In a letter to the Ahmadiyya dated 24 Apr 2009 made available to The Nut Graph, MAIS said, "If [the Ahmadiyya] fail to comply with, defy or neglect the directive, the council will take legal action without any notice."
In a statement, Ahmadiyya spokesperson Ainul Yakin Muhd Zain said, "We ... feel deeply hurt and aggrieved at this unjust action to deny us our right to perform our religious obligations." MAIS issued its directive on the grounds that the Ahmadiyya mosque did not get the council's approval first.
- The Nut Graph
======================This is probably the result of "somebody"'s threat to "bury" the sect some time back. These are the "holier than thou characters" who actually sat down with Umno to discuss the formation of a "unity govt", despite having promised to be in the Pakatan Rakyat pact to rule Selangor.
This is a problem in all political parties worldwide, that use religion as their political tool - they need to prove their "correctness" through persecution of the powerless.
The definition of "Islam" as many make it out to be, is debatable. As far as I know (I may be wrong, though) the five "pillars"/rukun, namely -
4. Fasting during Ramadan, and
5. The Haj
- constitute the definition. (But then again some deny that there is such a thing!).
As to where exactly the Ahmadiyyahs fail, I confess that I'm ignorant.
However, I'm quite aware that there are quite significant differences in interpretation of the scriptures (which offends the mainstream Muslims) by the Ahmadiyyahs. It is probably the fact that it is believed that Ghulam Ahmad declared that he is the "Mehdi" - the second coming (or something like that).
It is beyond me as a non-Muslim to touch on that matter.
The problem here is the fact that they profess the "five pillars" and yet are (unconstitutionally) subjected to "excommunication" (as the pope did to "heretics") - although these guys don't recognize the MAIS (or the state) as "the" authority in determining their religion or the validity of their theology. They are also forced to deny their belief of being Muslims, becos MAIS believes that the Muslim public are incapable of discernment, and may fall victim to these peace loving and progressive people.
The said premises they refer to do not "belong" to MAIS. So how is it that MAIS can stop someone from using their own premises to worship as they see fit?
Never mind how idiotic it may sound, but to make matters worse, they are now being threatened to be stripped of their status as "Malays"!!!
The beauty of Malaysia Boleh is this:
Some time back, there was a lady who wanted to declare herself an apostate on her legal documents - she was denied permission as she refused to submit to the Muslim authorities.
Then, now we have a whole community of them being "excommunicated" despite wanting to preserve their Muslim identity and "constitutional privileges".
This leads to the question of constitutional ethnic identity, as unlike anywhere else in the world, Umno wanted the constitution to define the Malay race as one who speaks Malay, practises the "culture of Malays" and professes the Islamic faith as per the "Five pillars of Islam".
Now - the Qadianis do practice the "five pillars of Islam" but interpret the scriptures differently, and are hence declared heretics.
So that means they "are Muslims" and yet "aren't Muslims".
Can you imagine being a Malay and yet not a Malay?
It is logical as some propose, that the Ahmadiyyah/ Qadianis should just consider themselves "non-Muslims" and non-Malay so as to avoid unnecessary persecution - but doing so does prevent them from performing their Haj, marrying fellow Malays/Muslims, using the scriptures in "worship" etc etc etc. (and that isn't a very nice prospect, considering that they have the constitutional right to worship as per their teachings without the interference of authorities).
The plus point here is - they don't have to worry about the "hudud cops" or "mat skodengs"!!!
As a final thought - should the Qadiani Community should seriously consider sueing the agent provocateurs/ persecutors for denying them their Constitutional right?