Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.
Denmark’s government is introducing a new set of laws to regulate life in 25 low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves, saying that if families there do not willingly merge into the country’s mainstream, they should be compelled.
No country should aspire to have values which forcibly take a one year old child away from their mother for 25 hours a week or more. Does this represent Danish or Christian values?
In response to the comments to articles about the position of women in Islam, only Lahori-Ahmadis replied and defended Islam. This is because in our organisation we openly discuss such matters whereas in other mosques it is a taboo and in Muslim majority countries forbidden by Blasphemy Laws.
There is a lot of fuss in the West about implementation of what they call ‘Sharia Law’. Generally, people fail to realise that many principles of Sharia have already been incorporated in the British law and others are being incorporated for the benefit of the general public. Law of Tort is one example of this. We look at the Islamic principles of Tort in this khutba.
The Promised Messiah said that as time goes on people will accept his interpretation of Islam, regardless of whether they accept him as the Messiah and Mehdi or not.
In the last few weeks we have seen that the most orthodox Sunni leaders, religious and secular, have accepted the Ahmadi interpretations in two areas.
The first is divorce. The traditional Sunni view has been that a man was entitled to pronounce the word divorce thrice and he would be divorced, even if the wife was not aware of it. The Council for Islamic ideology in Pakistan announced in the last few weeks that it has recommended to the Pakistan government to make this practice unlawful and punishable. It is worth mentioning that first family law reform implemented by the Pakistan government in 1962 was drafted by Mr Nasir Ahmad Farqui, a prominent member of this jamaat.
The second reform is related to rape-law. Last year the religious court threw out a case involving rape where the evidence was on DNA and not eye witness testimony of four people. A khutba was delivered from our UK mosque which criticised this decision and showed that DNA evidence is admissible. The Pakistan parliament has now passed a law enabling DNA evidence to be used to prove rape.
These incident prove the truth of what Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said and quoted above.
If you cannot watch the video above, then below is the podcast.
The latest US-based PEW Research Center survey, released 11 days before Pakistan goes for elections, shows that 84% of Pakistani Muslims favour Islamic sharia as their official law.
While none of the leading political parties with the only exception of Imran Khan’s PTI promises to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state, the 30th April Pew Research Center survey of Muslims around the globe finds that most adherents (including Pakistanis) of the world’s second-largest religion are deeply committed to their faith and want its teachings to shape not only their personal lives but also their societies and politics.
As against the recent hints of PPP, MQM and the ANP to make Pakistan a secular state, the PEW survey concludes, “Support for making Sharia the official law of the land tends to be higher in countries like Pakistan (84%) and Morocco (83%) where the constitution or basic laws favour Islam to other religions.”
Pew research says: 84% of Pakistani Muslims favour Islamic sharia as their official law.
And yet we know that a high proportion of people from Pakistan do not reflect in their personal behaviour the values enshrined in the Sharia. Sharia says speak the truth, be honest, feed the poor, be kind to those in need, respect minorities and the list goes on. The argument appears to be that people of Pakistan will not act on what is dictated by and written in Allah’s book but if an assembly of human beings, with all their weaknesses and frailties, writes in their constitution, then they will follow it.
The good news coming out of this research is that it suggests that three quarters of Muslims in Pakistan believe in freedom of religion for others.
As with any survey we always take these things with ‘a pinch of salt’, but the full article makes for an interesting and sometimes depressing reading.
Life imprisonment is not enough for blasphemers; the only permissible punishment is the death penalty, this according to a recent ruling by Pakistan’s Federal Sharia Court, which struck down Section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code, leaving the death penalty as the only possible form of punishment. Together with Sections 295 A and 295 B, Section 295 C constituted the so-called ‘blasphemy law’.
In the UK non-Lahore Ahmadi Muslims always tell us that their interpretation of Islam allows minorities complete freedom. Yet when we look at any country where Sunnis are in a majority we find the situation is totally the opposite.
For example, it is common knowledge that in Pakistan Sunnis falsely accuse members of minorities of insulting the Holy Prophet (pbuh) or the Holy Quran. If the accused is set free by the courts he or she is usually then killed by a mob – so much for rule of law.
Now the Pakistan Federal Shariat Court has decided that anyone convicted of blasphemy shall be killed for their “crime” and no other punishment is possible.
The persecution of Christians is “the greatest story never told in the Western media” and “the vast majority of serious anti-Christian violence is carried out in the name of Islam,” according to Ed West in an article for The Spectator.
Earlier this month, MPs raised concerns about the plight of Christians in the Middle East during a debate at Westminster Hall, highlighting that in relation to Christian persecution virtually every country in the region reported “suffering of either high, high to extreme or extreme suffering.”
Faith Minister Baroness Warsi said in a recent speech: “A mass exodus is taking place, on a Biblical scale. In some places, there is a real danger that Christianity will become extinct.”
Muslims in the Middle East talk a great deal about the rights and freedoms they give to ethnic and or religious minorities. They speak of protection of minorities and freedom of worship.
This article, linked below, shows that this is anything but the truth and that Muslims are driving such a level of discrimination against minorities that soon there could be none left.
Professor Michael Avery, a specialist in constitutional law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston sent out an email criticising the solicitation of care-packages for U.S. Troops, the following is the email as found in its entirety.
I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings. I understand that there is a residual sympathy for service members, perhaps engendered by support for troops in World War II, or perhaps from when there was a draft and people with few resources to resist were involuntarily sent to battle. That sympathy is not particularly rational in today’s world, however.
The United States may well be the most war prone country in the history of civilization. We have been at war two years out of three since the Cold War ended. We have 700 overseas military bases. What other country has any? In the last ten years we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary foreign invasions. Those are dollars that could have been used for people who are losing their homes due to the economic collapse, for education, to repair our infrastructure, or for any of a thousand better purposes than making war. And of course those hundreds of billions of dollars have gone for death and destruction.
Perhaps some of my colleagues will consider this to be an inappropriate political statement. But of course the solicitation email was a political statement, although cast as support for student activities. The politics of that solicitation are that war is legitimate, perhaps inevitable, and that patriotic Americans should get behind our troops.
We need to be more mindful of what message we are sending as a school. Since Sept. 11 we have had perhaps the largest flag in New England hanging in our atrium. This is not a politically neutral act. Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states. It permits, indeed encourages, excesses in the name of national security, as we saw during the Bush administration, and which continue during the Obama administration.
Why do we continue to have this oversized flag in our lobby? Why are we sending support to the military instead of Americans who are losing their homes, malnourished, unable to get necessary medical care, and suffering from other consequences of poverty? As a university community, we should debate these questions, not remain on automatic pilot in support of the war agenda.