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


July 3rd, 2008

An unfair parallel

Post submitted by Bashir

In my studies about the split(which are purely academic) i have noticed many glaring inconsistencies in terms of storyline and argumentative strategy. Hesistantly, i must say most of these are from the ahmadis(q). If i am allowed to point out each and every one, i surely will.

When ahmadis explain as to why HMGA didnt understand that he was a prophet until 1901 they present the story that the HP also didnt understand his mission in its entirety until god slowly revealed this to him.

We(q) argue that the HP thought that he was just a prophet for his family, then for mecca, then for the whole world etc etd etc.

This is an unfair parallel. Anybody who has read about the split knows that this paralel was created out of desperation.

The HP(saw) never mis-understood that he was a prophet. That was not the issue, the issue was related to the specifics of his mission. The HP(saw) didnt write that he wasnt a prophet for 23 years. That didnt happen. The HP(saw) never wrote that a person who laid claimed prophethood was a kafir. He never wrote that it was un-islamic to claim prophethood.

Our belief(q) is that for 21 years (1880 to 1901) god continously called HMGA a perfect prophet. But, HMGA continously misunderstood this rank of his. This doesnt match with the misunderstanding of the HP.

The misunderstandings are of different nature. One person(the HP) misunderstood the details of his mission. The other person misunderstood that he was a perfect prophet of god. It must be noted that no other prophet ever suffered from the same misunderstanding. If so, please show me!!!!!! I would love to be proven as wrong. M. ali wrote that is HMBMA could prove that other prophets committed the same error, m. ali would burn his books.

So why are ahmadis(q) presenting this as a parallel?? The answer is that there is no other way to substantiate this mistake(alleged) of HMGA. I am concerned with this method of argument. This shows desperation. The pattern does not sit well in my heart.

Here is what HMGA wrote on the matter:

Ijaz Ahmadi (November 15, 1902), p. 24

“And some people say that if there is an error in understanding an inspiration (ilham) then the whole matter becomes dubious and it is apprehended that perhaps the prophet, messenger or muhaddath has also misunderstood his claim. Such a thought is mere nonsense and only mentally deranged persons can talk like that.”

P. 26
The truth of the matter is that the faith(yaqin) that is installed in the heart of a prophet about his prophethood is such that the arguments thereof shine like the sun and rush on in such great numbers that this fact becomes absolutely clear. And in some minor details, even if he makes a mistake in his exercise of judgement (ijtihad), this is not injurious to his faith. Things which are brought near a person and are placed near his eyes, his eyes don’t err in identifying them and definitely know about their true quality and quantity. And such a judgement is correct and such an evidence is even accepted by the courts. But if something is not brought close and is at a distance of half a mile or so and it is asked from a person what that white thing is, it is quite possible that he may consider a man with white clothes as a white horse or a white horse as a man(with white clothes). Similarly, prophets and messengers are shown about their claims and teachings from very near and this done so repeatedly that not a shadow of doubt is left about them. But in some partial matters, which are not of great importance, their spiritual vision comprehends them from a distance, and such phenomena do not occur frequently; therefore, sometimes their vision makes a mistake in distinguishing them properly.

Bashir : The most depressing fact is that HMBMA, QMN and the aurthors of khlilafat and nubuwwat never commented on this.
In fact no ahmadi(q) author has ever written a detailed explanation to this.

Bashir: This book was written in 1902. Why would HMGA write like this just after a change in his beliefs(alleged). EGKI was published NOV 1901. Its the same era.

Somebody help me!

26 Responses to “An unfair parallel”

  1. July 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 am
    From Abdul Momin::

    Mr Bashir your thinking is on exactly the right track. There are quite a few other things to think about as well. For example the lectures at Lahore and other cities where HMGA’s papers were read out, these events took place years after HMGA “laid claim to prophethood” in 1901. With the way the ordinary Muslims feel about Khatam-e- Nabuwwat in general and the name of HMGA in particular, can anyone honestly believe that the Muslim public would attend the lectures of a person who in their opinion was claiming prophethood after the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? Yet this is what happened. Non- Ahmadi Muslims attended those lectures because HMGA was considered to be a great champion of Islam. Not a claimant to prophethood!


  2. July 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Mr Momin, my comments:

    1. The current ‘protection of khatme nabuwwat’ industry, exploiting the term ‘Nabi’ as applied to HMGA, to delude the masses into thinking HMGA was some kind of independent Nabi coming after Holy Prophet and competing with him,  was in its embryonic form in the time of HMGA. This was the next weapon launched after losing the Jesus’ death debate.
     
    2.  HMGA was masterful in presenting his position as actual nabi after 1901. He didn’t go around from town to town proclaiming with an ‘in your face’ approach, ‘O People, the Prophet of the Age has arrived’! Knowing the potential sensitivities of the Muslims, he was more subtle in his approach carefully building the case that as Mahdi he was no less than prophets of the past, but given the gift of prophecy through obedience to Holy Prophet.
     
    Despite that few Ahmadis left the jamaat because of this and also some non-Ahmadi opponents like Sanaullah made note of this change.
     
