Anyone having the most basic knowledge of religion and various religions would know that the basic difference between the three biggest religions of the world is prophet hood. The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims all believe in Prophet Adam AS as the first man and prophet on Earth. Then all of them believe in the Noah’s Ark as well. Our children generally learn about different animals by this very popular prophetic story. Then all three religions agree upon Prophet Abraham AS as the fountainhead of spirituality. Even Prophet Moses AS is agreed upon as a prophet. The dissension began when Prophet Jesus AS arose as a prophet and a segment of the society refused to accept him as a prophet. They set themselves apart and termed themselves as Jews. If a person believes in Prophet Jesus AS and claims to be a Jew, does it make sense? Is it correct technically? Would it be acceptable?
The second dissension came when Prophet Muhammed SAW arose as a prophet and a segment of the society refused to accept him as a prophet. They set themselves apart and termed themselves as Christians. If a person believes in Prophet Muhammed SAW and claims to be a Christian or a Jew, does it make sense? Is it correct technically? Would it be acceptable?
The third dissension came when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed prophet hood after prophet hood had been sealed upon Prophet Muhammed SAW in the Quran as follows,
“Muhammed is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the seal of the Prophets …”
[The
Holy Quran, Surah Al-Ahzab, V.33]
People who chose to accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as a prophet, have the right to do so, but they have to coin a different name for themselves just like the Jews, Christians and Muslims did because of their different beliefs. They cannot encroach upon Islam like a chameleon. That is the point of conflict with the Qadianis in the Muslim world. If they accept themselves as another religion like Christians chose proudly to stand apart from among the Jews, and the Muslims chose proudly to stand apart from among the Christians, they would be recognized as an independent creed and rights of minorities would be applicable upon them in the Muslim majority world. Whereas they claim to be the green color, the world bellows down upon us as to where are the rights of the white color for the Qadianis in Pakistan? Confusing, huh?
As to whether Atif Mian had the right to be in the Economic Advisory Council or not, I do not know. By the key principals of Islam, non-Muslims should not be given key strategic positions within the machinery of the state, for they might be used against the state at any point in time. For no matter how strongly we advocate nationalism, religion does play a vital role in political associations after all. Otherwise, how come NATO has twenty-nine members and twenty-eight of them are non-Muslims. They seem like the Ahzab to me mentioned in Surah Al-Ahzab of the Holy Quran. Always ever united and ready to attack Muslim countries, and never showing up in Palestine, Kashmir or Burma. See?
So does membership of the Economic Advisory Council of Pakistan fall into that sensitive category where non-Muslims should not be stationed? A council of Ulema can field that question better. If Atif Mian is an expert economist and his say is extremely valuable for economic decisions, the Ulema are the experts of religion and their say is extremely valuable for religious decisions. As far I know, that is exactly what Imran Khan has done. So chill !
