All praise is due to God, and peace be upon His chosen servants.
Respected Prime Minister Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi sought votes from the public during his election campaign to turn Pakistan into an Islamic state like Medina. It seems the public trusted him, which is why he was made Prime Minister. Around the same time, there was widespread anger and protests across Pakistan and the entire Muslim community against a member of the Dutch parliament who had announced a competition offering prizes for making derogatory cartoons of our beloved Prophet. As Prime Minister, Mr. Imran Khan delivered a speech in the Senate, fully representing the Islamic people of Pakistan, stating that: we will convene a meeting of the OIC, get a resolution passed, and then collectively demand from the United Nations that legislation be enacted that makes the insult and disrespect of holy figures from all religions a punishable offense, so that this cycle comes to a permanent halt. The Prime Minister’s speech was welcomed throughout the country.
The Prime Minister announced the formation of an 18-member Economic Advisory Council right after taking office, which included the name of “Atif Mian,” who is an apostate from Islam and a Qadiani. Atif Mian was born to Pakistani parents in Nigeria, in Africa, and went to the US for studies where he befriended an Ahmadi missionary named Ahmad Sheikh. He was pursued by him for eight years and eventually converted him to Qadianism in 2002. He holds a PhD in economics and is an active member of the Ahmadiyya community’s Khuddam organization. Currently, he serves as a financial advisor to Mirza Masroor in London, oversees financial matters at the center, and heads the Ahmadi mission in Africa. His parents have cut off ties with him due to his Qadiani beliefs. This is the same person about whom Imran Khan stated during the Dharna days at D-Chowk in Islamabad that “I will make Atif Mian the Finance Minister when I come to power.” During an interview, when asked whether he would appoint a Qadiani born in Africa as Finance Minister in a country like Pakistan, which is Islamic, he replied, “I didn’t know he was a Qadiani.” When his name came up in this Economic Advisory Council, all religious, spiritual, and political organizations and parties raised their voices against it. In response, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said during a press conference regarding Atif Mian that: “Should there be a ban on the role of minorities? Should we throw out the minorities in our country? He also questioned those objecting to Atif Mian’s appointment, asking what kind of people they are making these statements?! The whole world is saying that he will win the Nobel Prize in the next five years. He has been appointed to the Economic Advisory, not to the Islamic Ideological Council. Pakistan also belongs to minorities as much as it belongs to the majority. I don’t think anyone should object to him, and those who are objecting are fundamentally extremists, and we shouldn’t bow down to extremists. Every Muslim has a religious obligation to protect those who live alongside them. It’s not okay to just throw those who aren’t to your liking into the Arabian Sea.” These are the statements he made.
After the Minister of Information’s conference, some journalist colleagues furthered the Minister’s point through their columns and TV programs. Mr. Javed Chaudhry from the Daily Express praised Atif Mian in his column titled “Did Quaid-e-Azam Not Know?” and made a big fuss about it. He also mentioned Chaudhry Fawad, Ayaz Sadiq, Shehla Raza, and Ahsan Iqbal, while raising a few questions and objections as well.
1:- Is this country only for Muslims? And Muslims who are also Deobandi?
2:- We expelled Hindus, then Pakistani Jews, then selectively educated and skilled Christians, then civilized, peace-loving, and successful Parsis, and now we are after every Ahmadi who wants to work in this country, why?
3:- Why did Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah make Sir Zafarullah the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan?
4:- Zafarullah Khan was the world’s first Foreign Minister who raised the Palestine issue in the United Nations.
5:- He was the first Asian and the only Pakistani to preside over a United Nations General Assembly session and became the President of the International Court of Justice.
6:- Those opposing Atif Mian are the same people who were against the existence of Pakistan until 1947, why? Why on earth?!
After that, Mr. Javed Chaudhry expressed the heartfelt sentiments of his beloved Ahmadis, stating everything they have longed to hear, which they have instilled in the minds and hearts of every anti-religion, secular, and religion-hostile group: “Then we will have to make some big decisions:
7:- We must grant religion a private status.
8:- We have to give equal rights to all citizens residing in this country, regardless of religion, color, race, or tribe. If Rana Bhagwandas and Justice Cornelius can become Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, then why can’t they become the President of this country?