    3. Were there other opponents of the jamaat who criticised  the idea that actual station of nabuwwat can be achieved by an ummati through perfect obedience? Mr Momin thinks Ahmadis and the rest of the Muslim community were on the same page until Mirza Bashiruddin Ahmad supposedly started the fitna.
     
    However it was none other than Muhammad Ali sahib who said (paraphrasing) in 1908,  ‘we don’t care what our OPPONENTS hold,  a sincere supplicant can achieve station of nabuwwat’. It is regrettable that some Ahmadis ultimately took the position of our opponents.


  3. July 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Bashir, HMGA writes on page 24 (Ijaz i Ahmadi)  that a prophet or muhuddus cannot misunderstand an ilham regarding claims, yet in the same book , HMGA writes for twelve years he misunderstood the ilham about him being Promised Messiah and considered Jesus as alive. Later (after 1891), HMGA was to write that for Muslims to believe Jesus is still alive is tantamount to shirk (associating partners with God). It is obviously a huge misunderstanding.

    Once we can try to explain this we can go on.  I think I know how to resolve the issue. Any thoughts from you?


  4. July 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    1,3. My friend, when it comes to the anti-Ahmadiyya opponents, you say that they “exploit” the term “Nabi” as applied to HMGA to delude the masses into thinking that HMGA was some kind of independent Nabi coming after the Holy Prophet and competing with him. The fact is that most non-Ahmadi Muslims are not at all comfortable with the word “Nabi” in any form applied to any new person after the Holy Prophet (pbuh). There is a combination of different reasons for this, e.g ignorance about Sufi terminology, or that this word can be used for a non-prophet saint etc., while I have seen in the Holy Quran the word rasul being used for even an ordinary person.  Keep in mind also the fact that a number of false prophets after the Holy Prophet were killed. This has deeply ingrained the concept of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat in the Muslim consciousness. If you look at the Pakistani Passport application form you will clearly see that a Muslim has to declare that he does not believe in HMGA as a prophet “in any sense of the word.”

    At the same time that you accuse others, I have to say the Qadiani Jammat members themselves have not only exploited the word “Nabi” in HMGA’s writings to give it their own meanings, but exploited it from the writings of Maulvi Muhammad Ali as well. The Maulvi Saheb clearly stated (after 1901) that a Muhaddas is in a sense a Nabi, but yet you continue to state that he believed in HMGA as a full-fledged prophet. Not only that, but he was one of 70 Ahmadis who stated under oath that it never occurred to them that HMGA changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet. So what would it take to prove his innocence? Remember innocence from the premise of guilt can never be established.

    2. HMGA did not have to go from town to town to “proclaim’ his prophethood. According to your Khalifa # 2 in AGKI in 1901 he “announced his prophethood” to the world. It is also inconceivable that Sanaullah and his huge brigade of fellow fatwa spitting mullahs missed an opportunity to pounce on HMGA that he was finally claiming that which they had been alleging for years. If he discovered this change after his death, so did Khalifa # 2. So it does not help us because HMGA was not around to clarify the situation.

    Mr Momin only thinks that there was a big group of Maulvis and their followers who opposed HMGA from the time he claimed to be Promised Messiah (1891) and accused him of claiming prophethood for himself because the first Jesus was also a prophet. But throughout his life HMGA denied claiming prophethood. Most Muslims (especially intellectuals) had a high regard for him since he was seen as a great defender of Islam against other religions. He further thinks that if HMGA had ever changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet, all this regard would have vanished and the circumstances of his time (1901-1908) would have followed a very different and even more turbulent course than the circumstances of the period (1891-1901) .


  5. First off, Wassup Tahir?  How have you been my brother?  I am happy that you decided to join this discussion.   Your scholarly input has helped me very much.

    I will comment on your thoughts line by line, as is my usual style.

    1. The current ‘protection of khatme nabuwwat’ industry, exploiting the term ‘Nabi’ as applied to HMGA, to delude the masses into thinking HMGA was some kind of independent Nabi coming after Holy Prophet and competing with him,  was in its embryonic form in the time of HMGA. This was the next weapon launched after losing the Jesus’ death debate.

    Muslims dont understand the concept of the ummati nabi(perfect nabi).  They understand the concept of the ummati nabi(imperfect nabi).  They co-relate the latter concept to the muhaddas’ of the ummah.  Hazrat Umar being the first ummati nabi(imperfect nabi), this concept is prevalent in Islamic thought.

    Muslims strictly deny abundance of divine communication.  Only nabis who bring new commandments have this type of abundance. Or thats what the majority of muslims believe. 

    Remember when the mullahs declared their fatwa(1891) of kufr against HMGA it was on the basis that HMGA had claimed some type of prophethood.  HMGA explained that he was just Muhaddas, who was called nabi by GOD, metaphorically.  The mullahs didnt believe this answer of HMGA.  The mullahs claimed that HMGA was lying.  The mullahs claimed that HMGA was withholding his claim, they said that in the future HMGA would claim prophethood.

