We have found an overlooked area of research into Ahmadiyya persecution. It has to do with Zia ul Haq and he made Ahmadi’s as Muslim’s again in 1978. It‘s the court case of Abdur Rahman Mobashir v. Amir Ali Shah (also called Amir Hussain Bukhari, see at the 13;00 minute mark) PLD 1978 Lahore. As we all know, Zia converted to Ahmadiyya (Qadiani side) in 1941, and his father was always a Lahori-Ahmadi. He also gave Dr. Abdus Salam military aircraft and helicopters at his disposal in Dec of 1979 as he visited Pakistan after winning the Nobel Prize. Further, the judges in this case were also Ahmadi sympathizers, one was the famous Justice Samdani, who had chaired the Samdani commission report of the “Rabwah train attacks” of May 29th, 1974. The other judge was Shaikh Aftab Hussain. Shaikh Aftab Hussain was also the judge in the Bhutto case (see page 77) wherein execution was determined, which was a farce. However, this is what Mirza Nasir Ahmad wanted.
Charles Kennedy tells us:
“”””In 1976, a group of ulema brought a revision petition to the Lahore High Court challenging the right of Ahmadis to call azan (the Muslim call to prayer); to call their place of worship masjid; to
perform prayer rituals which resemble the prayer .of the Sharia; or to recite the Quran. In a carefully crafted decision, Justice Aftab Hussain (later Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat court), rejected the plaint on the grounds that Islam and Pakistan’s constitution protect the rights of non-Muslims to practice their religion.
. . . I have not come across a single instance in Islamic history where the non-Muslim subjects or non-Muslim conquered in war have been subjected to religious intolerance or their freedom to
practise their religions has ever been curtailed or interfered with.(See Abdur Rehman Mobashir vs. Amir Ali Shah PLD 1978 Lah 113; p. 185., via Charles Kennedy).
… In my view the fundamental rights [of the 1973 constitution] should be interpreted as far as possible in the light of the injunctions of the Holy Quran and ethical values of Islam,” (See Abdur Rehman Mobashir vs. Amir Ali Shah PLD 1978 Lah 113; p. 188., via Charles Kennedy).
Qasmi tells us, on page 222
“”””””””””””””””The ulema of Paksitan argued that their rights were being infringed upon by the Ahmadi appropriation of Muslim ritual terminology and practices. They submitted that identity per se – in legal terminology, “legal status” – was protected under civil law because properties and rights were attached to it. That is, they argued that “Muslim” was a legal status/identity protected under law and the Ahmadi appropriation of this status/identity constituted an infringement on the exclusive rights of Muslims to this status(See “The Paradoxes of Ahmadiyya Identity,” page 290)……………the legal counsel of the complainants invoked an analogy between copyright or trademark protection and the Muslimness which was the exclusive property of the Muslim alone(See “The Paradoxes of Ahmadiyya Identity,” page 290). In this way, argues Ahmad, the figuration of the Ahmadi was reformulated from a dangerous heresy harmful to the Muslim community and the state to that of a legal entity which was causing material harm to the Muslims by appropriating their civic rights.(See “The Paradoxes of Ahmadiyya Identity,” page 287). This, again, was the approach which had been adopted by the AG in his cross-examination of Mirza Nasir Ahmad when he gave the hypothetical example of a non-Muslim posing as a Muslim to gain material benefits which were reserved for Muslims alone.
In Abdur Rehman Mubashir v. Syed Amir Ali Shah, however, the judge did not accept this argument. He did not find any material damage being done to the proprietary rights of the Muslims as a result of the Ahmadi appropriation of Muslim terminologies and practices. The judge wrote: “Rights in trademarks or copyrights are matters which are the concern of statutory law. There is no positive law investing the plaintiffs with any such rights to debate the defendants from freedom of conscience, worship, or from calling their place of worship by any name they like.”(See “The Paradoxes of Ahmadiyya Identity,” page 290-292).
The plaintiffs, failing to find relief under positive law, tried to shift their argument to shari’at law. For this purpose, says Ahmed, they argued that the term “law” in the constitutional amendment against the Ahmadis should be understood as including shari’at(See “The Paradoxes of Ahmadiyya Identity,” page 290-292). An acceptance of this argument would have amounted to subordinating positive law to shari* at law – a process which was ultimately successful during the 1980s but which, as pointed out in Part II, had started during the 1970s. The judge saw through this argument and carefully chose to ground the non-Muslim status of the Ahmadis on the basis of constitution rather than shari’at. He said that the plaintiffs were only resorting to such an argument because they could not defend their case under positive law(See “The Paradoxes of Ahmadiyya Identity,” page 290-292).
In this case, the High Court of Lahore decided that no permanent injunction could be granted to bar Ahmadi’s from continuing to perform religious practices associated, as it was alleged by the petitioners, exclusively with Islam as defined by the majority Sunni community. The Court held that civil law could only be used to protect rights of a legal character and explained that religious practices or religious terms could never constitute a proprietary right stating that ‘a suit regarding such matter is only competent if it involves dispute about right to property or office'[at p. 143]. The Lahore High Court furthermore held that religious terms do not fall within the domain of intellectual property law either, holding that: “Rights in trademarks or copyrights are matters which are the concern of the statutory law. There is no positive law investing the plaintiffs with any such right to debar the defendants [i.e. the Ahmadiyya community] from freedom of conscience, worship, or from calling their places of worship by any name they like”[at p. 139]. The Court further held that neither public nuisance law nor any direct application of Islamic law based on the equitable jurisdiction of “equity, justice and good conscience” could be used so as to prevent Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims.
The judges in this case?
We suspect that they were Ahmadi, or Ahmadi sympathizers.
The famous Ahmadi Generals
The first ever Ahmadi General was General Nazir Ahmad (1947), he was mentioned in the famous list of 199 Ahmadi officers that was presented to the boundary commission in 1947. Colonel Mirza Daud Ahmad was also mentioned in the list, he is a grandson of MGA. After him came General Abdul Ali Malik and General Akhtar Hussain Malik (these 2 are brothers), Zafar Ahmad Chaudhry, Major General Iftikhar Janjua, Major General Ijaz Amjad, Brigadier General Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Brigadier General Waqiuz Zaman, the Lahori-Ahmadi Major General Abdul Saeed Khan, and we are still adding to the list. There were also those were super trusted by the colonist back in 1947, they were Major Malik Habib-ullah (who died at the age of a 100) (from Dhulmial), Captain Nizam ud Din (he was the father of Brigadier General Mohammad Iqbal Khan) and Captain Umar Hayat (father of Commander Yousaf), Major-General Nasir Ahmad Chaudhry is another. In terms of Medical Doctors, Dr. Major Shah Nawaz, Commander Dr. Abdul Latif (ww-2 era) were some of the first. During Zia’s era, Lt-Gen Mahmood-ul-Hassan and his protege Major General Dr. Mahmood ul Hassan Noori who was probably the last Qadiani to make it to the rank of General.
Famous Ahmadi officer’s who almost made General
Major Syed Maqbool Ahmad was a colleague of Zia and one of the founders of ISI.
Nasir Ahmad Faruqi (a Lahori-Ahmadi)
He was the principal secretary for Ayub Khan from 1959 to 1969 as well as Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan for the 1965 election, which was totally rigged. The elections in Pakistan were under his control in 1970 also.
“The Paradoxes of Ahmadiyya Identity,” pages 287-290. and “Beyond Crisis: Re-Evaluating Pakistan”, ed. Naveeda Khan (New Delhi: Routledge, 2010), 297.
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam