, and he lives in Switzerland, not in the Muslim countries.

But Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was an Ismaili, so what more can be said?

a secular state has its own laws separate from religious law, therefore they are not simply unaffiliated because their law supercedes religious law. if someone breaks into my home, i cannot punish them by the laws i follow, nor can i pardon them if i want to.

so lets not pretend that their is a freedom of religion when religion has no place in the political/legal sphere whereas secularism does. secular countries have been banning the niqab, they want to ban circumcision, polygamy is illegal while faggots are now being allowed to get married.

the secular west isnt affiliated to any religion because its a religion in and of itself. we have political leaders proclaiming that they want to push secularism in the middle east, even obama. before they just did it without taking pride in mentioning it, now they do both.

[sanman]

a secular state has its own laws separate from religious law, therefore they are not simply unaffiliated because their law supercedes religious law. if someone breaks into my home, i cannot punish them by the laws i follow, nor can i pardon them if i want to.

so lets not pretend that their is a freedom of religion when religion has no place in the political/legal sphere whereas secularism does. secular countries have been banning the niqab, they want to ban circumcision, polygamy is illegal while faggots are now being allowed to get married.

the secular west isnt affiliated to any religion because its a religion in and of itself. we have political leaders proclaiming that they want to push secularism in the middle east, even obama. before they just did it without taking pride in mentioning it, now they do both.

And yet there are plenty of Muslims desperately trying to get into those awful secular countries. If you only the extent, it would make your head spin.

You're right that religious freedom does have limits in secular countries, Western or otherwise. After all, there are no limits or constraints on what practices can be included in a religion. Someone can say they have a right sacrifice their first-born daughter to a volcano, as part of their religion. There are all kinds of religious beliefs in the world.

When you say secularism is a religion, I'd take issue with that. It's not a system which has been mandated by God. It's just a practical set of standards which have evolved in response to the reality of multiple religious ethnicities sharing the same social space. Are traffic regulations a religion? No, but they were created to help you travel on the road safely while others are also traveling on it.

Will you say, "But I cannot accept these traffic regulations! They are not listed in the Quran! Bring the camels back! I don't like this other stuff!"

[randolph85]

see, i was willing to debate with u but when u throw little gems like these in

Will you say, "But I cannot accept these traffic regulations! They are not listed in the Quran! Bring the camels back! I don't like this other stuff!"

u prove urself to be as stupid and ignorant as a wahabi.

good day.

[sanman]

I'm just pointing out that not everything needs to be explicitly referenced in religious laws to be relevant and important. You should recognize that.

After all, religious laws were framed ages ago, and societal needs have evolved since then. So naturally there will be newer issues which religious laws or practices may not be suited to address - such as the harmonious coexistence of multiple religious ethnicities together.

If you tell me that this is already addressed in scripture, and that I have to pay you Jizya or something, I will tell you that you need to update your practices and beliefs.

[randolph85]

evolved how so? because we wear jeans and have iphones nowadays?

the muslim exodus from muslim lands, or in particular, afghanistan, was due to non muslim forces to begin with. as if afghans should be thankful to the very same people who created and/or fanned the flames of conflict that lead to millions of its citizens leaving.

as for jizya. do u pay taxes in the country u live in? what would happen if u didnt? yeah, prison.

lol @ updating my practices and beliefs. not until i can relate to cast members on the maury show can i be considered a regular member of western society. i am glad that day will never come.

[sanman]

Ohh, because Pakistan is such a great Muslim neighbor, that nothing bad happened by their hand.

Fortunately, in secular countries everybody gets to pay the same tax without consideration to what religious ethnicity they are. Good thing the state treats religions equally and doesn't try to discriminate by affiliating with one religion over others, huh?

[khushal]

sanman,
are you saying that you and brezinski pay the same tax.
I dont think you do. show me proof that you do.