    The ummati nabi(perfect nabi) as described by HMBMA is a new concept to the muslim masses.  This type of prophethood seems to have been a secret.  The Koran doesnt speak of this secret, neither does Hadith—Of course i mean clearly.  There are some gray areas in hadith and Koran which allow for adjustments in belief structure.  But i dont see where the Koran says that Nabis dont bring new commandments.  All nabis bring new commandments, some more than others, as is the case with Moses and the HP.

    2.  HMGA was masterful in presenting his position as actual nabi after 1901.

    I wouldnt say masterful, if he was masterful then there wouldnt be a debate on the matter.  The fault actually belongs to HMGA.  I think that he was un-clear on this topic after 1901.

    Here is my theory.  From 1899 to 1901 HMGA enjoyed success in his mission.  He got roughly 200k new members.  When the HP died in 632 A.D. he only had 100k followers, is it Ok to say that HMGA was the most succesful Mursal(sent one) in the history of the universe?  Anyways, sorry for the analogy.  Winter 1901 was the year that decided to stress his greatness.  He stressed his prophethood after winter 1901.  It was a time to stress greatness.  Similarily HMBMA used the word Kafir haphazardly  from 1911 to 1922.  We(q) claim that it was a time to stress differences.  

    The one major discrepency in the theory that HMGA changed from ummati nabi(imperfect nabi) to ummati nabi(perfect nabi) is this :

    HW Supplement, Istifta, p. 64
    and that I have been called a prophet by God only metaphorically and not by way of reality.”

    That should have closed the case.  It’s very sad that HMBMA and QMN never commented on this.  It hurts me, really.  HMBMA gave a general answer, i think he wrote that the idea of a metaphoric prophet was written only for the lamens.  Thats a terrible answer

    He didn’t go around from town to town proclaiming with an ‘in your face’ approach, ‘O People, the Prophet of the Age has arrived’! Knowing the potential sensitivities of the Muslims, he was more subtle in his approach carefully building the case that as Mahdi he was no less than prophets of the past, but given the gift of prophecy through obedience to Holy Prophet.

    I dont know where you are quoting from.  How could ahmadis explain a new office to muslims???  The ummati nabi(perfect nabi) is a new office(q).  It never existed before.  HMGA was the first and the last nabi of this type.  He was singled out to be called nabi, the only anbiya to have been called this.   How could there be more???  There could be more Muhaddas'(metpahoric nabis).  

    Lahoris havent had 1 muhaddas in 100 years.  I cant understand why.  I never will.
     
    Despite that few Ahmadis left the jamaat because of this and also some non-Ahmadi opponents like Sanaullah made note of this change.

    The split happened because of the assertions of HMBMA.  Whatever story you present.  Whether he really meant Kafir, or if he really meant in terms of iman.  Whatever the idea, that you figure out, this year!!!!!!!  It doesnt matter.  It was the hard-line attitude of HMBMA that caused members of leadsership to move away from him.  I think HMBMA meant Kafir of the first kind.  There is absolutely no way that he meant, in terms of iman.  Thats ludacriss.  

    HMBMA would not say(his assertions of the status of HMGA) whether it was the first kind or the second.  Thats unbelievable!!!!!!!  Why did he wait 43 years to clarify his position.  If the munir inquiry wouldnt have happened, then what ??????????  What would our(q) belief
    be.
       

    3. Were there other opponents of the jamaat who criticised  the idea that actual station of nabuwwat can be achieved by an ummati through perfect obedience?

    All muslims believe that Hazrat Umar was ummati and nabi.  This is accepted by all, if not correct me.  All muslims believe in muhaddas’.  Muhaddas’ are ummatis who posses characteristics of nabis in terms of mubashirat and munzillat. 

    Muslims have never heard of the ummati nabi(perfect nabi).  Muslims dont like that HMGA recieved divine communion like other prophets.  They strongly dispute that.

    Mr Momin thinks Ahmadis and the rest of the Muslim community were on the same page until Mirza Bashiruddin Ahmad supposedly started the fitna.

    Thats what Momin is saying.  Ahmadis and other muslims were on the same pg for 12 years(1889 to 1901). —FACT

    The question is, did muslims realize what happened in 1901???  We should reference Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan!!!!!!  Should I????  Look it up yourself.  Im sure you have read it!!!
     
    However it was none other than Muhammad Ali sahib who said (paraphrasing) in 1908,  ‘we don’t care what our OPPONENTS hold,  a sincere supplicant can achieve station of nabuwwat’. It is regrettable that some Ahmadis ultimately took the position of our opponents.

    M. ali meant divine communication!!!!  Why is that so hard to grasp!!!!!  Here this is what M. ali thought in 1904:

    “If the doors of Prophethood had not been closed, then a Muhaddath has elements and potentials of becoming a Prophet and with reference to these elements and potentiality application of word Prophet on a Muhaddath is permissible, i.e., we can say that ‘A Muhaddath is a Prophet’. (Review of Religions, Vol. 3, 1904, p. 117)
    “It is this ummah [the Muslim nation] alone in which people though not prophets, are favoured with the speech of Allah like Prophets and though not Messengers (Rasul) but signs of Allah appear to them like Messengers”. (Review of Religions, Vol. 3, p. 131)

    may I say more???


