Qadiani Jamaat international centre issues clarification: They do believe Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet
In response to the news item in The Jakarta Post, the international head-quarters of the Qadiani Jama’at in London has issued a Press Release affirming that they do believe Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet.
Here is a link to the Press Release on their website.
Our comment: Instead of blaming The Jakarta Post for making “false claims”, the Qadiani Jama`at should examine the 12-point statement issued under the signature of their Amir in Indonesia and declare whether it represents their position or not.
For example, we understand some points are as follows:
3. Our belief, among others, is that HM Ghulam Ahmad is a teacher, murshad, bearer of glad news and a warner and bearer of mubashirat, founder and leader of Ahmadiyya Jamaat who strengthened dawah and shariah of Islam brought by Nabi Muhammad SAW.
7. We, Ahmadiyya Jamaat members, have never and shall not consider other Muslims outside Ahmadiyya as kafir, either by words or deeds.
8. We Ahmadiyya Jamaat members never and shall not call mosque built by us by the name Ahmadiyya Mosque.
From Dr MAS:
The Qadiani Jamaat appears to be in utter confusion on what they believe! Serves them right, for disregarding the Promised Messiah’s true teachings. Probably it is time for the Qadiani youth to start researching on the underlying reasons for the Split between the Qadiani and Lahori branches of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam. ahmadiyya.org and aaiil.org would be a good starting point.
From S Khan:
Unfortunately, the problem that you have with the above statement is that on researching the issues, ahmadiyya.org and aaiil.org and the split are not the starting points for research. The starting points are Maulana Muhammad ‘Ali’s (ra) and the Lahori party’s statements to Hadhrat Hakim Maulana Nuruddin (qaddasa Allahu sirrahu) about the limits of his powers as khalifa and their acceptance of him as the khalifa and their reluctance in allowing khilafat to continue after him.
what I cannot understand is the silence or acceptance of the Lahori members of teh first khilafat and then non-acceptance of the second (on grounds of doctrine).
Imam al-Ghazali (ra) reaffrims the status of a khalifa and boils it down to simple characteristics, e.g., adolescence, the ability to distinguish right from wrong, taking counsel from the scholars in areas he is not well-versed, etc.
Teh fact is that if an opinion is valid, no matter how much of a minority opinion it is, it should be acceded to if authorised by the khalifa, except on fundamentals such as tauheed.
From Zahid Aziz:
The khilafat as prevailing today in the Qadiani Jamaat developed in many stages over many years under Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. At the link below, please see extracts from a speech by him in 1925, admitting that khilafat does not officially exist and that the Sadr Anjuman still (in 1925) has the right, albeit on paper, to decide that it does not want to obey the khalifa.
He says: “the movement still remains insecure, that is, it is at the mercy of a few men who can, if they so wish, allow the system of khilafat to continue in existence, and if they do not so wish, it cannot remain in existence, this cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.”
See extracts from the speech at this link.
So the framework of the present Qadiani khilafat did not exist until eleven years after the split, let alone existing before the split.
Another stage was in the 1950s, when Mirza Mahmud Ahmad created the system of choosing the Khalifa, leading to the khilafat becoming a family dynasty. But in December 1914 he had even declared: “Foolish is he who says that a hereditary seat has been established. I say to such a one on sworn oath: I do not even consider it allowable that the son should succeed the father as khalifa.”
From Tahir Ijaz:
There is no denial of prophethood in these twelve points issued, nor is there an affirmative statement to that effect.
However there is no statement about Hazrat Sahib being Messiah and Mahdi as well.
The London press release is good, and indeed there are some other mistakes in the Jakarta newspaper article such where Ahmadiyyat originated and when the message spread to Indonesia.
From S Khan:
To Zahid Aziz,
Typically, you have gone off at a tangent.
I reiterate my point - the fact is that the members who later split from the Jama’at (i.e., who wanted the Anjuman to take control) accepted the khilafat of Hadhrat Hakim Maulana Nuruddin (ra). During the first Khilafat they made moves to limit the powers of hadhrat Khalifatul Masih al-Awwal - yet they maintained obedience to him - but after his demise, they said, now there is to be no more khilafat. Why accept khilafat in the first place? Why di dthe Anjuman not leave and set up elsewhere during the life of the first khalifa?
From Zahid Aziz:
How have I gone off at a tangent when what I mentioned was Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s speech about the respective positions of the khalifa and the Anjuman? I wrote that M. Mahmad Ahmad said in 1925 that the system of governing the Movement has to be changed because the Anjuman, even now in 1925, has the power to stop obeying the khalifa. The speech is on your Jamaat’s website at the link:
http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/AU9-9.pdf
Quoting his speech I wrote above: So the framework of the present Qadiani khilafat did not exist until eleven years after the split, let alone existing before the split.
From Abdul Momin:
In the Khilafat newsletter of April 2007, under the title: System of Caliphate it is stated:
“——– This system was established by using the good things in the long running Catholic system of elections but in considering the Islamic principles as laid out in the Holy Quran.”
So whether the present system of khilafat existed or not at the time of Maulvi Nuruddin is resolved by the above quote.
Also, one can state with absolute certainty that HMGA or his close associates were never inspired by any Catholic system of governance as there is no record of it.
From Omar:
Dr. Zahid Aziz Sahib,
In one of your posts above you quoted Mirza Mahmood’s sppech.
Can you kindly explain why Mirza Mahmood’s speech scanned page (No. 132) is being tempered and words “As it happened in Khalifa Aawal’s time”…were taken out/ wiped out from scanned copy of the page at the reference link at lahore Jamat’s website give above.
Without going into any debate, I just want to know the reason behind not altering but DELETING text of the above quoted speech page.
Kindly assist.
From Zahid Aziz:
I am the writer of that article and am personally responsible for compiling it, doing the translations and inserting the images. So I am accountable for it before both man and God.
I have not deleted something from the middle of an extract. I have presented two extracts separately, as their subject is different, and between those extracts the words you mention occur apparently as a sentence. Please note that on that webpage I gave a live weblink to the book as on the Qadiani Jamaat’s website and gave the precise reference to the pages where the relevant extracts can be read in the speech. Why should I do that if I want to suppress something?
I did not understand how that sentence fits into what the author is saying. That was why I did not include it. I still don’t understand what he means by that sentence. But it certainly does not make any difference whatever to the meaning of the passages that I have quoted. However, for your satisfaction I have now added it in both in my translation and in the scanned image. See:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/khil2.htm#sp19252
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/khil2a.htm#sp19252
From Omar:
Thanks for the assitance, Dr. Sahib. I appreciate it. I know you for a while now on the Internet and have read your articles. With that Husn-e-Zan that I have about you, I would certainly take your words that it must have been a mistake of you thinking of it as being ‘out of place’. Though I disagree.
Your point about as to Why Mirza Mahmood needed to say ‘As it happened in Khalifa Awal’s time’?? or it appeared as rather irrelevant on the said quoted page above.
It was the same reason for which Molana Muhammad Ali was ORDERED by Khalifa Awal to take khalifa’s BAIT again despite his high status and respect in the present jamat.
And we all know that Hazrat Molana Muhammad Ali r.a. and others conformed and did end up taking bait AGAIN from Khalifa Awal.
Waslam
From Zahid Aziz:
Thanks for your kind comments. I hope we all exercise husn-e zann towards each other.