Utilities:
• Discussion forums
• Site Statistics
• Contact us
• Search the website

Some anti-Ahmadiyya spokesmen have gone a step further than Prof. Khurshid Ahmad, and boldly proclaimed that Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslims by a South African court. A friend from the U.S.A. has sent to The Light a news-item published in Urdu by the Idara Dawat-O-Irshad, U.S.A. Inc., of Alex. VA, which carries the following three banner headlines:

"Great, international triumph for Muslims, humiliation for Qadianis,

Historic judgment by full bench of Supreme Court of South Africa,

Qadianis declared to be non-Muslims."

These misrepresentations are just beyond belief. The report underneath reads as follows:

"The full bench of the highest court of Cape Town, South Africa, comprising five judges, while giving its judgment on an old case, has confirmed the unanimous verdict of the Islamic world and the decisions of the National Assembly of Pakistan and its higher courts, and declared the Qadianis to be non-Muslims. Over-turning the judgment given by a single judge, it has refused to accept them as Muslims. The full bench of the Supreme Court made it clear that matters relating to the religious beliefs of any community can only be decided by the ulama and theological experts of that community, who are the custodians, guardians and trustees of that creed. This right cannot be taken away by any court or group. It is inappropriate for a secular or worldly court to give a decision on who is a Muslim and who is an apostate. The Muslims also have the right to excommunicate any person from the religion."

The news report then extends its congratulations to various persons, beginning as follows:

"On this historic judgment, we congratulate and pay tribute to the learned judges of the Supreme Court, the Muslim lawyers, the President of the Muslim Judicial Council Sheikh Nazim, and its other members . . ."

The judgment may or may not be historic, but it is certainly a historic act to congratulate Sheikh Nazim because it is rare indeed that the loser of a case is congratulated for winning it. Nazim is the man about whom the appeal judgment says:

1. "The appeal of the first appellant (Nazim) is dismissed. . ." (p. 169).
2. Nazim gave "false evidence" at the trial (p. 156 and 160).
3. The defendants (Nazim and the MJC) could not call even one Muslim "out of hundreds present" at the wedding incident to support Nazim in the trial. The two witnesses who did appear "give the impression of giving evidence under orders", and remained just short of committing perjury (p. 113).

If such are the grounds for congratulation, then it just shows the abysmal moral standards of those who are extending the felicitations.

We repeat: it is entirely untrue and groundless to suggest that this judgment has either declared or accepted that Ahmadis are non-Muslims.

The reaction of the anti-Ahmadiyya parties following this judgment is itself a plain judgment of Allah upon them because their behaviour has shown them in their true colours.

We ask all fair-minded Muslims to ponder the following questions: how can you believe these people's general allegations against the Ahmadiyya Movement and its Founder when they are capable of producing such blatant falsehood as above? And, further, can any decent Muslim possibly associate himself with such so-called ulama and defenders of Islam who spread total and absolute untruths throughout the world?