  6. July 5th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    Quote: “Thats what Momin is saying.  Ahmadis and other muslims were on the same pg for 12 years(1889 to 1901). —FACT”
    I am also saying that people were not aware of any change in the claims of HMGA (Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis alike) from non-prophet to prophet even after 1901, right until his death. Yes, two people did express an opinion with regard to AGKI that HMGA changed his claim. But what was the response to that from the jamaat? Every one needs to pay serious attention to the jamaat’s response instead of getting into an endless debate about HMGA’s intentions regarding his claims, when he wrote his post 1901 books.

    We should seriously ponder over the post 1901 circumstances as they actually happened and ask ourselves if there was really a change to a claim of prophethood. If so, why does it appear that for the jamaat members and the jamaat’s opponents and the general public at large, it was business as usual.


  7. Momin is correct.

    Syed MM Ahsan’s explanation was never explained by HMBMA or QMN or any ahmadi(q).  This is crazy.  I will never understand this!!!!!!! 

    Why is it that religous people dont answer tough questions.  I just dont get it. 

    There is so much evidence that NO change occured after EGKI.  Ahmadis have never explained this contradiction.  Maulana Dard writes about EGKi but he purposely leaves out the answer of SMM ahsan.  http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Ahmad-20080411MN.pdf

    pg 810  
    CHAPTER 76

     

     


    QADIAN IN 1901

     

     

    Thats madness.  Pure madness i tell ya…….

    If Hm. ali would not have mentioned it, the data would be lost.


  8. Bashir, HMGA writes on page 24 (Ijaz i Ahmadi)  that a prophet or muhuddus cannot misunderstand an ilham regarding claims, yet in the same book ,

    HMGA means prophethood.  A prophet or muhaddas totally understand their claims in terms of prophethood.  Muhaddas=communion based prophethood.  Muhaddas’ understand that clearly.  As did HMGA in 1884 or so.

    All prophets(l not q) understood that they were prophets of GOD.  Similarily all muhaddas’ understood that they were from god.
     HMGA writes for twelve years he misunderstood the ilham about him being Promised Messiah and considered Jesus as alive. Later (after 1891), HMGA was to write that for Muslims to believe Jesus is still alive is tantamount to shirk (associating partners with God). It is obviously a huge misunderstanding.

    God chose not reveal to HMGA that he was messiah.  It wasnt a misunderstanding!!!!!  God didnt tell HMGA that he was the Pm until 1891.  There was no misunderstanding!!!!  GOD refrained from telling him.  Point blank.
    Once we can try to explain this we can go on.  I think I know how to resolve the issue. Any thoughts from you?

    How did i do???
    Prove me wrong….


  9. July 7th, 2008 at 5:17 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Momin sahib,  my point in raising Sanaullah and his ‘fatwa spitting maulvis’ is he realized most likely in the life time of HMGA that his followers consider him an actual Nabi. He is writing about HMGA being a false Nabi only weeks after HMGA died writing that HMGA should have lived for 23 years after 1901.

    Why didn’t he (or anyone else) arrange any ‘Protection of Khatme Nabwwat’ marches and rallies against Ahmadis at the time?

    The point you were making is concept of Nabi was a touchy subject for Muslims.


  10. July 7th, 2008 at 6:40 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    Brother Tahir, these Maulvis had been accusing HMGA of claiming prophethood since the time he claimed to be the Promised Messiah (1891). So if Sanaullah called him a false prophet only a few weeks after HMGA died, what’s the big deal? Those people who became the enemies of HMGA since the time he claimed to be the Promised Messiah remained so till the end of his life and continued accusing him of being a claimant to prophethood (real, haqiqi or full-fledged), the rest of his life.
    The point I am trying to make is that once a person is accused of being a claimant to prophethood (as HMGA was since 1891) and that person keeps denying being a claimant to such prophethood (as Qadianis agree that HMGA did until 1901), then once that person finally does lay a claim to such prophethood (as you allege that he did in 1901) is it not logical to expect that all his opponents would seize that moment and launch a fierce attack against such a claimant to prophethood? God forbid, if I were such an opponent, for me this would be a God-sent opportunity to take advantage of the situation and hound HMGA with even more vigour than I did previously. But is there any evidence of this in Ahmadi history? None that I know of.

    An imperfect analogy would be the example of the Qadianis attacking the students of Nishtar Medical college in 1974 in retaliation for their offensive behavior toward the person of HMGA. This provided an excuse for the Mullahs to start a nation-wide agitation resulting in all Ahmadis being declared non-Muslim. In 1984, a Mullah (Aslam Qureishi) disappeared (only to resurface 5 years later from Iran) and the Qadianis were accused of having a hand in his disappearance. Because of this an anti-Ahmadi agitation was brewing up before Zia introduced Ordinance XX. If the Mullahs are ever ready to hound Ahmadis on a false pretext, is it so hard to imagine that in 1901 when HMGA finally “admitted’ to what his opponents had been alleging for years, that they would launch their opposition to him with renewed vigour? 