9:- If Atif Mian is a Pakistani citizen, then why can’t he be a member of the Economic Advisory Council?
10:- And if Parsis can serve as architects of the country’s trade policies, then why can’t they become ministers? Why can’t they serve the country?
11:- If the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not expel Abdullah ibn Ubayy, even though he was declared the chief hypocrite, then who are we to prevent non-Muslims from working in this country? We need to broaden our hearts, thoughts, and capacities; otherwise, while we are expelling these people in the name of Islam today, tomorrow, a more devout Muslim may also expel us from this country.” (Daily Express, September 6, 2018, Thursday)
Similarly, in the September 6, 2018 edition of the Daily Jang, columnist Mr. Muhammad Bilal Ghori wrote a column titled “Thank You, Imran Khan.” In it, he mentioned one thing that:
1: – Differences should be based on reason, not on prejudice, hatred, or animosity.
2: – You’ve declared them non-Muslims through legislation in Parliament, so do they not even have the right to live as a minority in Pakistan now? In response to this argument, it is claimed that their situation is different from that of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, and other non-believers; they reject Parliament’s decision that declared them non-Muslims, and they are considered rebels against the state, thus they are not entitled to any concessions. Does the People’s Party accept the court’s decision regarding Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s execution? Does the Muslim League (N) consider the recent court decisions to be valid? There are also groups that straightforwardly claim they do not recognize the Constitution of Pakistan.
These are the key 13 questions, objections, and concerns from the journalists.
It’s a good thing that the Prime Minister took a wise step by removing the apostate Qadiani “Atif Mian” from the Economic Advisory Council. Federal Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry humbly stated: “We want to work alongside scholars and society, and we don’t want disruption because of one person.” We appreciate Fawad Chaudhry’s sentiments and would like to advise him that he is the Federal Information Minister of Pakistan, not a spokesperson for the Qadianis. You should know that calling some Pakistanis “extremist” has hurt the feelings of the entire Muslim community, regardless of sect or religion. You should apologize to them and, moving forward, strictly adhere to the wise principle of “think before you speak.”
Now we respond to the questions, doubts, and objections raised by our journalist brothers in an orderly manner:
Question 1: Is this country only for Muslims? And only for Deobandi Muslims?
Answer: This country, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, belongs not just to Muslims, but to all nationalities and followers of religions living here who are wholeheartedly loyal to this country, adhere to the constitution, and do not hide their identities as Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Bahá’ís, etc., and who acknowledge the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last prophet. Your accusation and mockery that only Deobandis are those who suppress Ahmadis and run movements against them is misleading and serves only to further the agenda of Ahmadis and their western patrons.
Who doesn’t know that since the founding day of the International Assembly for the Protection of the Finality of Prophethood, and even before the establishment of Pakistan, the Ahrar Islam party has included everyone – whether they are Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadith, Shia, or anyone connected to Islam in any way. This party has exposed the treachery of the British and the role of spies within the Muslim community, and by God’s will, they will remain united and determined against this Qadiani fitna (disruption).
The demand for separation of Qadianis from Muslims isn’t just a recent insistence from today’s narrow-minded clerics and individuals of the Muslim Ummah, but long ago, as noted by Shorish Kashmiri (may God have mercy on him), Allama Iqbal demanded from the British government in India that the Mirzais be separated from Muslims after a deep study of the Qadiani community. They infiltrate the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to establish a separate community. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could not create a new community; if he could, he would have been useful to British imperialism in Islamic countries. He shaped his followers in such a way that they consider all other Muslims as infidels, yet they are treated almost as if they are just another sect and community of Muslims.
Allama further stated that Qadianis only join Muslims for political gains; otherwise, they label the entire Muslim world as infidels based on their beliefs. They are a rebellious group against Islam, and Muslims have every right to demand that Qadianis be separated from them.
(Tehreek Khatm Nabubt, p. 221)
Why, my friend! Was Allama Iqbal really just a Deobandi who was demanding the separation of Ahmadis from Muslims under British rule?
