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

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

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.

“——– 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.”

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.