    In 1901 the Mullahs were not docile, either. They had proved how vicious they could be since 1891. Even if no opposition had existed to HMGA previously, then knowing what we do about Ulema in Islamic history, there would definitely have been a campaign against HMGA if ever he claimed to be a prophet. But why didn’t the Mullahs jump at this opportunity?


  11. Brother Tahir, these Maulvis had been accusing HMGA of claiming prophethood since the time he claimed to be the Promised Messiah (1891).
    FACT

     So if Sanaullah called him a false prophet only a few weeks after HMGA died, what’s the big deal?
    POINT UNDERSTOOD
    Those people who became the enemies of HMGA since the time he claimed to be the Promised Messiah remained so till the end of his life and continued accusing him of being a claimant to prophethood (real, haqiqi or full-fledged), the rest of his life.
    ANOTHER FACT
    The point I am trying to make is that once a person is accused of being a claimant to prophethood (as HMGA was since 1891) and that person keeps denying being a claimant to such prophethood (as Qadianis agree that HMGA did until 1901), then once that person finally does lay a claim to such prophethood (as you allege that he did in 1901) is it not logical to expect that all his opponents would seize that moment and launch a fierce attack against such a claimant to prophethood? 
    I HAVE ARGUED THIS BEFORE.  IF I WAS AN ENEMY OF HMGA, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HE CLAIMED PROPHETHOOD, EVEN IF IT WERE A NEW TYPE, EVEN IF IT WERE WITHIN ISLAM, I WOULD SHOW THAT HE WAS DECIEVING THE PUBLIC.  I WOULD CALL HIM AN OPPURTUNIST.  THIS WOULD BE THE OPPURTUNITY OF A LIFETIME. 

    HOW COULD THE MULLAHS HAVE MISSED THIS!!!!!!!  WHAT A MISTAKE ON THEIR PART.

    God forbid, if I were such an opponent, for me this would be a God-sent opportunity to take advantage of the situation and hound HMGA with even more vigour than I did previously. But is there any evidence of this in Ahmadi history? None that I know of.

    TOTALL AGREE.  THIS IS OBVIOUS STUFF.  THIS ISNT SHAKESPEARE.  THIS ISNT ASTRO-PHYSICS. 
    An imperfect analogy would be the example of the Qadianis attacking the students of Nishtar Medical college in 1974 in retaliation for their offensive behavior toward the person of HMGA.

    I DIDNT KNOW THIS.  CAN YOU GIVE ME A LINK.  I WOULD LOVE TO READ ABOUT THIS.  DID THIS REALLY HAPPEN?????  PLEASE TELL ME IT DIDNT.
    This provided an excuse for the Mullahs to start a nation-wide agitation resulting in all Ahmadis being declared non-Muslim.
    WOW
    In 1984, a Mullah (Aslam Qureishi) disappeared (only to resurface 5 years later from Iran) and the Qadianis were accused of having a hand in his disappearance. 
    I DIDNT KNOW ABOUT THIS EITHER.  LINK??
    Because of this an anti-Ahmadi agitation was brewing up before Zia introduced Ordinance XX. If the Mullahs are ever ready to hound Ahmadis on a false pretext, is it so hard to imagine that in 1901 when HMGA finally “admitted’ to what his opponents had been alleging for years, that they would launch their opposition to him with renewed vigour? 

    I TOTALLY AGREE.  HOW CAN I DISAGREE???
    In 1901 the Mullahs were not docile, either. They had proved how vicious they could be since 1891. Even if no opposition had existed to HMGA previously, then knowing what we do about Ulema in Islamic history, there would definitely have been a campaign against HMGA if ever he claimed to be a prophet. But why didn’t the Mullahs jump at this opportunity?


  12. Momin sahib,  my point in raising Sanaullah and his ‘fatwa spitting maulvis’ is he realized most likely in the life time of HMGA that his followers consider him an actual Nabi.

    THIS WAS JUST AN ACCUSATION OF HIS.  READ BELOW……
    He is writing about HMGA being a false Nabi only weeks after HMGA died writing that HMGA should have lived for 23 years after 1901.

    IS THIS THAT ARTICLE IN ROR THAT ZAHID AZIZ MENTIONED???  IF SO, DO YOU REMEMBER OUR OFFICIAL RESPONSE??? 

    ZAHID AZIZ, CAN YOU FIND THAT ARTICLE AND SHOW IT TO US IN ITS ENTIRETY.
    Why didn’t he (or anyone else) arrange any ‘Protection of Khatme Nabwwat’ marches and rallies against Ahmadis at the time?
    CAN YOU ELABORATE??
    The point you were making is concept of Nabi was a touchy subject for Muslims.

    IT STILL IS.


  13. July 8th, 2008 at 4:43 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Momin sahib,  it was me asking the question you raised in the last line!

    Fact is Sanaullah and the mullah gang wrote about a change in HMGA’s views, but did not become any type of campaign or fire-storm. We are talking about THEIR perspective and mischievous ways.

    So your perspective on HMGA’s claims based on actions of opponents is somewhat tenous. 

    Also you didn’t answer the question in my first post, what were the opponents views in 1908 which Muhammad Ali sahib (ra) mentioned and spoke out against?