Question 2: We expelled Hindus, then Pakistani Jews, then specifically targeted educated and skilled Christians, then civilized, peace-loving, and successful Parsis, and now we’ve gone after every Ahmadi who wants to work in this country—why?
Answer: Mr. Javed Chaudhry! Our objection is not to Ahmadis living in Pakistan, but to them living among Muslims. If they want to live in Pakistan, they can do so willingly. Then they can decide for themselves whether their beliefs, their concept of prophethood, and their status as a separate minority will align with the principles of Muslims or not.
To say that any group or individual in Pakistan is an enemy of their life, property, and dignity and is out to eliminate them is sheer slander and accusation. We say that the Ahmadi community, regardless of our demands, when they claim to be separate from Muslims according to their own prophet and caliph’s guidance, why don’t they consider themselves a separate minority? This way, they would comply with the constitution and could also hold positions in the country.
Also, Mr. Chaudhry, you have just shot a dart in the air by claiming that we have expelled Pakistani Jews, skilled Christians, and civilized, peace-loving, and successful Parsis from Pakistan. If that’s the case, provide evidence for it, and refer those who have done this to the law, so that those involved can be brought forward and law enforcement agencies can take action against them accordingly. If that is not the case—and surely it isn’t—then don’t unjustly defame Pakistani Muslims and don’t give the outside world a reason to ridicule and propagate against Pakistan. You, Mashallah, are a visionary and insightful journalist. You can understand what could be done against Pakistan in the future using your very column as justification.
Question 3: Why did Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah appoint Sir Zafarullah as Pakistan’s first Foreign Minister?
Answer: In response, we can only say to refer to two books: “Pakistan’s First Cabinet” and “Why Did Pakistan Break Apart?” From these, you will find that under difficult circumstances and certain compellings, Quaid-e-Azam reluctantly accepted the decision to appoint General Sir Douglas Grace as the “Commander-in-Chief” of the armed forces of the independent, sovereign state of Pakistan, Sardar Jogindranath Mandal as “Minister of Law,” and Zafarullah Khan as “Foreign Minister.” These decisions were made under pressure from the British Viceroy. Historical facts indicate that the British Viceroy insisted on Zafarullah Khan’s appointment, even threatening that the transfer of power could not take place until this announcement was made. (Pakistan’s First Cabinet, referenced in a political analysis of Qadianism, p. 475)
Based on the incident, gauge how much Zafarullah Khan used to listen to Quaid-e-Azam:
When the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, urged all fellow countrymen to reject British honors and titles as part of his appeal for “non-cooperation” and “renunciation of allegiance,” the only person who outright refused to return the title of “Sir” given by the British was Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan. (Monthly “Saut-e-Islam,” p. 3, Faisalabad, editor Maulana Mujahid al-Husseini, cited in Nawa-e-Waqt Lahore)
And this was Zafarullah Khan, who had not offered the funeral prayer for Quaid-e-Azam by saying: “You can consider me a Muslim minister of a kafir government or a kafir servant of a Muslim government.”
( Zamindar, Lahore, February 8, 1950)
It seems he was only calling himself a Muslim while labeling all of us, including Quaid-e-Azam, as non-Muslims. This clearly shows what Quaid-e-Azam and Pakistan meant to Zafarullah!
Dear sir! Now, just take a look at his performance in the Foreign Ministry:
He spent most of his time abroad during his tenure, and Chaudhry Sahib was reluctant to come to Parliament. Patriotic individuals were removed from the Foreign Ministry and replaced with specific Qadianis en masse. Pakistan’s foreign policy was crafted according to the Ahmadiyya community’s agenda rather than Pakistan’s perspective. Our foreign offices abroad were turned into centers for promoting Qadianism and espionage. Instead of strengthening ties with Islamic countries, relations were enhanced with European nations, especially the USA and Britain. Rather than fostering brotherly relations with Arab countries, a policy was adopted to alienate them from Pakistan. Various countries were used to establish Qadiani espionage cells targeting Arabs. Relations with our Islamic neighboring brother country Afghanistan and Egypt were intentionally strained, and we are still facing the consequences of that. Given Pakistan’s geographical location and defense perspective, ties were strengthened with a self-serving country like the USA instead of our neighbor China. Rather than resolving the Kashmir issue, it was deliberately worsened, and no sustainable solution was sought.
Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan drew his salary as Pakistan’s Foreign Minister from the national treasury, but he worked for the Ahmadiyya community both domestically and internationally.
During Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan’s era, poor policies caused us irreparable damage politically, economically, and culturally. As the Ahmadiyya community was self-sown in Britain and nurtured by America, it turned Pakistan into a dependency of European countries and an economic beggar of the U.S. We’re not just throwing these claims around aimlessly; they are supported by the speeches of the members of the legislative assembly from that time. If you read them, it will open your eyes. One of those assembly members, Mr. Muhammad Hashim Ghazdar, said during a speech at the Karachi Muslim Parties Convention on June 2:
Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan went to Lake Sax to present the Kashmir issue. I was there at that time, and it was widely said in the lobby that Sir Zafarullah Khan wanted to do what India wanted. That very day, I informed the Minister of Pakistan about everything. After that, I traveled to various countries and felt that in many places our foreign offices have turned into centers for promoting the Ahmadiyya faith. You mentioned that Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan has deep ties with the British and Hindus. Zafarullah Khan is more loyal to his Imam Mirza Bashiruddin than to Pakistan and disregards the orders of the Pakistani government in favor of his Imam’s guidance. (While speaking) Many of my friends reluctantly became Ahmadis just for worldly benefits. Anyone in Pakistan who chants slogans of Akhand Bharat is an enemy of Pakistan, and unfortunately, Ahmadis, who believe in the idea of Akhand Bharat, hold seventy percent of the key positions in the country. If, God forbid, a war breaks out, we don’t know what our situation will be, or what the position of the officers will be?!
Question 4: Zafarullah Khan was the world’s first foreign minister who raised the issue of Palestine in the United Nations.
Answer: You mentioned that he was the world’s first foreign minister to raise the Palestine issue in the UN, but before getting into that, I’d like to clarify that for every Ahmadi, obeying their caliph is more important than any government, position, or job. If there’s any work related to government affairs or duties, it will be conditional on the caliph’s approval. So, if anyone from the prime minister, president, or senior officials gives an order regarding constitutional or administrative matters, it will only be enacted if the caliph permits it; otherwise, it will go as the caliph desires. As a reference, see Al-Fazl, December 25, 1932, where Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani writes: “No one can provide better guidance in national politics than the caliph of the time because God’s support and help accompany him.” To support the notion that obeying their caliph is paramount for every Ahmadi, Allama Iqbal mentioned: “Unfortunately, there are some individuals in the committee who consider it a sin to follow anyone other than their religious sect. Recently, one of the Ahmadi lawyers involved in the Mirpur cases clearly expressed this sentiment in a statement. He explicitly said that they do not recognize any Kashmir; whatever they or their colleagues did in this regard was in compliance with their leader’s orders.” (Rais Ahmad Jafari, “Iqbal aur Siyasat-e-Milli,” pages 159-160)
This is also supported by the fact that: “When Arab representatives wanted to present the Palestine issue in the UN, they met with representatives from friendly countries to create a favorable atmosphere for their resolution and tried to persuade them to support them. In this context, they also met with Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan and requested his cooperation. Zafarullah Khan told them that: ‘If their Imam Jamaat and Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Khalifa of Rabwah instruct him to do so, he will definitely help them, so instead of saying something to me, you should contact our Khalifa in Rabwah.’ The poor Arab representatives somehow managed to get in touch with Mirza Mahmood and requested assistance from him. Mirza Sahib sent a telegram to the Arab representatives saying that he had instructed Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan to assist them in the UN. By coincidence, this telegram ended up in the hands of the orator of Pakistan, Qazi Ihsan Ahmed Shuja Abadi, who met with the late Liaquat Ali Khan and asked him whether the head of the state of Pakistan was him or Mirza Mahmood. He recounted the telegram and the entire incident. The late Liaquat Ali Khan took that telegram and a few other items from Qazi Sahib and decided to remove Zafarullah Khan from the Foreign Ministry. Some time later, Liaquat Ali Khan was martyred, and Zafarullah Khan could not be removed.” (Weekly “Lolaak” Lyallpur, April 7, 1971, Volume 12, Issue 2)
The Arab delegation sent a telegram to the leader of the Ahmadiyya community in America, which was published in the Qadiani organization’s magazine with the following words:
“On November 6, the Arab delegation sent a message via telegram, thanking Imam of the Ahmadiyya community for allowing Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan, the representative of Pakistan, to remain here until the issue of Palestine is resolved at the United Nations General Assembly.”
