New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and Matters — See Title Page and List of Contents
— latest, 2nd March 2015: Basis of alleged abrogation in Quran, Anything but
Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
1. Please see here a report in the world-renowned Economist magazine of London on the Indonesia situation. (Link opens new window)
2. Here are the comments of a blog called The American Muslim. (Link opens new window)
3. This statement on the “World Muslim Congress” blog is well worth reading. It is linked in the above sources but you may miss it there. (Link opens new window)
It is reported in Badr, 30th April 1908 (p. 6) that an Eid Milad-un-Nabi function was held at Ahmadiyya Buildings, Lahore. This was, of course, long before the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, and near the end of the life of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
Also to be noted is that the function is not called Eid Milad-un-Nabi. In those days the term used by Muslims in India was Bara Wafat, meaning “death on the 12th”. Below I translate the report, which is entitled Life of the Holy Prophet:
“A respected friend reports from Lahore that, on the previous day, a Tuesday, on the occasion of Bara Wafat, and for the benefit of the residents of Lahore, a grandly organised lecture was held at Ahmadiyya Buildings, where houses of our Khwaja [Kamal-ud-Din] sahib are located. The ground was very large and was decked with a marque and other necessities. It had been widely advertised in the city.
The poem in praise of the Holy Prophet written by Huzoor [presumably meaning the Promised Messiah] was read out by brothers Abdul Aziz, son of Mian Chiragh Din, and Ghulam Muhammad. Maulvi Sadr-ud-Din gave an explanation of the Surah Fatiha with great zeal and pure sincerity, and went over the events of the life of the Messenger of God, may peace and the blessing of Allah be upon him. Then brother Dr. Mirza Yaqub Baig spoke on the life of the Holy Prophet in a fine speech. The audience included Hindus, Muslims and members of the Brahmo Samaj. All the leading men of Lahore who could come were in attendance. The whole gathering listened patiently and attentively to the highly effective speeches of these young men, who were preaching using this new technique and method, and they went away expressing much praise.
This meeting was also reported in other newspapers and was generally much liked. Hence the newspaper Watan wrote:
“Just as there was great regret that there were no arrangements in Lahore for holding this great occasion of remembrance, there was equal pleasure that on 14th April, corresponding to 12th Rabi-ul-awwal 1326 A.H., on behalf of the Anjuman-i Ahmadiyya Lahore a magnificent meeting was organised by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, lawyer, High Court. Capable speakers delighted the audience by telling them about the life of the Holy Prophet and his excellent and praise-worthy qualities. It is hoped that in future many people in Lahore will organise events for such a sacred remembrance.”
The newspaper Sada-i-Hind expressed a similar opinion.
Comment by Editor Badr: It is indeed essential that the general public should be fully informed about the life of the Holy Prophet. We cannot complain about non-Muslims when most Muslims themselves are utterly unaware of the life of their beloved master. When such ignorant people realise how much we owe to the Holy Prophet, they will want to shed tears uncontrollably. But I do not consider it right to fix one particular day forever, like Bara Wafat, for this purpose.”
This idea was then taken up by other Muslims and led to the development of the Eid Milad-un-Nabi function.
Our friend ‘Bashir’ has submitted the following post.
Article: The Ahmadiyya Movement and Ahmads place among the prophets, Number 2, By m. ataur rahman (member of Qadiani Jamaat)
“The philosophy of baruz has been clearly expounded in a long letter pregnant with truth and wisdom which in 1892 Ahmad addressed to Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan of Malerkota in order to resolve some of his doubts.”
Then in the very next installment of this series (Review of Religions, December 1914), he writes:
“Thus convinced, Ahmad set forth his philosophy of baruz in some of his later writings, and avowedly laid claim to the prophetic office”
M. ataur rahman contradicts himself in the span of one month. First he writes that HMGA explained the philosophy of baruz in 1892, then all of sudden, he claims that the true theory of baruz was explained by HMGA later in his ministry. What a contradiction!
This is the same time that Kwaja Kamaluddin had returned from England and wrote his book “Adruni Ikhtilaf…..” and after some weeks appeared Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
It seems that m. ataur rahman didn’t know of the change in belief of HMGA in terms of prophethood. I don’t think he got the memo, because the memo was Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl.
It seems that Mirza Bashuddin Mahmud Ahmad was the only soul who knew that HMGA changed his theory of prophethood in 1900–1902.
At this link is a news report in the International Herald Tribune from Asspciated Press.
I quote below the text as well for your convenience. It is a development to be greatly deplored, whoever it may be against.
