Comments on: A brief point about Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:00:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: saleem http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1884 saleem Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:19:55 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1884 this is very interesting discussion. this is very interesting discussion.

]]> By: Zahid Aziz http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1866 Zahid Aziz Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:33:30 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1866 <p>1. The late Dr Allah Bakhsh (1900-1985), who held various honorary positions in the AAIIL, and was by profession in Forensic science, having been Chief Chemical Examiner of the city of Karachi in the 1950s, told me that the follower mentioned in AGKI was one Syed Ajmad Ali Shah, police inspector. I am speaking from memory and cannot guarantee that I have remembered this correctly. 2. A writer writing in Paigham Sulh in November or December 1951 suggests that the "ghalati" discussed in this pamphlet is not, of course, HMGA's own, but nor is it of the follower. It is the opponents' mistake he is discussing. It is true, he says, that HMGA begins by discussing the follower's mistake. But after the first paragraph, the people addressed throughout are the opponents. Hence in the last paragraph he calls them ignorant and writes about them: "the person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and messengership is a liar and evil-minded." The writer then says that alas Maulana Muhammad Ali died only a month ago, and he used to appreciate my writings, and would have much appreciated this analysis.</p> 1. The late Dr Allah Bakhsh (1900-1985), who held various honorary positions in the AAIIL, and was by profession in Forensic science, having been Chief Chemical Examiner of the city of Karachi in the 1950s, told me that the follower mentioned in AGKI was one Syed Ajmad Ali Shah, police inspector. I am speaking from memory and cannot guarantee that I have remembered this correctly.

2. A writer writing in Paigham Sulh in November or December 1951 suggests that the “ghalati” discussed in this pamphlet is not, of course, HMGA’s own, but nor is it of the follower. It is the opponents’ mistake he is discussing. It is true, he says, that HMGA begins by discussing the follower’s mistake. But after the first paragraph, the people addressed throughout are the opponents. Hence in the last paragraph he calls them ignorant and writes about them: “the person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and messengership is a liar and evil-minded.”

The writer then says that alas Maulana Muhammad Ali died only a month ago, and he used to appreciate my writings, and would have much appreciated this analysis.

]]> By: Abdul Momin http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1864 Abdul Momin Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:12:30 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1864 Between 1901 and 1915 <strong>there was a gap of 14 years (1915- 1901 = 14 years). </strong>Who knows where this particular person was in 1915? I don't know how much light he could have shed on the dispute between Lahore and Qadian in 1915. Before <strong>1915</strong> AGKI was not a source of dispute about who HMGA was trying to correct in this pamphlet. (Was he trying to correct his own mistake or was he trying to correct a follower's mistake)? The identity of this person was irrelevant. People generally pay attention to something or someone when that something or someone becomes of importance. In 1915 it was probably too late to find out who this person was. Between 1901 and 1915 there was a gap of 14 years (1915- 1901 = 14 years). Who knows where this particular person was in 1915? I don’t know how much light he could have shed on the dispute between Lahore and Qadian in 1915. Before 1915 AGKI was not a source of dispute about who HMGA was trying to correct in this pamphlet. (Was he trying to correct his own mistake or was he trying to correct a follower’s mistake)? The identity of this person was irrelevant. People generally pay attention to something or someone when that something or someone becomes of importance. In 1915 it was probably too late to find out who this person was.

]]> By: Bashir http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1860 Bashir Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:28:25 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1860 I do not think there is any need to feel disturbed by the fact that HMGA never mentioned the name of the follower who denied that HMGA had ever used the word “Nabi” concerning himself. <strong>1.  I meant, M. ali and HMBMA never tried to figure out : a--who this guy was b--who reported this to HMGA </strong> <strong>FUN FACT: HMGA didnt write a book for 7(or so) months before EGKI.  It seems he was b usy with his new community.  That is one of the longest periods without a book.  EGKi is not even a book.  Its a short pamphlet. </strong> HMGA most probably did not want to embarass this follower any further by making his name public. <strong>Thats possible.  But why didnt m.ali or HMBMA try to unravel this in 1915???</strong> As far as Maulana Muhammad Ali is concerned, the most likely explanation is that he probably never knew who this follower was. <strong>But why did he not try to research it???  Why didnt he ask HMBMA to produce this person??  </strong> I don’t think every Ahmadi knew every other Ahmadi. Also the Maulana was not in any position to know the importance of this man in the future scheme of things. Otherwise I am sure he would have got to know more about this particular person. <strong>Not understanding you.</strong> In another post I shall explain an error made by me, similar to that made by this particular follower of HMGA which became the basis of AGKI. <strong>Lets see....</strong> I do not think there is any need to feel disturbed by the fact that HMGA never mentioned the name of the follower who denied that HMGA had ever used the word “Nabi” concerning himself.
1.  I meant, M. ali and HMBMA never tried to figure out :
a–who this guy was
b–who reported this to HMGA