(The Light, November 8, 1947)
The telegram received at the Ahmadiyya Association office in Lahore states:
“This has given us immense satisfaction, and we hope that this will greatly strengthen the Arabs’ demands.”
Mirza Ghulam Nabi Janbaz warns the government about the horrific role of Sir Zafarullah Khan and the influence of the Qadiani community:
Here a question arises: if Chaudhry Zafarullah went to the Arab delegation on behalf of the government of Pakistan, then the communication from the Arab delegation should have been addressed to the Pakistani government, not to Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood. This implies that Chaudhry Zafarullah reassured the Arab delegation that he came here at the orders of his leader, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood, and he could stay here for more days on his orders as well. Otherwise, the Arab delegation should have sought permission from the Pakistani government, not from the Qadiani Khalifa.
Question 5: He was the first Asian and the only Pakistani to preside over a session of the United Nations General Assembly and become the president of the International Court of Justice.
Answer: Clearly, someone who has spent their entire life serving the English and spying on Muslims deserves to be given honorary positions like the presidency of the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice. Just like figures such as Dr. Abdus Salam Qadiani, the accursed Taslima Nasrin, Salman Rushdie, and Malala Yousafzai—these are all individuals who have harmed Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and Muslims, yet they have been awarded honors and positions.
Similarly, the person who has renounced Islam and accepted Qadianism, whom you’re presenting as an economics expert and a hero offering his services to Pakistan pro bono, would have made things easier for the IMF if he had been included in the “Economic Advisory Team.” On the other hand, as a reward for crippling Pakistan economically, he would also have been awarded the Nobel Prize, just as the federal minister for information predicts. You also mentioned that: “He would have received the Nobel Prize, but being Pakistani got in the way of the prize-givers.”
Respected! Aatif Mian, the apostate Qadiani, being Pakistani doesn’t hinder him. In fact, he did something—he renounced Islam and embraced Qadianism, seemingly harming Islam and Muslims. However, he hasn’t shown any performance in working against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (committing treason). To do that, he needed to get himself into this council and leverage it against Pakistan. When Pakistanis didn’t accept him, intuition tells us that he won’t even receive a Nobel Prize now, as that’s conditional on having any performance against (Islam, Muslims, or their country), which he no longer has. This is why, when their plan failed, Asim Ijaz Khawaja and Imran Rasool also resigned—they were sent here under a specific plan and scheme.
Question 6: Why are those who opposed the existence of Pakistan until 1947 leading a movement against Aatif Mian? Why? Why?!
Answer: My dear! First of all, it’s important to mention that the movement against Aatif Mian was not initiated by just one group, sect, or party. Instead, it was led by a small handful of Qadiani followers and secular-minded people, alongside the entire Pakistani nation. It’s certain that people from every sect, society, and organization participated in it. However, the way you’ve made a sarcastic remark about Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari and Maulana Syed Hussain Ahmad Madani is beneath someone of your journalistic stature. If journalism means calling a lie the truth and the truth a lie, then that’s one thing. But if that’s not the case—and it certainly isn’t—then the truth should not be hidden, but made clear as truth and falsehood. Now listen!
When it comes to doing or not doing something or whether it should be done this way or that way, there can be different opinions, and disagreement is not a bad thing. However, once something has been done, saying, “Why did this happen?” or “We’ll try to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” is like comparing heaven and earth.
There is no doubt that some Muslim leaders opposed the establishment of Pakistan, but this was their political opinion and after the establishment of Pakistan, they not only accepted the reality of Pakistan mentally and emotionally, rather, devote all your energies to the stability, integrity, survival and defense of Pakistan. Muslim leaders opposed the establishment of Pakistan from a political point of view, while his Mamduh Qadiani Jamaat opposed the establishment of Pakistan on the basis of the inspired belief of the founding Ahmadiyya Jamaat, as stated by Qadiani Caliph Mirza Mahmud:
1:- “I (Khalifa Mahmud) have already told that the will of Allah Almighty wants to keep India together, but due to the hatred of the nations, it has to be separated temporarily.” This is another thing. If we agree to the partition of India, not willingly, but by compulsion and then we will try to unite again in some way.