  14. July 8th, 2008 at 8:12 am
    From Abdul Momin:

    I have been making the general observation that if HMGA ever made a change in his claims from non-prophet to prophet (in any year), this would  give them a cause to renew their opposition to him. This is an observation based on the behavior of his opponents during his lifetime and since then. If such a change ever took place, then this should have been reflected in HMGA’s books and whatever literature was available at the time. In simple words this means opponents making accusations or asking questions about this change and HMGA answering those accusations/questions. This would have put all doubts to rest as to whether HMGA was ever a claimant to prophethood or not.  I still stand by my assertion. Sorry my friend, but I do not have access to each and every detail of who said what. I do not base my opinions on details as much as I do on explicit declarations, and then understand the details in the light of those declarations. Where prophethood is concerned, this is not something to be deducted from someone’s writings after he has passed away.

    My assertion about HMGA’s opponents includes all opponents during his lifetime, not just Sanuallah. What Sanaullah was asserting was at best an opinion and at worst an accusation. If he was so sure about HMGA being a false claimant to prophethood since 1901, he could have asked HMGA about it during his lifetime instead of writing about it after his death. After all, there was correspondence between the two. In fact Sanuallah backed off a Mubahila.  One more thing which might be useful to know: Sanaullah also stated that he was the biggest opponent of Mirzais, but still considered them to be members of the Muslim Ummah.” It seems that this person, far from being sure that HMGA was a claimant to prophethood since 1901, himself did not know where he stood in relation with the “Mirzais.”


  15. July 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dr Tahir Ijaz says: Also you didn’t answer the question in my first post, what were the opponents views in 1908 which Muhammad Ali sahib (ra) mentioned and spoke out against?

    It should be up to those who make the charge to publish the full context, from which we would see what the opponents’ views were that the Maulana sahib was referring to. Therefore the Qadiani Ahmadi Jamaat, in whose books this charge originates, should publish the Maulana sahib’s full speech from (I think) Al-Hakam, 18th July 1908, pages 2 to 6.

    One-line quotes are frequently hurled at us to reply to (including from opponents of Ahmadiyyat), and then we have to produce the context to refute the allegation. The proper course is for the accuser to produce the context, i.e. the prosecution has the duty of jproviding evidence to justify its charge.


  16. I have already answered to this objection,  The objection is, why did m. ali write(in 1908), that muslims can reach the status of prophet, siddiq, salah and shaheed.

    My answer is, what happened to the status of muhaddath????  Why is it missing???

    M. ali substituted the word prophet for muhaddas.  Thats the answer.  Point blank.  This is obvious answer.

    HMGA substituted the word prophet for muhaddas(1891 to 1901 at least) as well.  Thats where m. ali got this idea from.  Pretty good source.


  17. July 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/misc/aaiilbeliefspromisedmessiah/aaiilbeliefspromisedmessiah.pdf

    Chapter 7, page 51, & pdf page 49 of this book is an attempt to explain Muhammad Ali sahib’s 1908 quote. I don’t find it satisfactory.

    Mr Choudry is saying Allah has the theoretical power to make someone a nabi NOT that it can actually happen since no amount of supplication can make one a Nabi.

    However Mr Choudhry has not presented the full 1908 quote, since it is also stated that for Allah to bestow any one of these four stations, ‘there has to be one who asks’. It is thus NOT a theoretical statement of the potential powers of Allah, but an achievable blessing.


  18. July 11th, 2008 at 5:40 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    As I said above, instead of merely discussing the quote presented by the Qadiani Jamaat, our accusers should put forward the full report of the speech. Then one would be better placed to see how to treat these words ascribed to the Maulana and what subject he was dealing with.

    Even my friend Mr Chaudhry answered without having the benefit of this.


  19. July 19th, 2008 at 1:34 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Regarding Maulvi Ahsan Amrohi (ra) and his 1901 article, I decided to experiment on an unsuspecting Qadiani, my father-in-law, without telling him it was used by Lahoris for polemics. He had not seen it before.

    I presented the article for him to read, and his response was: ‘yes, good article. thanks for letting me see it’.

    I can agree.  We believe the nabuwwat of HMGA is not of the type that violates khatamun nabiyyin or hadith ‘no prophet after me’. He was a non-law bearing Nabi, which Maulvi Ahsan keeps stressing, and also not a ‘mustaqil’ Nabi, which again the Maulvi sahib keeps stressing at the end of the article.

    The ambigious part is of course, is HMGA a Nabi like the previous non-law bearing Prophets were also called Nabi, or is he a Nabi like previous Mujaddids/Saints can be called Nabi.

    In AGKI itself HMGA states previous Nabis were called Nabis since they received knowledge of the unseen and in other quotes he has stated he is a prophet like the way Israelites had non-law-bearing Prophets.

    Also before AGKI, HMGA said replace word ‘Nabi’ with ‘Muhuddus’, but with AGKI he didn’t tell his followers to do that.