FUN FACT: HMGA didnt write a book for 7(or so) months before EGKI.  It seems he was b usy with his new community.  That is one of the longest periods without a book.  EGKi is not even a book.  Its a short pamphlet.

HMGA most probably did not want to embarass this follower any further by making his name public.
Thats possible.  But why didnt m.ali or HMBMA try to unravel this in 1915???

As far as Maulana Muhammad Ali is concerned, the most likely explanation is that he probably never knew who this follower was.
But why did he not try to research it???  Why didnt he ask HMBMA to produce this person?? 

I don’t think every Ahmadi knew every other Ahmadi. Also the Maulana was not in any position to know the importance of this man in the future scheme of things. Otherwise I am sure he would have got to know more about this particular person.

Not understanding you.
In another post I shall explain an error made by me, similar to that made by this particular follower of HMGA which became the basis of AGKI.

Lets see….

]]> By: Bashir http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1859 Bashir Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:22:56 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1859 I have come across a fact which seems amazing, in fact quite incredible, and this is that <em>Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala</em> was first presented by the Lahore Jamaat in refutation of Qadiani beliefs, a few months before the theory of change in 1901 was put forward by the Q Jamaat and they began presenting it in their support. <strong>1.  We must find the very first instance where HMBMA began asserting that HMGA was Ismuhu Ahmad. 2.  Was the author of this publication???</strong> There was a publication by AAIIL in June 1914 (i.e. one month after the AAIIL was founded) entitled <em>Ismu-hu Ahmad </em>in refutation of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s assertion that the ‘Ahmad’ mentioned in Jesus’ prophecy as quoted in the Quran was not the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. <strong>3.  Again, who was the author???  Whose book were they refuting???</strong>   I have come across a fact which seems amazing, in fact quite incredible, and this is that Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala was first presented by the Lahore Jamaat in refutation of Qadiani beliefs, a few months before the theory of change in 1901 was put forward by the Q Jamaat and they began presenting it in their support.
1.  We must find the very first instance where HMBMA began asserting that HMGA was Ismuhu Ahmad.

2.  Was the author of this publication???

There was a publication by AAIIL in June 1914 (i.e. one month after the AAIIL was founded) entitled Ismu-hu Ahmad in refutation of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s assertion that the ‘Ahmad’ mentioned in Jesus’ prophecy as quoted in the Quran was not the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

3.  Again, who was the author???  Whose book were they refuting???
 

]]> By: Tariq http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1855 Tariq Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:44:04 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1855 I have found a wonderful book written in the 1950's which has been recently uploaded on our main website: <strong><em><a href="http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/books/others/chaudhryshukarullahkhanmansoor/qaulsadid/qaulsadid.shtml" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Qaul-i-Sadid </a></em></strong>by Chaudhry Shukar Ullah Khan Mansoor (link will open in new window). Our elders made tremendous efforts to shed light on issues and explain things to the ahmadis(Q) in as simple and straight forwad ways as possible. This book is worth a look by all. I have found a wonderful book written in the 1950’s which has been recently uploaded on our main website:

Qaul-i-Sadid by Chaudhry Shukar Ullah Khan Mansoor

(link will open in new window).

Our elders made tremendous efforts to shed light on issues and explain things to the ahmadis(Q) in as simple and straight forwad ways as possible. This book is worth a look by all.