(Al-Fazl: 17 May 1947)
Also see another reference, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood says:
2:- “In any case, we want to become a united India and all the nations remain grateful to each other.” (Daily Al-Fazl, 15 April 1947).
While Hazrat Maulana Syed Attaullah Shah Bukhari Noorullah Markada said in a speech in Lahore:
“Don’t call my opinion self-forgetting, my opinion lost and end this story here. However, the nation made a decision and with the same honesty with which we disagreed, we accepted the decision of the community. Now this country is mine, I am its loyal citizen, those who were to go, I am here and here I will stay. Here is the end of my war and if I go there it will be the beginning of my war.
(Azad Daily, November 14, 1949)
Then Hazrat Maulana Syed Attaullah Shah Bukhari Quds Sira addressed the Ahrar volunteers and said:
Free volunteers! After today you are not free volunteers, go! Join the National Volunteer National Guard. Now is not the time to be quiet in the streets, get military training and get ready to sacrifice your life for the country. You are the capital of Majlis Ahrar Islam, you are my lifetime earnings, I entrust you to the nation and I am happy that our lifetime earnings have been put to good use. Dress up in military uniform, grab a rifle and get trained to sacrifice your life for the protection of religion and religion.
(Daily Azad, Lahore, November 28, 1949)
And Hazrat Maulana Syed Hussain Ahmad Madani Quds Sira when one of his followers wrote a letter and asked: “Hazrat! We are in Pakistan and you are in India. What is the order for us now?” He said:
“Until the mosque comes into existence, there is a difference whether it should be built here or there, but once the mosque is built, then its protection is necessary.”
This was the sincerity of our seniors and elders, they are giving sanctity to Pakistan like a mosque and they are asking to train their volunteers to sacrifice their lives for the stability, integrity and defense of Pakistan. This is the reason why your volunteers are still engaged in the stability, integrity and defense of Pakistan and those who have made the Qadiani Jamaat leaders and their members sleepless who are dreaming of a united India and weakening Pakistan. They want to weaken Pakistan, but these Sarbakf volunteers thwart all their tricks and tricks prematurely. This is the reason that after the removal of Atif Murtad Qadiani from the Economic Advisory, this party and the screams of their neighbors are coming out.
Question 7: You say: “We have to give private status to religion.”
Answer: – Sir! It is not a matter of religion, nor is the quarrel with these Qadianis only about religion, but the point is that when the Qadiani Ummah is considered religiously, they seek political asylum and when they are considered politically, they are a religious minority want protection. This joke with Muslims is unacceptable. At the same time, the Qadianis have always been giving the impression that people of the Mullah type want to kill them for the sake of religion, and are enemies of their life, wealth and reputation. Those who are holding them to account and concealing their dangerous intentions are mostly neither familiar with the language of Europe and the Western world nor do they have Zafarullah, Dr. Abdul Salam, MM Ahmed and Atif Mian Murtad Qadiani. Like Shatar, Ayar and agents of colonialism exist.
The general condition of Muslims in Pakistan is that they do not take notice of any danger until it is imposed on them. Allama Iqbal wrote a letter to Allama Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, which was mentioned by Shorush Kashmiri in his book Tehreek Khatman Nabubat, page 193: “If I become a dictator, I will kill the westernized class first. So far he has neither felt the need to understand the Qadiani religion nor is he aware of the political dangers of the Qadianis. He thinks that a small minority is being harassed by Muslims. These westernized and secular minded people can rightly be questioned that Muslim is the name of a unity and this unity is built on the concept of final prophethood. If someone breaks this unity and wants to transfer the centrality of the end of Prophethood to himself under the guise of falsehood, then isn’t his existence dangerous? Who is the rebel, him or the accountant? Is protecting our national borders a crime or religious aggression? Some people teach tolerance, but they don’t know the meaning of tolerance. If the meaning of tolerance is honor, modesty, faith, religion and giving up one’s personal or collective existence, then where are these meanings? And which movement’s claimant, prophet and system have misled? In the case of the Qadianis, the issue of Muslims is not personal, it is collective and its four elements include honor, duty, belief and occupation.