  20. July 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    One could ask those unsuspecting members of the Qadiani Jamaat who don’t know about the “change in 1901” theory, but only know that Hazrat Mirza sahib claimed to be a prophet, to read AGKI and see if they spot that he has declared his previous writings to be abrogated in it.

    Similarly, members of the Qadiani Jamaat could be given the recent English translations of Asmani Faisala and Nishan-i Asmani on the alislam.org website to read, and see if they spot any difference between the claims of Hazrat Mirza sahib in these books and their own beliefs. I think they will not spot any difference, despite it being there clearly.

    Dr Ijaz writes: “Also before AGKI, HMGA said replace word ‘Nabi’ with ‘Muhuddus’, but with AGKI he didn’t tell his followers to do that.”

    That declaration came at the end of a debate between HMGA and one Maulvi Abdul Hakim in Lahore in 1892. (Read declaration here.)

    After 1901, HMGA confirmed what his position in that debate was:

    “In Lahore I had a debate with a Maulvi Abdul Hakim. I put to him: Why do you object to God speaking, when Hazrat Umar was a muhaddas. He denied it flatly and said that the Holy Prophet had only stated hypothetically [that Hazrat Umar was a muhaddas], and that Hazrat Umar was not a muhaddas. He did not at all believe that there was any revelation after the Holy Prophet.” (Malfuzat, 1984 edition, v. 3, p. 54-55; 24 May 1903)

    “In Lahore I had a debate with a Maulvi on the word muhaddas, that it says in Hadith reports that muhaddas is one to whom God speaks, and this applied to Hazrat Umar. The Maulvi replied that as in Islam there is no revelation after the Holy Prophet, therefore Hazrat Umar did not achieve this rank.” (v. 7, p. 229, statement made on 28 October 1904)

    Apart from this, he also stated on 24th October 1902:

    “In the verse of the Quran “And We did not send before you any rasul or any nabi…” [22:52], the words “or any muhaddas” are added in a less well-known reading, and that reading has the status of a sahih hadith. Just as the revelation of a nabi or rasul is protected, so is the wahy of a muhaddas protected, as stated in this verse.” (v. 4, p. 121)

    According to Islamic authorities going back to Sahih Bukhari, where the verse 22:52 says “any rasul or any nabi”, the words “or any muhaddas” are understood as included in it.


  21. I am curious, can anyone from the Qadiani jama’at list some of these “previous non-law bearing” prophets? And, more importantly, did they recieve wahi wilayat (revelation given to the saints) or wahi nabuwwat (revelations given to the prophets)?


  22. July 20th, 2008 at 6:59 am
    From Tahir Ijaz:

    Since we had focussed on Maulvi Ahsan (ra), I quote him about non-law bearing Prophets (Tashhiz ul Azhan, Oct 1913):

    “The prophecies regarding future events granted in proof of the truth of Islam will be trasmitted through the medium of Nabuwwat and that is what is meant by Nabuwwat Ghair Tashir (non Law bearing Nabi) or Nabuwwat i Juzvi (Partial Prophethood).
    ALL THE NABIS WHO CAME AFTER MOSES WERE HONORED BY THE GIFT OF THIS KIND OF NABUWWAT BECAUSE THE NABUWWAT AHKAM (LAW BEARING NABUWWAT) HAD CEASED AMONG THE ISRAELITES WITH THE ADVENT OF THE TORAH”
    So HMGA (as) was an actual nabi without bringing a new law the same way Israelites had prophets who brought no new law,  like Aaron, David, Solomon and Jesus.


  23. July 20th, 2008 at 10:23 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    “Nubuwwat-i Juzwi” is mentioned in this quotation. It is the same as being a muhaddas, and the whole controversy is that the Qadiani Jamaat holds that in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala the Promised Messiah changed his claim from nubuwwat-i juzwi to that of a full prophet.

    Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote:

    “…there is no doubt that I have come as a muhaddas from God, and muhaddas is, in one sense, a prophet, though he does not possess perfect prophethood; but still he is partially (juzwi) a prophet, for he is endowed with the gift of being spoken to by God…

    However, it should be remembered with presence of mind that this prophethood which continues forever is not perfect prophethood but, as I have just explained, it is only a partial (juz’i) prophethood which in other words is named by the term muhaddasiyya.” (Tauzih Maram, 1819, in Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 60)

    Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat in 1915:

    The books in which he has denied being a prophet in clear words, and has called his prophethood as partial (juz’i) and imperfect, and as the prophethood of saints (muhaddas), are all without exception books from before the year 1901 … and in the books after 1901 there is not one book in which he has declared his prophethood as juz’i.” (Haqiqat-un-nubuwwat, on alislam.org in the Anwar-ul-Uloom series, v. 2, book 10, p. 443-444)

    Therefore Maulana S. M. Ahsan Amrohi has actually confirmed the Lahore belief by using the term nubuwwat-i juzwi for the Promised Messiah’s status.

    Israelite prophets after Moses still received books, and Jesus according to the Quran was given the Injil as his book.

    According to the Promised Messiah, because Jesus was a prophet to whom a book like the Injil was revealed by angel Jibreel, this means that if he came again he would be bound to follow the revelation that came to him and he would receive in revelation “a new book which would abrogate the Quran, Torah and the Injil”.