]]> By: Bashir http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1851 Bashir Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:48:09 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1851 I am not surprised.  I have written all along that the aaiil won every single argument in terms of the split.  But the masses were illiterate.  Especially the women.  They didnt read any books.  I think only 0.01 percent of ahmadis have mastered all the books of HMGA.   Khalifa 4th affirms these notions of mine(kind of).  He has a Q&A session where he discusses this topic.   AAIL won every argument, but it didnt matter.  I think HMBMA forbade ahmadis(q) to even say salam to aaiil members.  Social boycott.  I am not surprised.  I have written all along that the aaiil won every single argument in terms of the split. 

But the masses were illiterate.  Especially the women.  They didnt read any books.  I think only 0.01 percent of ahmadis have mastered all the books of HMGA.  

Khalifa 4th affirms these notions of mine(kind of).  He has a Q&A session where he discusses this topic.  

AAIL won every argument, but it didnt matter.  I think HMBMA forbade ahmadis(q) to even say salam to aaiil members.  Social boycott. 

]]> By: Zahid Aziz http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1850 Zahid Aziz Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:59:20 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1850 <p>I have come across a fact which seems amazing, in fact quite incredible, and this is that <em>Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala</em> was first presented by the Lahore Jamaat in refutation of Qadiani beliefs, a few months before the theory of change in 1901 was put forward by the Q Jamaat and they began presenting it in their support. There was a publication by AAIIL in June 1914 (i.e. one month after the AAIIL was founded) entitled <em>Ismu-hu Ahmad </em>in refutation of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's assertion that the 'Ahmad' mentioned in Jesus' prophecy as quoted in the Quran was not the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. You can read it at this link: <a href="http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/books/others/aaiil/ismohooahmad/ismohooahmad.shtml" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/books/others/aaiil/ismohooahmad/ismohooahmad.shtml</a> (link opens in new window). <em>Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala</em> is first mentioned in the middle of page 2 and a brief sentence from it is quoted. Then on pages 8 to 10 it is quoted at length. From the comments about these quotations in the booklet, it is clear that it is being presented by the AAIIL exactly like it was presenting pre-1901 writings. The author of the booklet does not show any awareness that he is quoting a controversial writing or that the Qadiani Jamaat puts it forward in its support.</p> I have come across a fact which seems amazing, in fact quite incredible, and this is that Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala was first presented by the Lahore Jamaat in refutation of Qadiani beliefs, a few months before the theory of change in 1901 was put forward by the Q Jamaat and they began presenting it in their support.

There was a publication by AAIIL in June 1914 (i.e. one month after the AAIIL was founded) entitled Ismu-hu Ahmad in refutation of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s assertion that the ‘Ahmad’ mentioned in Jesus’ prophecy as quoted in the Quran was not the Holy Prophet Muhammad, but the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

You can read it at this link:

http://www.aaiil.org/urdu/books/others/aaiil/ismohooahmad/ismohooahmad.shtml (link opens in new window).

Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala is first mentioned in the middle of page 2 and a brief sentence from it is quoted. Then on pages 8 to 10 it is quoted at length.

From the comments about these quotations in the booklet, it is clear that it is being presented by the AAIIL exactly like it was presenting pre-1901 writings. The author of the booklet does not show any awareness that he is quoting a controversial writing or that the Qadiani Jamaat puts it forward in its support.