Question 8: We have to give equal rights to all citizens living in this country regardless of religion, color, caste and tribe. If Rana Bhagwan Das and Justice Cornelius can become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then why can’t they become the President of the country?
Answer: Alhamdulillah! The people living in this country, whether they are in the majority or in the minority, the rights given by the constitution to all, those rights are equal and all the minorities are taking those rights, the suffering is only for those who rebel against the constitution and themselves not tolerant of being called a minority.
Question 9: If Atif Mian is a Pakistani citizen, then why can’t he become a member of the Economic Advisory Council?
Answer: The case of Atif Mian has come to light now that his name is also included in the 25-member team of the IMF and the IMF is an organization under the control of Jews and they are trying to capture and paralyze Pakistan economically. This is the reason why powerful circles informed the government before including the name of Atif Mian, as has been reported in newspapers.
Question 10: And if Parsis can be the RK of the commercial policies of the country, then why can’t these people become ministers? Why can’t these people serve the country?
Answer: No one has ever prohibited Parsis from becoming ministers, if they can become ministers within their quota and there is scope for it in the constitution, then they must be, who has forbidden them?! I would definitely like to say this much that if it is a matter of Qadianis living within the framework of the constitution, then they make a fuss and try to hide behind these minorities and if it is a matter of religion that you are the nation of a new prophet. Yes, stay away from the Muslims, then they not only infiltrate the Muslims, but also say that we are the real Muslims and you are infidels. Come on! Let’s look first at some Qadiani references and their implications:
1: “It is our duty not to consider non-Ahmadis as Muslims and not to pray behind them because in our view they are deniers of a prophet of God Almighty. This is a matter of religion, no one can do anything in it.” (Anwar Khilafat, p. 90)
2:… “Then the Promised Messiah (Mirza Qadiani) is Muhammad himself, the Messenger of Allah, who came back to the world for the propagation of Islam.”
(Mirza Bashir Ahmad son of Mirza Qadiani, Kalmat al-Chusl, p. 158)
In view of these facts, should the Qadianis be given the right to continue imposing on the heads of Muslims despite being guilty of breaking the law by not accepting their constitutional status?! Christians, Hindus and Sikhs do not have a dispute with Muslims that despite being Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, they are guilty of harassing Muslims or violating the law by calling themselves Muslims. But the behavior of the Qadianis has created a situation from which problems are arising. The only remedy for them is to bind them to the law. It is the only Qadiani party in Pakistan which has established its own courts. It has established a whole judicial system of its decisions, their appeals, then appeals to them. They publish their own stamps, issue their own summons, have regular lawyers in their courts, make appearances, make judgments. If any other party or organization in the country had issued this system, there would have been a storm that the system of the state within the state was unbearable. The perpetrator would have been made bound by the law, but also a lesson, but the Qadiani is such an ethnic minority that no country institution is talking about establishing the writ of law and the rule of law on their actions. When a few people like us raise this voice, our eminent journalists say that Qadianis do not have the right to live? Someone should ask these servants of God that someone should demand that they stop theft, stop robbery, the other should stand up as a member of mutual respect that thieves and robbers do not have the right to live.
Sir! A thief has the right to live, but a license for theft and robbery cannot be issued. We say that the Qadianis should be made law-abiding. Is there no such thing as justice left in the world that our esteemed journalists in support of the Qadianis seem to be encouraging a lawless party.
Question 11: If the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did not expel Abdullah bin Abi from the state of Madinah despite being declared a great hypocrite, then who are we to prevent non-Muslims from working in this country? We have to make our hearts, minds and hearts bigger,
otherwise today when we are evicting these people in the name of Islam, tomorrow a bigger Muslim than us will also evict us from this country.
