The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

latest, 9th July 2018: Can Muslims (-women) marry Non-Believers


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


January 21st, 2008

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. 

17 Responses to “Qadiani Jamaat international centre issues clarification: They do believe Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet”

  1. 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.


  2. 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.


  3. 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.”


  4. 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.


  5. 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?


  6. 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.


  7. January 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
    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.


  8. 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.


  9. 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


  10. 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


  11. Thanks for your kind comments. I hope we all exercise husn-e zann towards each other.


  12. June 30th, 2009 at 5:36 am
    From javed yousuf:

    i have read the statements of both. Dr Aziz didn’t reply the question Muhammad Ali was ORDERED by Khalifa Awal to take khalifa’s BAIT again despite his high status and respect in the present jamat.


  13. June 30th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I am sorry if I didn’t reply to what Javed Yousaf thinks was a question. Mr Omar of the Qadiani Jamaat had thanked me and expressed his husn-i zann towards me. So I thought it courteous not to argue with him. Life isn’t all about scoring debating points. There is such a thing as ikhlaq.

    In answer to Mr Javed Yousaf, Maulana Muhammad Ali wasn’t the only one asked to take the bai`at.  On that same occasion in 1909, Shaikh Yaqub Ali Turab, who was leading the case for the Qadiani view of khilafat, was also made to take the bai`at by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din sahib. So the khalifa treated Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s side in the same way.

    Later on, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din sahib continued to publicly defend the “members from Lahore” against the allegations from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s lobby. In 1912 he declared in a speech:

    “Even now I have a slip of paper in my hand on which someone writes that the Lahore Jama‘at is an obstacle in the way of the khilafat. I say to such critics to give up thinking ill of others. The people from Lahore are sincere, and you should first of all try to make yourself sincere like they are. They love the Promised Messiah. Human beings make mistakes and they too can make mistakes, but the works which they have performed you should also try to do the same.

    I say at the top of my voice that whoever thinks ill of the people from Lahore, saying that they are an obstacle in the way of the khilafat, he should remember that the Holy Prophet has said regarding one who indulges in this that it is ‘the biggest lie’ ” (Badr, 11 July 1912, pages 4, 5)

    On the Qadiani Jamaat website itself, you can read his opinion about Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din in his khutbas in October and November 1913:

    “You think ill of others. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din does not work out of
    hypocrisy. He works only for Allah. This is my belief about him. Of
    course, he can make mistakes. I am happy with his works. There is
    blessing in them. Those who spread mistrust about him are the
    hypocrites.”
    (Go to http://www.alislam.org/urdu/knoor/19131017.pdf and read page 622)

    Read also the khutba at:
    http://www.alislam.org/urdu/knoor/19131107.pdf
    from p. 631, 2nd para, to end of khutba. The end of the khtba shows that the Hazrat Maulana was too weak to continue speaking, yet after sitting he stood up again to continue defending Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din as follows:

    “Can any of you do what Kamal-ud-Din is doing? If he makes a mistake, what does it matter?”

    Then he ends by indicating that if you are going to accuse Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din of insincerity you might as well accuse the Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din himself of insincerity.


  14. For Javed Yousaf:

    Noorudin reprimanded both parties, the ones that had a meeting to support the anjuman (khwaja sahib) and the group that held a meeting in support of khilafat(S Y ali irfani).  

    There is actually a problem in this event.  HMBMA never wrote that he also took bait.  But, M. ali wrote:

    http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/truefactssplit/truefactssplit.pdf
    68/119
    “Therefore on the conclusion of his(noorudin) speech, Hazrat Maulvi Sahib took the oath of alegiance first from Mian Mahmud and the Nawab sahib that they would bear obediance to him, and then from me and Kwaja Kamalludin on the one side and Sheikh Yaqub Ali (and very probably Mir Muhammad Ishaq) on the others”.

    1.  Did HMBMA take bait or not? 
    2.  Why did ali irfani take bait?  What did he do wrong?  Didnt he support khilafat?
    3.   Why were the supporters of khilafat asked to re-do their bait?
    4.  Why did HMBMA suppress the fact that he also took bait?

    These are questions that remain unanswered about this event.  I hope that the AMI will release an official statement as to what happened.  M. ali released his official statement (see the link posted above). 

    FYI —-Noorudin finished his speech without making a decisive decision!  He just didnt want this matter to be brought up in his lifetime ever again.  In my personal opinion Noorudin failed in saving this ahmadiyya community. 


  15. Why was M. ali ordered to do Bait?  Thats not an easy answer, let me elaborate:

    Noorudin must have deemed it as essential to show the top leaders of the community that he was in charge.  He made HMBMA, ali irfani, KK, m. ali and a few others re-do their bait.  Why?  We will never know exactly what Noorudin was thinking, that’s just an impossible question to answer.  All we can do is gather the facts and try to conject a possible answer. 

    HMBMA gave the impression that M. ali was singled out, HMBMA presented a story that is extremely biased in nature.  I wish that the other people who were there would have written about the event.  As it is, we have only two accounts of what possibly happened. 

    HMBMA wrote his account almost 13 years later.  There are many other inconsistencies with HMBMA’s eye witness accounts.  If you need to know, let me know. 


  16. July 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    In the translation quoted by Bashir, either the translator or the typist/typesetter has made a confusion.

    If you read Maulana Muhammad Ali’s Urdu book Haqiqat-i Ikhtilaf, what he writes is that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din obtained from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Mir Nasir Nawab an iqrar (pledge or affirmation) that they would obey him, and then “one the one side from me and Khwaja sahib and on the other side from Shaikh Yaqub Ali and probably Mir Muhammad Ishaq, he took the bai`at.”

    Thus Maulana Muhammad Ali does not mention bai`at being taken by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Mir Nasir Nawab but an affirmation of obedience. Then he quotes Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in Ainah-i Sadaqat as confirming that Shaikh Yaqub Ali, who led the opposite side, was also made to take the bai`at.


  17. Even if it was just an an iqrar, HMBMA suppressed this information. 

    He writes:
    259/430–bottom of the page
    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Truth-about-the-Split.pdf

    “Then Hadrat Khalifatul Masihra said that these people must renew their oath of Bai‘at, and asked Khwaja Sahib and Maulawi Muhammad Ali to retire and think over the matter, and if they really felt prepared, then alone should they come and take the oath of Bai‘at again. Then turning to Shaikh Ya‘qub Ali, the editor of Al-Hakam who had been the promoter of a meeting in which signatures were taken in support of the Khilafat, Hadrat Khalifatul Masihra said that he too had made a mistake and should therefore renew his Bai‘at. Accordingly these three men renewed their Bai‘at, and the meeting was dissolved.”


Leave a Reply