No compulsion in this context means that we shouldn’t force people to convert into the fold of Islam. Not that you portray what you are not. And legislation was passed after discussions with Ahmadi’s leaders at that time. Remember, all legislation to declare Ahmedis as non-muslims including 295c happened at the time of Z.A Bhutto who despite being a secular man was forced to respond to the mass killing of Nishtar College students by Ahmedis as these students passed by the Rabwah near Chinniot.
Do you know how it was decided that Ahmadis are non-Muslims?
The decision was made in the parliament and Qadianis was given a chance to debate with Muslim scholars. The question that was asked to Ahmedi elders “Do you consider other Muslims who don’t believe in Mirza Ghulam to be non-Muslims?”… the response was “yes we do believe that those who don’t believe in him are kafirs”. For the same reasoning, just like for Ahmadis if other Muslims are non-Muslims, for them they too are.
The principle of compulsion will NOT hold if a person VIOLATES majority’s RIGHTS (Rights to Honour, Property, Freedom), in that case, the AUTHORITIES will COMPEL that person to make amends/repay/or suffer similar pain. Similarly, taxes (which are received from the rich and spent upon the poor). In all these cases, the injunction of the Quran will supervene the Principle of NO COMPULSION, for obvious reasons.)
No compulsion means no restriction on anyone’s beliefs. One can belong to any school of thought having equal basic human rights. But having an opinion opposing to a specific school of thought and then asking to be called a part of them is totally different, it’s like making and accepting Newton’s fourth law of motion. It doesn’t mean you can go around allowing non-muslims (Ahmedis in this case, who do not believe in the finality of the prophet (saw)) with their non-Islamic practices declare that they are Muslims and they represent real Islam.