]]> By: Abdul Momin http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1848 Abdul Momin Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:46:35 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1848 I do not think there is any need to feel disturbed by the fact that HMGA never mentioned the name of the follower who denied that HMGA had ever used the word "Nabi" concerning himself. HMGA most probably did not want to embarass this follower any further by making his name public. The important thing in HMGA's mind was to present the actual situation as it existed, and that was that yes, he had used the word Nabi in his previous writings before the publication of AKGI and also  explain the sense in which he had used this word previously, which was in the sense of burooz. Also we have to remember the fact that God did not provide this knowledge to HMGA that this tiny publication (AGKI) would one day become the focus of so much controversy between his followers who would split up in two sections and that it would be used by his own son for a very different purpose -which was to justify his belief that HMGA had corrected his own error and changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet in this pamphlet - when in fact he was trying to correct the error of one of his followers. In other words, what I am saying is that what we (Lahoris and Qadianis ) see now having the benefit of hindsight, HMGA was not seeing at all.  Such things happen all the time. As far as Maulana Muhammad Ali is concerned, the most likely explanation is that he probably never knew who this follower was. I don't think every Ahmadi knew every other Ahmadi. Also the Maulana was not in any position to know the importance of this man in the future scheme of things. Otherwise I am sure he would have got to know more about this particular person. In another post I shall explain an error made by me, similar to that made by this particular follower of HMGA which became the basis of AGKI. I do not think there is any need to feel disturbed by the fact that HMGA never mentioned the name of the follower who denied that HMGA had ever used the word “Nabi” concerning himself. HMGA most probably did not want to embarass this follower any further by making his name public. The important thing in HMGA’s mind was to present the actual situation as it existed, and that was that yes, he had used the word Nabi in his previous writings before the publication of AKGI and also  explain the sense in which he had used this word previously, which was in the sense of burooz.

Also we have to remember the fact that God did not provide this knowledge to HMGA that this tiny publication (AGKI) would one day become the focus of so much controversy between his followers who would split up in two sections and that it would be used by his own son for a very different purpose -which was to justify his belief that HMGA had corrected his own error and changed his claim from non-prophet to prophet in this pamphlet - when in fact he was trying to correct the error of one of his followers.

In other words, what I am saying is that what we (Lahoris and Qadianis ) see now having the benefit of hindsight, HMGA was not seeing at all.  Such things happen all the time.

As far as Maulana Muhammad Ali is concerned, the most likely explanation is that he probably never knew who this follower was. I don’t think every Ahmadi knew every other Ahmadi. Also the Maulana was not in any position to know the importance of this man in the future scheme of things. Otherwise I am sure he would have got to know more about this particular person.

In another post I shall explain an error made by me, similar to that made by this particular follower of HMGA which became the basis of AGKI.

]]> By: Bashir http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/2008/07/06/a-brief-point-about-ayk-ghalati-ka-izala/#comment-1844 Bashir Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:35:02 +0000 http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/?p=101#comment-1844 I have written this all along.  Why was HMGA critisizing a follower for not knowing that he(HMGA) was a ummati nabi(perfect nabi).  How was this mystery follower supposed to know!  HMGA had never told anybody, up to that point(q).  Another question that would solve this puzzle is this: 1.  WHO WAS THE MYSTERY FOLLOWER??????????      a.  HMBMA never explained this      b.  M. ali never explained this Bashir's theory:  There was no follower who made this mistake.  HMGA was commenting on the status of new ahmadis(200k).  New ahmadis didnt understand the beliefs of HMGA in terms of prophethood.  Especially the ignorant masses.  2.  Who reported this to HMGA.  Who was the guy who ran to HMGA and told him about this story????  If this guy existed he would have stepped forward in 1915, when the controversy erupted. 3.  ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSION a.  Maybe this mystery follower did exist.  Maybe HMBMA or m. ali silenced him. 4.  I am disturbed that HMBMA and HM. ali didnt comment on this.  I have written this all along.  Why was HMGA critisizing a follower for not knowing that he(HMGA) was a ummati nabi(perfect nabi).  How was this mystery follower supposed to know!  HMGA had never told anybody, up to that point(q). 

Another question that would solve this puzzle is this:

1.  WHO WAS THE MYSTERY FOLLOWER??????????
     a.  HMBMA never explained this
     b.  M. ali never explained this

Bashir’s theory:  There was no follower who made this mistake.  HMGA was commenting on the status of new ahmadis(200k).  New ahmadis didnt understand the beliefs of HMGA in terms of prophethood.  Especially the ignorant masses. 

2.  Who reported this to HMGA.  Who was the guy who ran to HMGA and told him about this story????  If this guy existed he would have stepped forward in 1915, when the controversy erupted.

3.  ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSION

a.  Maybe this mystery follower did exist.  Maybe HMBMA or m. ali silenced him.

4.  I am disturbed that HMBMA and HM. ali didnt comment on this. 

]]>