Answer: As for a Muslim becoming the president, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is an ideological country and that ideology is Islam, the majority of the population here is Muslim and it is in our constitution that the religion of the Godfather state will be Islam and its president and prime minister will be Muslim. What is the point of objection? If there is any objection, then tell me. Can the president or prime minister of Israel be a Muslim? If it cannot be done there and no one has any objection to their president or prime minister being a Jew, why is there an objection here?
Question 12: Disagreement should be on the basis of arguments, and not under the influence of prejudice, malice and enmity.
Answer: It is true that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not expel Abdullah bin Ubi al-Munafiq from the state of Madinah, but he did not appoint him to any important position in the state. And when they came against the Holy Prophet (a) and built Masjid Zarar to challenge the state of Madinah, he (a) ordered it to be burnt down. Alhamdulillah! Pakistani Muslims have not stopped any non-Muslim from working. All minorities are happy. If Atif Mian has banned the apostate and the Qadiani, it is because repeated experiences have proved that this class creates problems for Pakistan and the Pakistani nation. Acts as a spy for the western world, so government, state and kingdom officials should avoid them and be careful. If the religious parties and the Pakistani nation have talked about this from the point of view of integrity, stability and security of the country, then this crime is acceptable to them and they are ready to suffer the punishment.
Mr. Muhammad Bilal Ghori would like to say that Alhamdulillah! Our disagreement with the Qadianis is on the basis of reason, not on the basis of any prejudice or malice. And if Atif Mian disagreed with the apostate Qadiani, it is also on the basis of argument. I ask you: A person who can accept Qadianiyya leaving the word of Islam and Muslims, then does he agree with his party or his party and whose Agents, can’t stake your country for their pleasure? While his views are as follows, he says:
1:- For the development of Pakistan, it is essential that Pakistan has a nuclear capability is a nuclear luxury. go 3:- Pakistan should forget Kashmir forever.
If these words of Atif Mian are accepted, then Allah is Hafiz of Pakistan. Can these words be of a patriot? And if such people are given the opportunity to infiltrate the government, will they not follow their agenda?
Question 13: You declared them as non-Muslims by passing a law through Parliament, so now they don’t have any right to live in Pakistan as a minority? In response to this argument, it is argued that their case is different from that of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and other infidels. They do not accept the decision of the Parliament, by which they were declared as non-Muslims, they are rebels of the state, so they do not deserve any concession.
Answer: Respected! No one has forbidden the Qadianis to live and live in Pakistan, don’t you know that Chenab Nagar, where the Qadianis have built a state within the state, is in Pakistan. Apart from this, many other cities have made their own secret hideouts for espionage throughout the country.
Yes! As you wrote yourself: “These people do not believe in the constitution, do not believe themselves as a non-Muslim minority.” We say that sir! When they do not obey the constitution, they are not entitled to hold any key position in this country.
The rest of you applied treason to the Constitution to dissent from the decisions of the courts, this application is not correct, as the law allows for legitimate criticism of the judicial decision. Yes! If someone insults the court, it will be a case of this supreme court, but if a person does not obey the constitution of Pakistan, then he is a rebel and he will be a case of sedition. Disagreement with judgment is recognized by every court, society and country, but rebellion and lawlessness are not accepted by any court, country or society. The rest of you distinguishing that one who does not take up arms against the state is tolerable, this is your logic, no court, country or law accepts it. Come on! Let us also tell you what are the views of the Qadianis about the constitution of Pakistan. For this, listen to this clip of Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the fourth leader of the Qadianis, this clip is available on YouTube, he says:
“If this constitution that I am referring to is allowed to remain as it is and no other changes are made.” If this constitution is not lifted and thrown aside, then this constitution will destroy the country and if this constitution is broken, then it is better, otherwise this constitution will destroy the country. Therefore, the ultimate good and well-being of the country is beyond doubt. This constitution will remain, otherwise this constitution will be given an open license to break the country. How and when will this happen? Allah knows best.
https://www.banuri.edu.pk/bayyinat-detail/%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%81-%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%A7%DA%BA-%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AA-%DA%A9%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%BA-%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%88%DB%81-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B1%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF-%DA%86%D9%88%DB%81%D8%AF%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A8-%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%AA-%D9%85%DB%8C%DA%BA