JAKARTA, Indonesia: A government team has recommended that Indonesia outlaw a Muslim sect that has come under attack from hard-liners as heretical, angering human rights activists who accuse authorities of cowing to pressure from extremists.
The Ahmadi movement has faced bans and persecution in Muslim countries around the world for its belief in another prophet after Muhammad. The group insists it should be considered part of Islam.
A government team of prosecutors, religious scholars and home affairs department officials concluded that the sect “had deviated from Islamic principles” and recommended Wednesday that the government ban it.
“Their activities are causing unrest among Muslims,” team leader Wishnu Subroto said Thursday.
The government was to meet Thursday to discuss the recommendation, media reports said. The team recommended Ahmadi followers be charged with “insulting a religion” — a charge that carries a five-year jail term.
A prominent human rights activist said any ban “cannot be justified and should be regarded as a serious violation of the constitution,” referring to clauses guaranteeing freedom of religion.
“This recommendation shows that board’s members do not understand the real function of the state,” said Hendardi, who goes by a single name.
Hard-liners have led an increasingly vocal campaign against Ahmadi in recent years, often vandalizing its mosques and the homes of its followers. In many cases, police made no attempt to stop the attackers.
“We are the victims here, yet we are being banned,” Yan Hussein Lamardi, a lawyer for the group, told Koran Tempo newspaper.
The Ahmadi sect is believed to have around 200,000 followers in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. It was founded at the end of the 19th century in Pakistan where it is banned.
Indonesia is a secular country, with a long history of religious tolerance. But in recent years, a hard-line fringe has grown louder and the government — which relies on the support of Islamic parties in parliament — has been accused of cowing to it.
Due to the hard work of the Webmaster of www.aaiil.org the Judgment in what we informally call the “second” Cape Town court case, dated February 1990, is now online. It is the scanned image of the typed Judgment. Please access it from this link.
As the learned Lady Judge says on page 2:
“A marathon trial followed, the major portion of which dealt with the issue whether Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who died in India in 1908 was a Muslim or an apostate, and whether one of the two branches of his followers referred to herein as the Ahmedis … consist of Muslims or apostates.”
At this link is an overall summary of the court case, taken from the obituary of Hafiz Sher Muhammad that I wrote following his death in October 1990.
There was an appeal by the anti-Ahmadiyya parties against this judgment, whose result came out in September 1995. You can read my coverage of the appeal and the false representation of it by the anti-Ahmadiyya parties at this link.
Last weekend I watched the western film “The Magnificent Seven” on a TV channel. This weekend the same channel is showing “The Return of the Magnificent Seven”, which isn’t so good.
I am reminded of this since, you may like to know, we have the “Return of the Pleezing One”, and he has repeated his objections to the statements by the Promised Messiah that he would fulfill the prophecy of carrying out his mission for forty years. I told him earlier that in fact he did carry out his mission for forty years, although in Nishan-i Asmani he did not correctly identify the starting point of his mission. In his obituary which appeared upon his death in the Review of Religions in its issue for June 1908 it is written:
“The period of his revelations thus extended fully over forty years and this may be said to be the period of his ministry.”
But as I told the Pleezing One earlier, we need to finish our discussion on the debate that he chose to start when he objected to the Promised Messiah’s language in Arya Dharm. The point we had reached in the discussion, at which the Pleezing One disappeared, was when I referred him to the Masnavi of Rumi and some of its sexually explicit language.
Please see this link.
(I took the trouble of going to a library to borrow the book by Afzal Iqbal that I have quoted in the above link.)
After the Pleezing One’s departure at this point, I provided further evidence of the high repute of Rumi among Muslims. Please see this link.
Thus he cannot easily dismiss Rumi, as he did, by saying that Rumi is no authority that he is bound by.
He should therefore continue that discussion, and let us know whether he now admits that his allegations against the Promised Messiah relating to the book Arya Dharm were baseless and should be withdrawn.
I also have another suggestion. The next issue of U.K. edition of The Light will contain an article by me on how the mission and teachings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the service of Islam are as relevant now, if not more so, than they were when he died 100 years ago. (In fact, I am interrupting my writing of that article to post this.) I suggest that the Pleezing One studies that article, to be published in 3 or 4 weeks time, and lets us know where I am wrong in considering the Promised Messiah to have done great service for Islam.
If the Promised Messiah did not do any service for Islam, then even if 100% of his prophecies turned out to be exactly fulfilled, there would be no point in accepting him on that basis.