YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM:
MINORITY RIGHTS AND SHARIA INTERPRETATION IN PAKISTAN
Wajeeha A. Choudhary, Department of Communication, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
BELIEFS & BACKGROUND OF
AHMADIYYA MUSLIM COMMUNITY
The Ahmadiyya Muslim
Community was founded in
1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
who claimed to be the
metaphorical second-coming of
Jesus of Nazareth. His advent
also fulfilled a prophecy of the
Prophet Muhammad who
foretold of a Mahdi or divine
guide who would lead Islam
out of its declined state and
into revival.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed and his followers believe him
to be a subordinate prophet to the Prophet Muhammad..
While Prophet Muhammad is considered a law-bearing
prophet (i.e., revelation of the Qur’an), Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad did not claim to bring a new law but rather a
continuation of the same law. Thus, followers of the
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community do not consider themselves
as adherents of a new Islam, but rather followers of the
purest and quintessential form of Islam. Today under the
guidance of the Caliphate established by Ahmad, the
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has tens of millions of
followers around the world.
Ordinance XX Penal
Code, curbing Ahmadi
religious practice
1993
Second Constitutional
Amendment is passed
declaring Ahmadis
kafir
1984
The Punjab
Disturbances
Publication of The Munir
Report investigating the
Disturbances and the
‘Ahmadi Question’
1974
Pakistan-India
Partition
1954
Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam
demand Ahmadis be
declared kafir (India)
1947
Founding of
Ahmadiyya Muslim
Community (India)
1934
1889
This project explores the interpretation of Sharia in
Pakistan in relation to the treatment of religious
minorities. Specifically, this project investigates the status
of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a revivalist Islamic
community deemed kafir, or heretical and non-Muslim,
by the constitution of Pakistan. To investigate this issue, I
conduct a discourse analysis of Pakistan’s second
constitutional amendment declaring Ahmadis as nonMuslim and Ordinance XX of 1984, with special
emphasis on the denial of self-identification for Ahmadis
as Muslims. This discourse analysis is supplemented with
and supported by ethnographic accounts of first and
second generation American Ahmadi Muslims of
Pakistani origin. The primary purpose of the
ethnographic accounts is to demonstrate some of the
far-reaching and residual effects of Sharia production in
Pakistan as it continues to impact those outside of the
borders of Pakistan. Therefore, this project also calls
upon issues of transnational-immigrant perspectives.
1953
HISTORY & KEY DOCUMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Supreme Court case
Zaheeruddin v. The State
upholds Ordinance XX
SECOND AMENDMENT OF PAKISTAN CONSTITUTION
ORDINANCE XX OF PAKISTAN PENAL CODE
Amendment of Article 260 of the Constitution.
In the Constitution, in Article 260, after clause (2) the following new
clause shall be added, namely-(3) A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified
finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him),
the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of
the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD
(Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or
religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the
Constitution or law.
298B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places.
(1) Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name) who by words, either spoken
or written, or by visible representation;
(a) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him),as ‘Ameerul
Mumineen’, ‘Khalifa-tul-Mumineen’, ‘Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen’, ‘Sahaabi’ or ‘Razi Allah Anho’
(b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as ‘Ummul-Mumineen’
(c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him),
as ‘Ahle-bait’; or
(d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship as ‘Masjid’; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name), who directly or indirectly,
poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by
words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
METHODS & FINDINGS
METHODS: This research utilizes discourse analysis to examine the 1974 Second Constitutional
Amendment and the 1984 Ordinance XX of the Penal Code through the lens of performatives and
speech acts (Butler, 1997; Wedeen, 2008; Bottomley, 2015). The discourse analysis is followed by
ethnographic accounts of first and second generation American Ahmadi Muslims of Pakistani origin.
Five semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. Participants were recruited via snowball
sampling.
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
• Constitutional Amendment: Exclusionary and
confounding definition of finality of prophethood
(Khatam). Conflates multiple statuses of
prophethood. Insistence on reductionist reading
of Khatam establishes caveat to Kalima Shahadda
(Islamic declaration of faith).
ETHNOGRAPHY
• Themes across data: narratives of otherness,
reflections on gender, persecution in education
and employment, progress, safety, and crossnational comparisons
• Sarah was ostracized by her upper-class Wahabi
family after converting to Ahmadiyyat:
• Ordinance XX: distinguishes between ‘right’ and
‘wrong’ practice through discrimination of belief.
Islamic identity constructed as action excluding
Ahmadis. prohibit indirect (Muslim appearance)
and direct (preaching) influence of Ahmadi belief
and practice from the public sphere.
“I think my parents – I think they didn’t go out of their comfort
zone to do anything, to do something for me.They just said no,
Ahmadiyyat, no. Anything else, a poor person, a pauper, she’s good.
But Ahmadiyyat, no. So they didn’t even get into a discussion”
• For Ahmadis in Pakistan, an irreconcilable
difference between the public self and private
self: what is ‘right’ for the private self is ‘wrong’
for the public self . Together, the constitutional
amendment and Ordinance XX perform as a
speech act: writing to life and dictating right
practice of the Muslim self. The right of selfdetermination and self-identification are denied.
• Qamar, a doctor in the U.S. who grew up and
went to medical school in Pakistan, describes
the psychological trauma endured by Pakistani
Ahmadis and their transition to the States:
“When I came here, I think I was still in the same mentality, that
it’s kind of normal that I don’t call myself Muslim openly, it’s kind
of normal that I don’t say Salaam openly, that’s okay, that’s how
it is, that’s life. But then when I got used to freedom again, here
in the U.S., I realized that it’s really – there’s a lot oppression
back home, a lot of persecution back home, you don’t realize it. It
doesn’t have to be physical, it’s psychological oppression and
persecution, and people have adapted to this new normal but
they don’t know what they’re missing which is complete freedom
of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of religion, which we
enjoy here in the United States. So when I got back to my senses
and I realized that was not normal, this is normal.”
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
In some respects, the condition of Ahmadis in Pakistan
can be likened to that of Muslims in certain European
countries, particularly if examined through the lens of the
secular vs. religious. Claims for secularization can be just
as dogmatic, and religious societies can also foster
creativity and criticism. France, for instance, purportedly
enacted the hijab and niqab bans for secular reasons
while Pakistan persecutes Ahmadis for religious purposes.
Each of these countries curb religious practice using
seemingly oppositional ideologies, yet the impact is the
same: to ostracize the Other.
The enactment of the second constitutional
amendment and Ordinance XX placed Ahmadis in a
paradoxical position, rendering it impossible for them to
be full citizens of a country where the legal
interpretation of Sharia on right and wrong practice
places them outside of the identity they claim.
Furthermore, Ahmadis act as a foil for the Pakistani
Muslim, whereby through speech acts, non-Ahmadi
Muslims can determine their ‘Muslimness’ by foiling
Ahmadis. The rigidity of Pakistan’s legislation is further
compromised by the longstanding tradition of discursive
dialogue and religious pluralism in Sharia interpretation
since the founding of Islam. However, in the case of the
Ahmadiyya, modern Sunni orthodox scholars
misappropriate Sharia concepts to fit their hegemonic
agendas.
For more information, please contact:
wac39@drexel.edu.