    He concludes: “God will never tolerate such disgrace and humiliation for this Umma, and insult to His Prophet, as to send a rasul with whom Jibreel must come” (Izala Auham, p. 575-585 of original edition).

    Therefore, a prophet holding the office of prophethood that Jesus held certainly cannot come.


  24. “Surely We have revealed to thee as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave to David a scripture.” (4:163)


  25. Friedman, Lavan and Fischer werent smart enough to study the testimony of SMMA.  I think the testimony of SMMA is paramount in a study of the split.

    SMMA always thought HMGA was a juzvi nabi.  After the split SMMA was told that m. ali was lowering the position of HMGA.  SMMA began to write that m. ali was a fool etc etc.  A couple of months later he learned that HMBMA and company considered HMGA as a perfect nabi.  Mr. Akmal(see 2 sections of the ahmadiyya movement by m. ali) wanted SMMA to change his beliefs.  SMMA was shocked by all this.  He visited qadian and saw this with his own eyes.  He realized that M. ali was in the right.  He must have almost had a heart attack.  He never imagined that HMGA was a perfect prophet. 

    1.  HMBMA made the same excuse in AS.  This is very ignorant.  It’s obvious SMMA thought HMGA was in the circle of juzvi nabi’s, not in the circle of mustaqil nabis. 

    2.  Firstly, HMBMA defamed the character of SMMA:

    “In the first place, the words of Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan possess no special authority. They may be regarded as possessing the same value as the words of any other learned man.” AS pg.125

    3.  Then HMBMA writes that he cannot be held liable for this”

    “………in October, 1913, when I had already for two years ceased to have any active connection with the magazine.”AS pg. 125

    4.  Then, HMBMA tries to explain that juzvi nabis=perfect nabis:

    “What concerns us is the writer’s intention, not the terms which he uses. A difference of terms is of no great moment so long as we agree on the meaning of those terms.”  AS pg. 126.

    5.  HMBMA explains that he has no difference with SMMA in terms of the definition of HMGA’s nubuwwat, except one thing:

    “The only objection I can take to the article is that he calls this kind of Nubuwwat, Nubuwwati Juzwi. We do not describe the Promised Messiahas’s Nubuwwat as Nubuwwati Juzwi.”

    6.    SMMA was writing that HMGA was “LIKE” them.  Refferring to the Hadith in which the HP said that the saints of the muslim dispensation were like the Israeli prophets.

    6.a.  Juzvi nubuwwat(imperfect nubuwwat) and non-law bearing prophethood(perfect prophethood) share a similarity.  That is DIVINE COMMUNICATION.  HMGA shared this similarity with the nabis in the Mosiac order.

    6.b.  In fact, this one element(mubashirat), was given so much to HMGA that he was greater than all the prophets in the mosiac order.

    6.c.   Even average saints like Bilal were greater than prophets of the mosaic order based on this element(mubashirat).  

    6.d.  This is the concept that SMMA is refferring to!!!!!!!
     

    Both sides agree that HMGA was a nabi un-like all the nabis in the Mosaic dispensation.  The similarity is in terms of divine communication. 

    So when refferring to HMGA being like the nabis in the mosaic order, it is in terms of divine communion.  GOD spoke to HMGA like he spoke to Israelite nabis.

     
     

     
     

     

     
     


  26. One reference should solve the entire case, I’m doubtful that ahmadis(q) even care.  But for the sake of being an honest man(unlike QMN), i study, and show everything.

    Taken from “2 sections of the ahmadiyya movement” by m. ali
    PG 6&7.
      http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/twosectionsahmadiyyamovement/twosectionsahmadiyyamovement.pdf

    Lahore May 25th 1908:

    “A man from the frontier came and accosted the founder impertinently.  Upon this the founder said, “I have neither sustituted another formula or faith of my own nor have i enjoined another kind of prayer.  To follow in the very steps of the HP is my full faith and conviction.  This word(nubuwwat) which has been used is from GOD.  The person to whom matters are revealed in abundance, by way of prophecy from bu GOD, is called a prophet.  God is known by his signs and for this purpose Godly-savants are raised.  It is written in the Mathnawi :

    “Oh my disciple, the saint of his time is a prophet”  

    Mohiyudin ibn-i-arabi has also written to the same effect.  Hazrat Mujaddid (Ahmad of Sirhand) has also expressed his belief like it.  Would you then call all of them Kafirs?  Remember this instiution continues until the last day”.  BADR 1908

    Match that up with Sarwar Shah:

    “The word ‘Nabi’, depending on its roots, carries two meanings. Firstly, one who receives news about the unseen from his Allah. Secondly, a spiritually elevated person, whom Allah favours with lots of divine speech and informs him in news of the unknown or future. He is a Nabi and in this sense I consider all Mujaddideen of the past as Nabis of various degrees.” (Badar, February 16, 1911)

    Then somebody tell this guy to go back to the drawing board:

    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Khataman-Nabiyyeen-20080611MN.pdf

    This guy argues that previous saints believed that perfect prophets could come.


Leave a Reply